You have to know when to pick your battles and in the reverse, when to let them pick you.
Sometimes we want to take up the gauntlet and sometimes the gauntlet is used to slap us in the face and the only thing both of these scenarios have in common is that in both instances we have the choice, the choice to let go or go all in. Why do we stand up for what we believe in, why do we persevere in the face of adversity, it is because in those circumstances we make a choice, a conscious decision to fight or leave it be, we choose to confront something or deny it.
I have a hard time coming to terms with the human condition, I don't understand a lot of the time why a being so capable of so much potential whether realised or imagined, could make decisions based on illogical assumptions, things that the outcome means a detriment for the being in question given the decision it made. It often seems a human will use struggle as an affirmation to say, I am in pain, therefore I exist and this backs up my belief in life as I know it. As a human we don't have to be at odds with so much of ourselves and our environment and those we interact with and yet we are, we do seek to confront things, if something is perceived as unjust, we tackle it, if something goes against the things we hold dear, be that principles, beliefs or tolerance, we put ourselves at odds with it to the loss of our own personal well being.
Time for an example, or an overly elaborately constructed and oft confusing simile meant to clarify and inveigle as well as capture a rapport with you dear reader, shall we begin:
say for instance you are in charge of a group of individuals and they are aware that they have to conduct themselves in such a way as pertains to both individual safety as well as that of the group, and yet one of the bunch constantly pushes at the limits of that safety, never going over the line but nudging the line to see what the extent it can bend to actually is. Most often the fact that you are in charge will see you assume danger to the individual and potentially to the group in light of these little dalliances and you act accordingly, you caution and redirect... then when it happens again, possibly by more than one person this time, then you rant and rave!
This is where the human factor comes into play, first, you have it ingrained in you as a protector that your role is such that you can brook no argument, that your will is in keeping with the best interests of the group and the more the limits are pushed the more you become entrenched in this thinking. The reverse is also true, the individual and by now maybe a few, seeing no danger on multiple forays onto the wild side are now inured to the danger and feeling safe, their bravado grows, this equates to resentment of the authority figure and the repetition and intensification of the behaviour. What does this all mean I hear you ask, well, when an individual is charged with anything that makes them responsible for another this idea of fight picking takes on a whole new dimension.
In normal circumstances the best option is always going to be the one that benefits the individual making the decision, should I take up arms as I may get hurt, no, so I run away and live to fight another day, but add into that the responsibility to another, should I take up arms or someone else may get hurt, yes, therefore I choose to fight. Picking a battle or letting it slide is a more complicated thing once it is not yourself you have to look out for, but then a third factor comes into play, that of 'Feeling', if I pick this fight I may get hurt, others may get hurt and I will be perceived differently... should I pick up the gauntlet that has been thrown, I may get hurt, another may get hurt, but I can possibly set things to rights.
This is a human thing to want stuff to make sense to the way you think it should be, if your hair is out of place you smooth it down but if somebody else's hair is out of place it must remain so or you then will be responsible for the outcome of any action you take. I often think this escapes people.
If you pick a fight or accept a challenge you then become responsible for what happens, regardless of who started it!
In the above example the authority can continue to caution and advise but it is stagnant, it does not adapt to the situation, the authority needs to revaluate in that instance. The boundary pusher can continue to court danger but they need to realise the potential is there and act accordingly with the new information they discover each time they push the limit, each needs to learn from the other and utilise this information to come to an understanding that compromise is a valid third option, but as you know, this third option is almost never utilised due to the advent of the third factor which is what always trumps it, that of 'Feeling'.
The authority has been tasked with another's welfare and this can be consuming, the other sees the danger is overestimated by the authority and so assumes their authority is moot, not realising the authority is not doing what they do by choice but from a sense that as they cannot get the feedback they get from themselves in that same situation, they have to rely on past experience and implement that in this instance, IE; I cannot know how agile you are so as I know I cannot balance there, therefore I say don't balance on that rock or you may fall and hurt yourself. You know you can balance on the rock and so you go to a bigger rock to balance on to prove you are capable, this is not acting out as such but self determination, in both these cases, the first picking the battle and the second throwing the gauntlet down, the situation could avoid escalation if compromise is reached but feelings step in and things do indeed escalate... this is where I have reached in my estimation of the rules of engagement when it comes to human behaviour, I have arrived at the point where I have discovered that self discovery is the most painful and pleasant lesson and that both parties need to understand that neither is right or wrong, but both is individual in its understanding of the way a situation is interpreted.
Communication is vital in all ways, and as Aspies we lack the ability to formulate a rationale as to why another does the things they do when we know it will be the way we see it, the fact that this is the exact same stance the other is taking is never given to consideration, in my estimation, and this is something that should you have read this far, I hope you will understand, in order to make the right decision for both parties you have to be able to understand where they are coming from and how they distinguish the incident from their standpoint.
So in closing, and to tie this last to the first, if somebody throws down their gauntlet, try to imagine what led them to thinking a battle would be necessary, if that means you have to take responsibility or assume blame then so be it, there are worse things, like... I don't know, say... going to battle, for one thing!
Conversely, before you take the option to pick a fight with someone, look at why your doing it, look at what they did to make you think it was worth it and revaluate your own priorities, is a battle what they need, will it win you friends or influence people, can you live through it, is their point of view so obscure you cant identify anything in it that correlates to the way you think, you might surprise yourself.
So rather than donning the armour over every little thing, give your adrenal gland a rest, save the sword polish for another day and just go smell the roses... should you get stung by a bee while out smelling those roses, don't go mad and try to kill the bee, and failing to do so then try to exterminate the entire hive, just take it as red that perhaps you stuck your nose in where it did not belong ; ]
Sometimes we want to take up the gauntlet and sometimes the gauntlet is used to slap us in the face and the only thing both of these scenarios have in common is that in both instances we have the choice, the choice to let go or go all in. Why do we stand up for what we believe in, why do we persevere in the face of adversity, it is because in those circumstances we make a choice, a conscious decision to fight or leave it be, we choose to confront something or deny it.
I have a hard time coming to terms with the human condition, I don't understand a lot of the time why a being so capable of so much potential whether realised or imagined, could make decisions based on illogical assumptions, things that the outcome means a detriment for the being in question given the decision it made. It often seems a human will use struggle as an affirmation to say, I am in pain, therefore I exist and this backs up my belief in life as I know it. As a human we don't have to be at odds with so much of ourselves and our environment and those we interact with and yet we are, we do seek to confront things, if something is perceived as unjust, we tackle it, if something goes against the things we hold dear, be that principles, beliefs or tolerance, we put ourselves at odds with it to the loss of our own personal well being.
Time for an example, or an overly elaborately constructed and oft confusing simile meant to clarify and inveigle as well as capture a rapport with you dear reader, shall we begin:
say for instance you are in charge of a group of individuals and they are aware that they have to conduct themselves in such a way as pertains to both individual safety as well as that of the group, and yet one of the bunch constantly pushes at the limits of that safety, never going over the line but nudging the line to see what the extent it can bend to actually is. Most often the fact that you are in charge will see you assume danger to the individual and potentially to the group in light of these little dalliances and you act accordingly, you caution and redirect... then when it happens again, possibly by more than one person this time, then you rant and rave!
This is where the human factor comes into play, first, you have it ingrained in you as a protector that your role is such that you can brook no argument, that your will is in keeping with the best interests of the group and the more the limits are pushed the more you become entrenched in this thinking. The reverse is also true, the individual and by now maybe a few, seeing no danger on multiple forays onto the wild side are now inured to the danger and feeling safe, their bravado grows, this equates to resentment of the authority figure and the repetition and intensification of the behaviour. What does this all mean I hear you ask, well, when an individual is charged with anything that makes them responsible for another this idea of fight picking takes on a whole new dimension.
In normal circumstances the best option is always going to be the one that benefits the individual making the decision, should I take up arms as I may get hurt, no, so I run away and live to fight another day, but add into that the responsibility to another, should I take up arms or someone else may get hurt, yes, therefore I choose to fight. Picking a battle or letting it slide is a more complicated thing once it is not yourself you have to look out for, but then a third factor comes into play, that of 'Feeling', if I pick this fight I may get hurt, others may get hurt and I will be perceived differently... should I pick up the gauntlet that has been thrown, I may get hurt, another may get hurt, but I can possibly set things to rights.
This is a human thing to want stuff to make sense to the way you think it should be, if your hair is out of place you smooth it down but if somebody else's hair is out of place it must remain so or you then will be responsible for the outcome of any action you take. I often think this escapes people.
If you pick a fight or accept a challenge you then become responsible for what happens, regardless of who started it!
In the above example the authority can continue to caution and advise but it is stagnant, it does not adapt to the situation, the authority needs to revaluate in that instance. The boundary pusher can continue to court danger but they need to realise the potential is there and act accordingly with the new information they discover each time they push the limit, each needs to learn from the other and utilise this information to come to an understanding that compromise is a valid third option, but as you know, this third option is almost never utilised due to the advent of the third factor which is what always trumps it, that of 'Feeling'.
The authority has been tasked with another's welfare and this can be consuming, the other sees the danger is overestimated by the authority and so assumes their authority is moot, not realising the authority is not doing what they do by choice but from a sense that as they cannot get the feedback they get from themselves in that same situation, they have to rely on past experience and implement that in this instance, IE; I cannot know how agile you are so as I know I cannot balance there, therefore I say don't balance on that rock or you may fall and hurt yourself. You know you can balance on the rock and so you go to a bigger rock to balance on to prove you are capable, this is not acting out as such but self determination, in both these cases, the first picking the battle and the second throwing the gauntlet down, the situation could avoid escalation if compromise is reached but feelings step in and things do indeed escalate... this is where I have reached in my estimation of the rules of engagement when it comes to human behaviour, I have arrived at the point where I have discovered that self discovery is the most painful and pleasant lesson and that both parties need to understand that neither is right or wrong, but both is individual in its understanding of the way a situation is interpreted.
Communication is vital in all ways, and as Aspies we lack the ability to formulate a rationale as to why another does the things they do when we know it will be the way we see it, the fact that this is the exact same stance the other is taking is never given to consideration, in my estimation, and this is something that should you have read this far, I hope you will understand, in order to make the right decision for both parties you have to be able to understand where they are coming from and how they distinguish the incident from their standpoint.
So in closing, and to tie this last to the first, if somebody throws down their gauntlet, try to imagine what led them to thinking a battle would be necessary, if that means you have to take responsibility or assume blame then so be it, there are worse things, like... I don't know, say... going to battle, for one thing!
Conversely, before you take the option to pick a fight with someone, look at why your doing it, look at what they did to make you think it was worth it and revaluate your own priorities, is a battle what they need, will it win you friends or influence people, can you live through it, is their point of view so obscure you cant identify anything in it that correlates to the way you think, you might surprise yourself.
So rather than donning the armour over every little thing, give your adrenal gland a rest, save the sword polish for another day and just go smell the roses... should you get stung by a bee while out smelling those roses, don't go mad and try to kill the bee, and failing to do so then try to exterminate the entire hive, just take it as red that perhaps you stuck your nose in where it did not belong ; ]
