On Happiness

I've been thinking about Happiness.  For me, that's my goal in life: being happy.  I guess before I can be truly happy I need to define it.  After all, how can I find something if I don't know what I'm looking for?

What is Happiness

To me it's not an event, accomplishment, possession, relationship or experience.  It's an overall feeling of satisfaction, self-worth, contribution, purpose, value.  I believe that I have a reason for living, can make a difference (however small), can learn, think and give back.  But that's pretty abstract isn't it.

Where Can I Get It?

I can't buy it on eBay, none of the stores in the mall carry it.  My parents can't leave it to me in their will.  My friends can't hand it to me.  I can't drink it, eat it, smoke it, caress it with my hand, smell it or hear it.  I guess happiness isn't really one neat thing.  It's a bunch of feelings combined.  It's feeling wise, generous, safe, stable, healthy, smart, fun, excited, centered.

Achieving Personal Happiness

None of these things; these parts of happiness ever seem complete.  I have wisdom, but I'm not the most wise.  I have knowledge, but I don't know everything.  I'm safe, but still get hurt.  All of these things are journeys, not destinations.  So maybe it's the never-ending process of growing, developing, learning, experiencing... being.  How can I ever be happy.

Where Can I Find It?

If happiness is all those feelings, then where do they come from?  How can I become happier?  I enjoy a great meal that I've made from scratch.  But stuffing my face with yummy food alone doesn't make me happy.  Having a few drinks and feeling buzzed gets me giggling and feeling great, but when it wears off do I feel joy or a hangover?  I don't think any of the folks at the local AA meeting would say they found happiness in a bottle.  The feeling of a warm embrace or kind loving words from someone is beautiful, but when about when the hug ends?  I could pay a homeless guy to say nice things to me and I probably wouldn't be filled with happiness.

I know satisfaction, wisdom, knowledge, health, self-worth, contribution, purpose, being valuable are happiness for me.  So I need to live my life in ways that build those things.  To improve my health, I need to eat right, sleep well, exercise, breathe, meditate.  If I don't then my health suffers and so does my happiness.  For knowledge, I need to continue to learn.  That means studying, listening, thinking.  Anything I do either builds or detracts from my personal happiness.

Okay, So Where Is It?

My kindness, my skills, my generosity, my knowledge are where my happiness comes.  That's all stuff within me that I can chose to do... or not.  People can recognize these things in me, they can remind me of them and that feels great.  But the happiness comes from what I'm doing, thinking, learning, not what other people say or do.  So then happiness is in me, not coming from around me.  That would mean only I can make myself happy (or unhappy) not anyone or anything else.

Making Myself and Others Happy

So to me happiness is a bunch of feelings.  There are a million things I can do that make those feelings in me stronger.  All these come from what I do, what I think, how well I take care of myself, how generous and caring I am toward others.  It's all in my control.  I can't credit anyone for my happiness and I can't blame anyone for unhappiness.   I need to focus myself, my thoughts, and my actions, to continue to build my personal happiness.  That means I need to spend more time learning, giving, caring, sharing, thinking, taking care of myself and my family and less time focusing on those people around me who are unhappy.

Choosing Happiness

Every moment I'm alive I make a choice to see the beauty around me, let myself feel the happiness I have and do things that will make me a happier person..... Or not.  What I can do is continue to build my own happiness, to do for myself and my kids to look for and see goodness around me, be kind and contribute where I'm able.  I can become happier and be a good example for my kids.  I can't make anyone else happy no matter how hard I try.  I can't force anyone to build their own happiness, to do the things to build them up, to see the good around them.    I certainly can't sacrafice the things that build my own happiness to try to make someone else happy.

I can do for myself, and that's where I'm focused.

Changes....

It's been a long time since I've posted on this blog. Perhaps it's about time that I begin posting again.

In large part, because of the encouragement I received through this blog, I launched http://www.truerecovery.org, which is beginning to grow. I do have a lot of work to do there, still I'm proud of what it is and believe it can become a much more valuable resource over time.

Today my girlfriend moved in with me. It's actually a merging of two families and marks a pretty big milestone in my life. I'm very excited and optimistic about this relationship. The amazing thing about this partnership is that we have been able to work through, even fairly difficult conflicts with grace and relative ease.

I won't write too much tonight. Suffice it to say, I'm in a much better place physically, emotionally and spiritually than I have been in years. Things are going in a very positive direction.

Part V - I Statements

This is the fifth part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships.  If you've not read the first part, you may want to.  You can find it here.

---

For years, I've heard about a magical tool to improve interpersonal communications.  It's called the "I statement", or "I feel statement".  The concept is straightforward.  Instead of telling a person what THEY did (you statement), tell them how YOU felt about it.  Like my earlier story about my loud eating cubemate, instead of saying, "You're eating is driving me up a wall!", I should say "I'm really sensitive to eating noises, and I'm having problems concentrating."  In fact, it's pretty similar to the approach I suggested during that article.

While this seems simple, it's really very complicated for most people to actually put into practice.  After splitting up with my girlfriend, we both attended a class on healthy relationships.  They, of course, presented this concept during the class.  To help us out, they even gave us a fill in the blank phrase, that in the end, reminded me of Mad Libs.  Here are the two examples they gave:

•     "I feel _______ when you _______." 
•     "I feel _______ when you _______, and would prefer it if you _______." 

Seems pretty easy to do right?  Well, the teachers asked us to come up with a few, and share them with the class the following week.  Here are a few of the more bizzare examples students offered:

• I feel like you're a jerk, when you're mean to me.
• I feel upset when you don't tell me the truth.
• I feel taken for granted when you show up an hour late.

The teachers applauded each of us for a job well done.  I was flabbergasted!  BUT.... Those AREN'T I statements.  They're simply not.  Sure, they look a lot like I feel statements, but let's look under the covers!

Make sure you're using a "feeling" word after the phrase I feel.  In the first example, "like you're a jerk" is simply not a feeling.  It's a thought.  Granted, I'm sure it was her thought, and very real to her.  Still, it's not sharing her feelings.

Make sure the "when you ____" part is an undeniable fact.  The second example, "don't tell me the truth", is an accusation.  Who's to say they didn't tell the truth.  Remember, we all have differing perspectives on things.  In all honesty, the belief that the other person lied is based on your own interpretation and judgment.  Let's say it's something vague.  When asked if the dress makes her look fat, he says, "no you look beautiful."  Sure, maybe he was lying just to avoid her getting upset.  On the other hand, maybe he really believed his statement.  Regardless, it's debatable... it's a judgment... it's not an indisputable fact, so we can't use it.  More appropriate would be, "I felt upset when you told me the dress didn't make me look fat."  Or even, "I thought you were lying when you told me I didn't look fat." 

Sure, sure, there are some things which are blatant untruths, but even they're a bit fuzzy.  Let's say you ask "did you take money out of our bank account?"  And they respond, "No."  Even thought they really did take money out.  Even in this case, a lie is a judgment.  Why?  Because to lie, one must be aware of the truth and intending to obscure that truth from someone else.  It certainly is possible that they took out $60 at the ATM, and forgot they did it.  Maybe, they knew they took the money out, but had so much on their mind they said, "No" without really understanding the question you asked.  There are a zillion HONEST ways to answer a question incorrectly.  So it may not be a lie after all.

The third example is really tricky.  Sure, showing up an hour late is indisputable... you agreed to meet at 6pm, they showed up at 7.  The trouble with this one is that "taken for granted" is actually an accusation, not a feeling.  Yeah, it seems very close to a feeling.  Still, it's impossible to be taken for granted, unless someone's taking you for granted.  So, that statement really says, "You took me for granted by showing up late."  It's a you statement.

A true, genuine, good "I statement", is one that is purely self-focused.  Every conflict must have two parts:  Your action and my reaction.  By definition, if I tell you about your action, I'm being other-focused.  And, unfortunately, that's what I and so many people tend to do.  If, on the other hand, I speak about my reaction and take ownership of it, then it will undoubtedly come out as an I-statement.

Look at a GOOD, genuine I statement:  "I feel scared when you raise your voice."  I'm pointing out that they raised their voice, but that's indisputable.  I feel scared?  Sure, maybe you could phrase it, "You scared me when you raised your voice."  But, even phrased as a you statement, it's self-focused.  In that statement, I'm sharing information about my reaction to your action.  What's my natural response to a statement like that?  Most likely, I'd simply apologize.  Generally, though, I don't raise my voice unless I'm really, really upset.  So, in that state, I may not be able to apologize... but it certainly would take me off guard and motivate me to think about my own actions. 

So where am I now?  I know that the notorious "You statements" are really a way of communicating my own other-focused thinking.  So, I can add that to my equation:

you statements = other thinking = blame = sux

Part IV - Boundaries

This is the fourth part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships.  If you've not read the first part, you may want to.  You can find it here.

---

The boundary.  It's been a really rough concept for me to fully understand and apply.  The idea behind "boundaries" is that there's a delineation.... a conceptual line between you and me.  I own everything on my side of the boundary, and you own everything on your side.  Some people speak about boundaries, but in my mind, at least, there's really only one boundary.  Take a look at this picture showing the communication process from Part I of this series... I know, I know I'm not the world's most artistic guy. 

What does this show?  Well, starting at the top, something happens.  Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the person on the right is me, and the one on the left is you.  The Event (yellow star at the top) can be anything really.  Let's say you cough while I was talking to you.  Then I interpret the event.... "you're trying to tell me something by coughing".  Then I make a judgment, "you must not like what I've said."  I form a feeling about that, "I'm hurt that you don't like what I'm saying".  Finally, I react by saying, "What don't you like about that?"  Sure, maybe I read it right... maybe you did cough because you didn't like what I was saying.  On the other hand, maybe you coughed because you had something in your throat.  Saying my peace becomes the event on the bottom, and the whole process begins anew on your (left) side of the diagram.

Draw an imaginary line between the two yellow stars.  That's it!  That's the "boundary".  Everything that happens on the right is 100%, completely me.  Everything that happens on the left is 100% you. I have complete control over everything on my side, and there's not a darned thing I can do about the left side.  NOTHING!

The reason that the boundary is so important is that for years, I've taken responsibility for far too much of the stuff on other people's side of the equation.  For that matter, I tend to believe other people responsible for lots of stuff on my side.  It's really simple... my side is mine, your side is yours.  No gray area there at all.

Understanding the boundary means knowing that if I'm hurt, it's because I feel that way, not because anyone MADE me feel that way.  It's such a common phrase, "You hurt my feelings", yet it's bogus.  Why?  Because I own my feelings, and you have no control over them.  Look over the coughing example I gave above.  I was hurt that you didn't like what I had to say.  You hurt my feelings!  The problem there is, you may have been coughing for a completely different reason.  Perhaps, that's not how you felt at all.  Maybe, just maybe, you completely agree with my statements and had an itch in your throat.  Who hurt my feelings?  Me... by my interpretation and judgment.  Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that you really did disagree with me and that cough was a subconscious response to your disagreement.  Okay, then who hurt my feelings?  Well, I'm still responsible for my feelings... I own them... I made them... you can't alter them.  No matter what, I am fully responsible for everything on the right, and you on the left.

I was talking, the other day, about a couple.  They're great people, who've had some serious relationship problems.  They almost got divorced, but have been working very hard on saving their relationship.  Here's the story:  she began going to the gym to work out.  She mentioned to her husband that she was chatting with one of the guys at the gym.  Actually, a very innocent discussion, some idle chit-chat while they're on the stair-stepper.  But he got pretty upset about it.  So, she quit going to the gym because he was so upset.

Looking at that in the context of this model what happened?  She told him about a conversation with the gym guy (event).  He believed they were flirting (interpretation).  He thought she may cheat on me with this guy if it continues (judgment).    He became scared or worried about the potential infidelity (feelings).  He got angry (reaction & new event).  On her side, she interpreted his actions as anger or perhaps fear, made the judgment that her actions caused his anger.  Felt empathy or sympathy, perhaps fear of losing the relationship.  She reacted by saying that she'd quit the gym if it meant that much to him.

Seems pretty straightforward to me... but there's a problem, in my mind.  She CAN'T hurt his feelings.  She can only affect her OWN feelings, and nobody else's.  She knew, deep down, that she just had an innocent conversation with the guy.  That she's very much in love with her husband.  She knows that she has no intentions of cheating.  Yet, when he became angry, she accepted responsibility for his anger.  WARNING BELLS to me, but they both missed that.  Remember, he owns everything on his side, she owns everything on her side.  He got angry in response to his own feelings.  He arrived at those feelings because of his own judgment and interpretation of the event.  All stuff he controls and she has no power over whatsoever.  Yet because she accepted responsibility for his feelings and changed her life to suit. 

This is called "blurred boundaries".  They blurred the boundaries between him and her.  As soon as they do that, and I'm guilty of doing that on a daily basis, they stepped into the abyss.  She set a precedent with her response.  They both now accept that she hurt his feelings.  So, next time he's upset, will they believe she is responsible for that too?  My guess is yes.  The more she changes to suit his mood, the more resentful and confused she'll become; at the same time, he'll become more and more resentful and angry that she keeps hurting his feelings.

But, if that was not such a cool thing to do?  How should she have responded?  Had she recognized that he owns his feelings, and she can't control them, she probably would have been better served to learn about his interpretations, judgments and feelings.  I suspect the smartest approach is to honor the boundary, and bring all boundary blurring into focus with good questions.  How about:

"You seem upset, are you?"
"Of course, I'm upset, you're flirting with some guy in the gym!"  [Blurred boundary - his thought, not her action]
"Why do you think I flirted with him?"   [Focus with question, and state "you think"]
"Well, you said you two were joking around."
"Yep, we were joking.  Honey, I know you think I was flirting with him, but the only man I have designs on is YOU!  I love you, and wouldn't jeopardize that for anything."  [The goal here is to validate his thoughts and feelings, they're real but they're his.  Don't accept his thoughts as your actions.]

I have real problems with this, quite honestly.  The second someone states their interpretation or judgment of an event as if it were fact, I get defensive.  She wasn't flirting with the guy, but he believes that she was.  "No, no!", I think.  That's not what I did at all!  Sure, it's true.    Still, saying "no, that's wrong." often comes across as "invalidating".  Invalidating is another form of blurring the boundary.  Basically, since he owns all his thoughts, she has no right to tell him that he's wrong.  That is REALLY what he thought.  It's very real.  Still, it doesn't match her intentions, so there's a conflict.

The trick is to recognize the conflict and honor the boundary with respect for the other person.  Yes, that's what he thought; his thought is real; at the same time, it's NOT your action.  Had he recognized his own thought for what it was, perhaps he'd have been better off asking if his thought matched her intent.  "Were you flirting with him?"  "No, honey, not at all".  Assuming he trusts her, the issue would have dropped right away.  Still, she has no control over him.  He didn't recognize the boundary, so the ball's in her court.  It's up to her to respect and validate him, at the same time enforce the boundary.

I do think, in a loving relationship, people have to make compromises... and even make changes to improve the relationship.  Those compromises, in my mind, need to be based on an understanding of what's going on below the surface.  Perhaps giving up workouts would solve the problem.  In this case, though, I doubt it.  Before we begin to compromise, however, we have to understand each other, and respect the boundary.  What are the facts:

They began to negotiate a resolution BEFORE they recognized the boundaries.  They THOUGHT they needed to negotiate about her flirting with the guy at the gym, so they arrived at her quitting her workouts.  We know that's off base.  Had they respected the boundaries, they'd recognize the issue was his fear of her cheating.  That has nothing to do with her working out at all.

My goal is to understand, recognize and respect the boundary.  Without it, I'll wind up taking responsibility or other people's thoughts and feelings.  I'll erroneously believe that someone else has control of my thoughts, feelings or actions.  If I don't recognize who's responsible for what, then I can never effectively fix problems. 

Part III - They need to change

This is the third part of a several part posting discussing my views of healthy communication in interpersonal relationships.  If you've not read the first part, you may want to.  You can find it here.

---

For years, I've heard from just about every resource in the world... shrinks, self-help books, TV shows, you name it... that I have no control over anyone but myself.  That I do own the key to my own thoughts, feelings and actions.  And have no divine right to persuade, change, modify, grow or develop anyone else.

Sure, sure.... I know, you sales and marketing folks probably completely disagree with that.  We all know how the right packaging, the correct colors and layout, product placement, etc. will sucker us into believing we need to buy that stuff, whether we need it or not.  I've heard how McDonalds chose certain colors that they'd found generated hunger thoughts.  Fast food restaurant prices make it tempting to upsize an spend just a few cents more.  Razor companies, sheesh!  Razors went from one blade to two, two blades to three, three to three with a battery, then four blades.. and yep now even five blades just to get us to buy THEIR brand.  My son can't walk through the supermarket without wanting the most expensive brand of fruit snacks, yogurt or cereal.  So who says I only have control over myself, and can't persuade others?

Well, sure, I've heard people called controlling or manipulative.  Hell, people have even branded me with those titles at times.  But what is controlling or manipulative behavior?  In a sense it's just like the marketing or sales folks.  They make a living trying to get the rest of us to think the way they want.  So do politicians for that matter.  I've heard several news stories over the past couple of years about Christian Missionaries being killed, taken hostage, and other things.  The media speak about them in glowing terms.  They're just there to help.  But I view it quite differently.  What is a missionary?  Some view them as being generous and noble.  They're not only offering food, money, shelter, medical care, etc... but to ice the cake, they're offering salvation as well.  Too many Americans, as I see it, believe that.  My views differ.  I see Missionaries as manipulative and controlling.  They take advantage of hardship to force their own beliefs down somebody's throat.

How would we take it?  Imagine if Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, or Jews went to New Orleans and told the Christians down there that they could have help, food, shelter, warmth, medical care, financial assistance.  All they had to do is renounce Jesus Christ and start worshiping Buddha, Allah, Ganesha, Yahweh?  They'd be run out of town, wouldn't they?  I believe they would, why?  Because they're being controlling and manipulative.  When I hear about those poor missionaries being so mistreated, I balance that with an understanding of how offensive their work really is to people with differing beliefs and cultures.  So, sure, Missionaries, sales and marketing people, politicians are often quite successful in their controlling and manipulative efforts.  Ultimately, though, I'm not fond of any of these people because of what they're doing, what they stand for. 

How does all this relate to me?  It's pretty straightforward.  When I find myself in an uncomfortable situation, or disagreeing with someone else's beliefs, I try to change their mind.  I believe Missionary work is cruel, vicious and manipulative.  Some think it's quite the opposite.  Who's right?  Well, as discussed in my "truth" article, we both are.... we both have different perspectives and have every right to our own beliefs.  So my efforts to convince them otherwise is... well, missionary work isn't it?  That, I've come to accept, is my own controlling and manipulative nature.  I don't believe it good for others to do to me, so why do I do it?

All those books told me that I can change myself all I want, but I have no control over others.  Any time I look at another person, and think they're wrong or they need to change, it's a problem.  Dr. Phil and many of the other self-help gurus of our time call this, "right thinking" or "other focused".  But, hey, what if it IS their problem?  What if they do need to change?  When I ask myself those questions... and I do that far too frequently, I'm simply asking the wrong question.

I worked on a short-term consulting engagement recently.  The client was limited in office space, so he bunked me up sharing a cubicle with someone else.  In the morning my cubemate brought some breakfast, and sat down to eat in our cube.  The guy eats with his mouth open, and was smacking his lips all through breakfast.  It drove me up a wall.  Finally, he finished breakfast and tossed his plate away.  "Ahhhhhhhhhh", I thought.... FINALLY!  Then, he reached in his bag and fetched a huge bag of Starburst candy.  The bag was noisy, the wrappers were noisy and, of course, he ate them with his mouth open.  ALL DAY LONG!  I was about to (star)burst! 

I thought about telling him to stop eating, or close his mouth.  At the same time, I didn't want to rock the boat.  I've been out of work for far too long to damage the little work I had.  So, I found creative ways to work away from him so I didn't have to listen to his lip smacking.  Then, I realized I was stuck in "right thinking"... I was being "other focused".  In my mind, the problem was clearly HIS eating habits and HIS noise making.  But, wait a second.  Trying to change him is manipulative and controlling, isn't it?  I have complete control over my own thoughts, feelings and actions, don't I?  Well, was the problem his eating habits or my sensitivity to it?  Who's wrong here... who's right?  He has every right to eat however he'd like, and I have every right to not enjoy hearing it.  But why did I focus on HIS eating habits, when I'd be much better served by looking at my own sensitivity?

That's not to say that there's anything wrong with my sensitivity.  I'm quite fine in my judgment that loud eating is a bad thing.  Knowing that I can only control myself, I try and make as little noise as possible when I eat.  I'm also quite content thinking I don't want to hear his eating.  So I can find another place to work.  Perhaps, I can even share with him MY beliefs and feelings about it.  As long as I take ownership of my own sensitivity. If I focus on my feelings, rather than his actions, I'm in good shape.  I could tell him, perhaps, that I can hear him eat (that's an indisputable fact:  He's eating, I hear it) and that I'm very sensitive about that (my issue, not his).  Without criticizing him, I can certainly share with him that I'm having problems focusing on my work because of my sensitivity.  If I did that, it would then be up to him to figure out how he wants to handle it.  He could stop eating, he could make an effort to eat more quietly, or he could decide he didn't want to change a thing.  Whatever he decided to do would be up to him, there's not a darned thing I can or even should do about it.  However I wanted to respond is up to me.  If I remained uncomfortable, I could leave... nothing wrong with that.

But the focus should be on me:  I am bothered by hearing others eat.  I can't focus on my work.  That's about me so it's cool.  What's uncool is what I was thinking, "he eats too loudly", "he's uncouth".   "He needs to work on his eating habits."  All other focused, all right thinking.... all wanting to change him, to control him.... all being a missionary.  It's perfectly okay for me to be uncomfortable or unhappy with what another person is doing.  Still, it's really how I'm taking it, not what they're doing, isn't it? 

Well, what about when someone does something really bad?  Suppose I'm walking down a dark alley at night, and a woman pulls a gun on me.  Really, it's the same situation, in my mind!  I can't make her put her gun away, she's going to do whatever she wants to do.  I can't control her or change her.  I can only look at myself.  What am I thinking?  What am I feeling?  How will I react?  There are a million things I could do.  I could scream, fight, run, give in... who knows how I'd actually behave.  One thing's for sure though, I can't control her gun, her actions, her thoughts, her feelings or anything about her.  Some folks advise us to "appear human" to them, try and establish a bond between us.  It's not controlling or manipulative to share with her who I am... in fact, it's somewhat endearing.   That, many tell us, can mean the difference between life and death.  On the other hand, law enforcement advise us not to try and fight (force them, control them, manipulate them).  Those are the folks who usually wind up dead.

"Hey, how about your family?"  Yep, my son hit another kid in daycare, shouldn't I do something about it?  Of course, but is it appropriate for me to be manipulative or controlling with him?  Sure, it's tempting, but deep down, I think not.  How do I handle it with him?  Well, I sat him down and:

"What happened in school today?"
"Nothing"
"Your teacher told me you hit Tasha, what happened there?"
"She took my toy!"
"How did you feel when she did that?"
"Bad!"
"What did you do?"
"Nothing"
"Your teacher said that Tasha cried, and said you hit her"
"She took my toy!"
"Yes, and you felt bad about that huh?"
"Yeah!"
"That wasn't nice of her to take your toy, was it?"
"No!"
"How would you feel if Tasha hit you?"
"Bad."
"So do you think hitting her is a good thing?"
"No."
"Can you think of a good way to react when somebody takes your toy?"
<hiding his face> "Tell the teacher?"
"Sure, that's one good way to handle it.  I can think of a few more, wanna hear them?"
"Yeah."
"When somebody takes my toys, I say, 'HEY, I was playing with that!'  Sometimes they give it back, sometimes they don't.  If they don't, I might tell her that I'm mad about it.  Maybe I'd tell the teacher.  I might get another toy and play with that, I might even ask if they want to play with the toy WITH me."
"oh."

Y'know, from time to time, he still reacts physically, grabs, pushes even hits kids.  I can create incentives for him to not react violently.  I can create repercussions for him when he does things like that.  I can mentor him, as I did in our conversation.  Perhaps the most valuable thing I can do is model good, appropriate behavior for him.  How do I react when he takes something off my desk?  Do I grab it back from him?  Do raise my voice?  Do I punish him in some way?  He's going to do to other kids what dad does to him.  No, I don't hit or push him.... but he doesn't have the ability to give another kid a timeout.  I'm his dad, it's my job to help him develop.  But, ultimately, he will do what he wants to do.  I try my best to help him discover coping skills I view as appropriate.  In the end, controlling and manipulating him won't work... he'll just learn to be controlling and manipulative himself.

From my last posting here, it's clear that blame sux, and does nothing but hurt the situation.  Isn't other thinking.... isn't right thinking really about blame? Think about my cubemate.  By thinking his eating habits were bad, wasn't I blaming him for my discomfort?  Isn't a missionary, in essence, implying that people's problems boil down to their not being Christian?  Wasn't my son blaming Tasha for being a toy thief?  In a sense, isn't Schick and Gillette saying you're guilty of bad shaving practices?  Okay maybe that was a bit of a stretch, but still valid I think.  I'm going to work on focusing on my own thoughts, feelings and actions.  To take ownership of my side, and try my best to retrain myself to stop trying to change other people.

other thinking = blame = sux