Let’s say you like a STEAK — and she likes a SALAD

You probably won’t have the same thing for dinner

 

Now this is fine

You just say: you get yourself your salad, and I’ll have my steak

 

But let’s say you’re also very opinionated about superiority of steaks, over some shrubs

You may just say now:

We didn’t have dinner together because she DOESN’T GET IT that meet is superior to vegetables, and has more protein

 

Now she may not be very opinionated about superiority of salad over meet,

But you just said that she doesn’t get it

So what is she supposed to say now?

That you’re not making dinner together — because she prefers salad?

Or that you’re not making and having dinner together — because you said that she DOESN’T GET IT?

And what if she thinks that she DOES get it? She doesn’t think that salad is superior, or that meet is inferior. She prefers salad because she LIKES THE TASTE. She’ll get her fucking protein from an egg.

 

So now you disagree not only about having salad vs steak, for dinner tonight,

You’re also disagreeing about WHO GETS IT,

 

….and this is still fine!

As long as you agree to disagree,

As long as you are both aware of the scope of disagreement, and it’s consequences,

Such consequence can be not having dinner together tonight,

And it’s ok

 

But salad vs steak is a simple problem,

Our lives are less simple,

We have 99 things we want from someone — and we have 99 problems with that person too,

Individually we are having hard time tracking this entire dynamic,

To track it all together, mutually — it gets extremely complicated,

 

Simplification works, of course,

Simplify what you want,

Simplify what they want,

Set the rules,

Make agreement or not

 

Simplification works in practice,

But the complexity is still there,

So when something doesn’t work out — that complexity is felt

 

…and this is why I believe we so rarely manage to DISAGREE peacefully,

to separate peacefully,

to go each way’s peacefully

It’s because for as long as we share the goals — we agree to ignore our other disagreements,

And as such don’t have to resolve them, don’t have to confront them,

But when this falls through — we have to somehow EXPLAIN why we choose to end this… collaboration,

And much like with salad vs steak — each has their own reasons, or what they think are their reasons,

And RARELY does the other side have the same reasons,

And then you don’t merely have this original DISAGREEMENT which breaks the relationship — you disagree about WHAT THAT DISAGREEMENT IS,

and WHOSE GUILTY,

and WHOSE RIGHT,

previously you could ignore it,

but now that you’re changing course, that you’re clearly taking a setback (in the relationship, cooperation) — SOMEONE has to take the blame,

 

And again: INTRINSICALLY there’s no one to blame,

There are ONLY DIFFERENCES,

But my whole point is: unless those DIFFERENCES are VERY EXPLICITLY REVEALED, and UNDERSTOOD, by each side,

Then one side will walk away with conviction that they were right,

Which in turn will entail conviction that other party did something wrong,

Which in turn will be rather disappointing to that other party,

And thus it will escalate completely out of control

 

*

…In practice? In less abstract terms?

When you say NO to someone, when you “reject” someone,

they will almost always take it personally (unless they do this professionally),

If it’s an absolutely neutral reason — they will still wonder if it’s not neutral, if it’s personal, if it’s you misjudging them, being wrong about them, being WRONG

And if your reason is substantive and reflects a certain preference — they will first QUESTION this preference, question your judgement,

and will rather unlikely consider it’s substance

 

….And then of course, as they do, they’ll actually make an unfair assumption about you,

Now it’s not just disagreement about preferences, or competence,

Now it’s disagreement about your moral character, your motives,

 

…and as it happens — they create their own version of the story,

“They never wanted that job. The boss was bossy”

“They are no longer friendly with you because you did this and that. You got kind of weird, you know?”

“They were going to leave anyway”

 

Indeed graceful rejection requires a lot of work, that we almost by definition never do, because we’re busy in that relationship realising our common goals

 

Now of course,

All it takes is two people who actually have 0 desire to blame anyone at all,

And who are instantly able to accept someone’s perspective — without interjecting their PRICELESS ADVICE,

 

But this is not easy to begin with,

And then even if you start well — once the other person mischaracterises your perspective — you grow impatient, and now share your view, and why it’s DEFINITELY morally right,

Because now you’re playing defence

 

The good news is,

It really doesn’t fucking matter, does it

By definition a relationship which ends is, well, NO longer there,

Therefore the fact that you now completely disagree now has no consequences, because you have no more business together,

It only has moral consequences, the bad taste of someone saying bad things about you

But the good news is it doesn’t fucking matter,

Whether it’s nonsense about you or nonsense in general — nonsense is what typically comes out of people’s mouth, anyway

 

Ergo

just focus on those relationships that you’re currently in

Make them last

Make them work,

Make each other satisfied and happy and rich

And

when they end,

be ready to let them go entirely,

Be ready to see them explode,

And when things explode — what does one do? They remove themselves from the danger,

Being “right” is no fucking game worth winning

Speak what you think is right, but never try to convince no one

When things explode because shit got personal because we are all so immature — just walk out, leave

Say what you believe, be ready to REASONABLY argue ideas,

but set a hard boundary on personal, emotional, vindicative, petty nonsense