self knowledge (was something else)
[email protected]
One of Howard Gardner's findings was that there is a talent (an intelligence,
in his terminology) some people have more of than others, and it is
"intrapersonal awareness."
<< I do find myself curious about why, considering the several anecdotes that
were posted in this thread, you decided that I, and only I, was making
excuses for not writing. I found it startling and, well, high-handed.>>
If a person doesn't want commentary, then sharing in a forum with a couple of
hundred people isn't probably the best idea for her.
The more self knowledge one has, the better her thinking will be, and as
unschoolers our awareness of what can make or break confidence is important
to our relationships with our children and their confidence-building.
People come here voluntarily, and tell us about their experiences. We don't
spy on people. Readers here commented on what had been offered up freely.
I have a young friend who is very self-assured. She has more assurance than
actual self, sometimes, as she is in many ways a follower, although she
denies it (loud and long).
One day several of us were out of state visiting a friend we only see
infrequently, who reads tarot cards. Some of us had already had cards read,
and it was one of those days and sessions in which LOTS of really profound
and useful things are being said. The one newer, younger, member of the
group was unknown to the reader, but the rest of us were long friends.
During the last reading, that of the younger girl, the other traveling
companions were glancing at each other with amazement and appreciation for
how on-target and clear the reading was in relation to that girl's
personality and immediate life situation. Her reading seemed as good as all
ours put together, and ours weren't shabby!
At the end, the girl said "It sounded like you were reading for someone else
entirely. None of that is applicable."
Just like her, in tone. Very formal and distant.
So our friend did another kind of reading, which was cold and not too
interesting, and the confident skeptical friend kinda grunted thanks, and we
all knew more about her after that day, but she didn't know any more about us
OR herself.
Sandra
in his terminology) some people have more of than others, and it is
"intrapersonal awareness."
<< I do find myself curious about why, considering the several anecdotes that
were posted in this thread, you decided that I, and only I, was making
excuses for not writing. I found it startling and, well, high-handed.>>
If a person doesn't want commentary, then sharing in a forum with a couple of
hundred people isn't probably the best idea for her.
The more self knowledge one has, the better her thinking will be, and as
unschoolers our awareness of what can make or break confidence is important
to our relationships with our children and their confidence-building.
People come here voluntarily, and tell us about their experiences. We don't
spy on people. Readers here commented on what had been offered up freely.
I have a young friend who is very self-assured. She has more assurance than
actual self, sometimes, as she is in many ways a follower, although she
denies it (loud and long).
One day several of us were out of state visiting a friend we only see
infrequently, who reads tarot cards. Some of us had already had cards read,
and it was one of those days and sessions in which LOTS of really profound
and useful things are being said. The one newer, younger, member of the
group was unknown to the reader, but the rest of us were long friends.
During the last reading, that of the younger girl, the other traveling
companions were glancing at each other with amazement and appreciation for
how on-target and clear the reading was in relation to that girl's
personality and immediate life situation. Her reading seemed as good as all
ours put together, and ours weren't shabby!
At the end, the girl said "It sounded like you were reading for someone else
entirely. None of that is applicable."
Just like her, in tone. Very formal and distant.
So our friend did another kind of reading, which was cold and not too
interesting, and the confident skeptical friend kinda grunted thanks, and we
all knew more about her after that day, but she didn't know any more about us
OR herself.
Sandra
Karen
Athena, I read Joyce's comments as nurturing and caring. I've read her posts
for awhile now, and she is one of the least snarky people around. I think
she was trying to help you see what you wrote that may have been
contributing to what sounded like a writer's block. If it wasn't helpful, it
is your right to pass on it, but she wasn't being tacky or singling you out
intentionally.
Karen
who gives lots of benefits of the doubt in email
for awhile now, and she is one of the least snarky people around. I think
she was trying to help you see what you wrote that may have been
contributing to what sounded like a writer's block. If it wasn't helpful, it
is your right to pass on it, but she wasn't being tacky or singling you out
intentionally.
Karen
who gives lots of benefits of the doubt in email
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/17/02 2:05:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:
don't
spy on people. Readers here commented on what had been offered up freely.>>
Yes, I am here voluntarily. I told you all about my experience with Mrs.
Andersen. I shared my frustration at the time, and how I remember it when I
think about writing. I didn't share any of the other things that are keeping
me from writing. I'm not sure how that invited a comment that I'm looking
for an excuse not to write. If, indeed, readers were "spying" (what a
strange word to use here), they would see that there is much, much more to me
than what I shared here. They may actually have made a relevant comment,
instead of the odd armchair psychotherapy that was offered.
<<During the last reading, that of the younger girl, the other traveling
companions were glancing at each other with amazement and appreciation for
how on-target and clear the reading was in relation to that girl's
personality and immediate life situation. Her reading seemed as good as all
ours put together, and ours weren't shabby!
At the end, the girl said "It sounded like you were reading for someone else
entirely. None of that is applicable."
Just like her, in tone. Very formal and distant.>>
If I were to assume (and I'm not, necessarily) that your story is supposed to
be similar to this situation, I would say this: the difference is that you
all knew your friend. You knew her personality, her circumstances, her
habits, her way of behaving and relating. Whereas the person who speculated
on my "excuse" doesn't know me. I'm new to the group. No one here has met
me. No one here knows much of anything about me, except what I have shared.
No one here knows my circumstances, my family, my resources, my personality,
my motives, or my stressors. That's quite a big difference.
Those who know me have often commented that one trait I possess to a
startling degree is self-knowledge. I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. If she were a close friend, or even just someone with
whom I interact frequently, perhaps she would. But that's not the case. I'm
puzzled as to why she felt the need to delve into my psyche. How odd.
Athena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
SandraDodd@... writes:
> <<If a person doesn't want commentary, then sharing in a forum with a couple<<People come here voluntarily, and tell us about their experiences. We
> of
> hundred people isn't probably the best idea for her>>
don't
spy on people. Readers here commented on what had been offered up freely.>>
Yes, I am here voluntarily. I told you all about my experience with Mrs.
Andersen. I shared my frustration at the time, and how I remember it when I
think about writing. I didn't share any of the other things that are keeping
me from writing. I'm not sure how that invited a comment that I'm looking
for an excuse not to write. If, indeed, readers were "spying" (what a
strange word to use here), they would see that there is much, much more to me
than what I shared here. They may actually have made a relevant comment,
instead of the odd armchair psychotherapy that was offered.
<<During the last reading, that of the younger girl, the other traveling
companions were glancing at each other with amazement and appreciation for
how on-target and clear the reading was in relation to that girl's
personality and immediate life situation. Her reading seemed as good as all
ours put together, and ours weren't shabby!
At the end, the girl said "It sounded like you were reading for someone else
entirely. None of that is applicable."
Just like her, in tone. Very formal and distant.>>
If I were to assume (and I'm not, necessarily) that your story is supposed to
be similar to this situation, I would say this: the difference is that you
all knew your friend. You knew her personality, her circumstances, her
habits, her way of behaving and relating. Whereas the person who speculated
on my "excuse" doesn't know me. I'm new to the group. No one here has met
me. No one here knows much of anything about me, except what I have shared.
No one here knows my circumstances, my family, my resources, my personality,
my motives, or my stressors. That's quite a big difference.
Those who know me have often commented that one trait I possess to a
startling degree is self-knowledge. I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. If she were a close friend, or even just someone with
whom I interact frequently, perhaps she would. But that's not the case. I'm
puzzled as to why she felt the need to delve into my psyche. How odd.
Athena
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/17/02 3:48:15 PM, bunuz7@... writes:
<< If I were to assume (and I'm not, necessarily) that your story is supposed
to
be similar to this situation, I would say this: the difference is that you
all knew your friend. You knew her personality, her circumstances, her
habits, her way of behaving and relating. >>
Well, we know you're defensive and you don't like other people speculating on
what you write, no matter how blatantly it seems to show something important
to you.
We know you're willing to keep arguing in the face of calming responses.
<< I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. >>
I think she read what you wrote.
<<But that's not the case. I'm
puzzled as to why she felt the need to delve into my psyche. How odd. >>
If you want your psyche undelved, don't share anything emotional or real.
If you share something emotional or real, be willing to admit it after it has
spilled out!
Sandra
<< If I were to assume (and I'm not, necessarily) that your story is supposed
to
be similar to this situation, I would say this: the difference is that you
all knew your friend. You knew her personality, her circumstances, her
habits, her way of behaving and relating. >>
Well, we know you're defensive and you don't like other people speculating on
what you write, no matter how blatantly it seems to show something important
to you.
We know you're willing to keep arguing in the face of calming responses.
<< I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. >>
I think she read what you wrote.
<<But that's not the case. I'm
puzzled as to why she felt the need to delve into my psyche. How odd. >>
If you want your psyche undelved, don't share anything emotional or real.
If you share something emotional or real, be willing to admit it after it has
spilled out!
Sandra
Pam Hartley
----------
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] self knowledge (was something else)
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 2:54 PM
<< I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. >>
I think she read what you wrote.
----------
Yes, this is what I was thinking, only not so succinctly. <g>
When we write, or speak, we are giving other people insights into our
characters. And, self-deception being an unfortunate by-product of
membership in the human clan, there's no way to be "quite sure" someone
perceptive (hello, Joyce <g>) won't discover many things unknown to the
owner of the character in question.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] self knowledge (was something else)
Date: Wed, Jul 17, 2002, 2:54 PM
<< I'm quite sure that the person who
posted about my "excuse" doesn't have any insight into my character that I
don't already possess. >>
I think she read what you wrote.
----------
Yes, this is what I was thinking, only not so succinctly. <g>
When we write, or speak, we are giving other people insights into our
characters. And, self-deception being an unfortunate by-product of
membership in the human clan, there's no way to be "quite sure" someone
perceptive (hello, Joyce <g>) won't discover many things unknown to the
owner of the character in question.
Pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]