In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
Well, the context certainly explains a lot of your fundamental outlook. You grew up in nearly universal chaos and conflict, so of course you have developed coping strategies and a power-forward outlook centered around establishing a safe niche for yourself.
To your very very great credit, you seem to have avoided becoming an aggressor and have focused on the defensive side.
Now that you have (more or less) escaped the chaotic environment of your family life and original location, you are entering the decompression phase. That decompression is complicated somewhat by the differing cultural biases of your new home, so you are having to relearn not one but two new societal systems: 1) living in a community that is not based on fear, theft, and destruction, and 2) the general conformist expectations and rigid hierarchy of status in East Asian culture.
So let me say flat out that I think you're doing great so far.
Your genetics are probably going to keep you a gringo to some extent, no matter how hard you try, but that's not changeable, so just keep working with it. I don't think you need to try to become "more Japanese than Japan", but it will serve you well to continue developing your understanding of and sensitivity to Japanese culture. Just doing your best to avoid making mistakes in etiquette should be enough and should be appreciated by those you interact with.
Continuing to improve your Japanese language skills should go a long way. For instance, in France, many people speak usable English. However, if you approach them only in English, they're likely to just blow you off and pretend they don't. But if you make any effort at all, even just learning the French for "Hello, sir, pardon me, my French sucks, but can you help me?" they are often willing to help. I can only imagine that your efforts to learn Japanese are appreciated the same way.
The other half of your task is to learn that most of the social environment is not as chaotic as what you grew up in. Most people are ambivalent to most other people by default, and a little courtesy goes a long way. Most people are not going to anticipate a potential for a deeply important, high stakes interaction most of the time.
For instance, another reading of your peanut allergy example could go like this:
Someone tells you they have a peanut allergy just as a topic of discussion, not as an admission of weakness. They almost certainly wouldn't consider it a demonstration of their trust in you. It would just be a statement of fact. And in return, you might have the allergen menu sent over as a simple act of empathy and a gesture of courtesy, rather than to prove the point that you are covering for their vulnerability.
Let me restate that I think your self-awareness is great and I have confidence that you will learn to adapt to a more stable, lower-pressure environment. Just keep an eye on your own responses. When you find yourself overthinking a situation in terms of conflict and strategy, see if you can reframe the interaction in terms of empathy and courtesy between friends (even if they're not actual friends). That won't always be right either; there is still a general need for situational awareness and self -protection. But I think you've had to be at Defcon 2 or 3 for so long, you need to consciously let yourself dial it back to 4 and eventually 5.
Good luck and please keep us posted on your progress. We're always here to listen and even if there is the occasional shiny happy person, no one here can actually hurt you even if they wanted to. The worst they can do is be a dick and dicks are easily ignored.
In reply to Duke :
Unless its Randy (lolzers)
In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
Going to Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a simplification, it sound like you grew up in an environment that may have only mostly met your most basic physiological needs. So your learned behaviors were mostly focused on attaining the second tier of safety needs for yourself. You now find yourself in an environment where your safety needs are all being met too.
For people who grew up in an environment with all their physiological AND safety needs met, their learned behaviors were all focused on love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.
Here's the rub though. The behaviors for love and belonging are generally compatible with the behaviors for the higher tiers of esteem and self-actualization. However, the behaviors for physiological and safety needs in an environment not naturally that way may often run contradictory the behaviors for success in the subsequent tiers. That's not to say they don't still have value as you grow, but they will hold your growth back if you cling too tightly to them. They are not a natural direct carryover, and must evolve along with you.
So for somebody who never had to worry about safety, as Duke noted, they may not even register your sending the allergen free menu as having any connotations to somebody being willing and able to threaten their physical safety, because there are no interactions with you that could possibly warrant such a response. You're not (I would hope) going to slip them something laced with peanut butter because of some perceived slight. Hell, even if they undermined your job or something, a job is not worth going to jail for (even 'attempted') murder. You just get another damn job if you need to. So while sending the menu might be a good basis for a working relationship, choosing to do so at this point will go a lot further if it's obviously and genuinely coming from a place of love and belonging than from safety.
Beyond that, while it may demonstrate you're paying attention, it could also come across as you being somewhere between a well-intentioned weirdo and a needy creeper. Same with this whole concept of inviting people to lie to you and showing them 'false' weaknesses. Such things come across as insincere and/or manipulative. In the context of of this new environment, these are all also red flags that can actually have the opposite effect and cause people to become more wary of you.
Yes, knowing people can hurt you but don't is an exercise in trust, but when you choose to tie that trust to safety you hold it back from becoming the foundation for everything greater than that.
I also find it interesting when you said you found your maestro-boss' weakness, the proceeded with a description of what others might call his strength. It would seem that what the physiological and safety mindsets may see as weakness, the other mindsets may see as strength. People who make their weaknesses their strengths don't feel the need to hide them.
You also mentioned previously your core value relating to protecting the people you choose to surround yourself with. Have you noticed that you didn't tie this to anything reciprocal? Neither their ability to use your weaknesses against you, even if they technically could, or what you can get from them in return? You're also sharing a whole lotta weaknesses (and subsequently strengths) here, that I'm guessing you don't share just anywhere else on the internet. That the trust that comes from love and belonging rather than safety, and is where most of the people you interact with all are coming from as well.
When people openly share their 'weaknesses' with you, they're doing so because they see your demonstrated trustworthiness as being one of your fundamental moral values rather than a conditional transaction with you. In this new environment, proving them wrong can also actually end up being just as disastrous for you as for them.
Whether it's jumping social classes, starting a new job, moving to a new country, or some combination there of, new (physical and/or emotional) environments cause us to revert to ensuring our base needs. This is where your history serves you well in this regard vs how so many others cope with this much more unfamiliar sensation to them. Just don't let it also become what holds you back as you continue to settle in. You have proven yourself strong, resilient, and adaptable, and those traits will serve you well in your continued evolution.
You'll never be Japanese. Become so awesome they emulate you, and you won't have to worry about it.
Duke said:In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
Well, the context certainly explains a lot of your fundamental outlook. You grew up in nearly universal chaos and conflict, so of course you have developed coping strategies and a power-forward outlook centered around establishing a safe niche for yourself.
To your very very great credit, you seem to have avoided becoming an aggressor and have focused on the defensive side.
Now that you have (more or less) escaped the chaotic environment of your family life and original location, you are entering the decompression phase. That decompression is complicated somewhat by the differing cultural biases of your new home, so you are having to relearn not one but two new societal systems: 1) living in a community that is not based on fear, theft, and destruction, and 2) the general conformist expectations and rigid hierarchy of status in East Asian culture.
So let me say flat out that I think you're doing great so far.
Your genetics are probably going to keep you a gringo to some extent, no matter how hard you try, but that's not changeable, so just keep working with it. I don't think you need to try to become "more Japanese than Japan", but it will serve you well to continue developing your understanding of and sensitivity to Japanese culture. Just doing your best to avoid making mistakes in etiquette should be enough and should be appreciated by those you interact with.
Continuing to improve your Japanese language skills should go a long way. For instance, in France, many people speak usable English. However, if you approach them only in English, they're likely to just blow you off and pretend they don't. But if you make any effort at all, even just learning the French for "Hello, sir, pardon me, my French sucks, but can you help me?" they are often willing to help. I can only imagine that your efforts to learn Japanese are appreciated the same way.
The other half of your task is to learn that most of the social environment is not as chaotic as what you grew up in. Most people are ambivalent to most other people by default, and a little courtesy goes a long way. Most people are not going to anticipate a potential for a deeply important, high stakes interaction most of the time.
For instance, another reading of your peanut allergy example could go like this:
Someone tells you they have a peanut allergy just as a topic of discussion, not as an admission of weakness. They almost certainly wouldn't consider it a demonstration of their trust in you. It would just be a statement of fact. And in return, you might have the allergen menu sent over as a simple act of empathy and a gesture of courtesy, rather than to prove the point that you are covering for their vulnerability.
Let me restate that I think your self-awareness is great and I have confidence that you will learn to adapt to a more stable, lower-pressure environment. Just keep an eye on your own responses. When you find yourself overthinking a situation in terms of conflict and strategy, see if you can reframe the interaction in terms of empathy and courtesy between friends (even if they're not actual friends). That won't always be right either; there is still a general need for situational awareness and self -protection. But I think you've had to be at Defcon 2 or 3 for so long, you need to consciously let yourself dial it back to 4 and eventually 5.
Good luck and please keep us posted on your progress. We're always here to listen and even if there is the occasional shiny happy person, no one here can actually hurt you even if they wanted to. The worst they can do is be a dick and dicks are easily ignored.
Thanks, I appreciate it. The language is coming, and people appreciate the effort (I'm doing 4 hours of class a week on average), so I don't think it's going to be a major problem going forward. The idea that many people take safety for granted is very alien to me. Honestly it feels careless almost to the point of negligent, but taking safety for granted is clearly not catching up to most people here in this new environment, so it's equally likely I'm the one who needs to adjust.
As for the peanut gallery, it's two common and completely forgivable category mistakes leading to that reaction. The first is to equate moral luck (the luck to avoid making damned if you do, damned if you don't decisions) with "goodness." The second is to equate harmlessness with "goodness." Making these errors is not just easy to do, it feels good, and it's something many people never even think about. I'll just leave this right here if you guys are interested. https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=17095&start=15#google_vignette
Driven5 said:In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
Going to Maslow's hierarchy of needs as a simplification, it sound like you grew up in an environment that may have only mostly met your most basic physiological needs. So your learned behaviors were mostly focused on attaining the second tier of safety needs for yourself. You now find yourself in an environment where your safety needs are all being met too.
For people who grew up in an environment with all their physiological AND safety needs met, their learned behaviors were all focused on love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization.
Here's the rub though. The behaviors for love and belonging are generally compatible with the behaviors for the higher tiers of esteem and self-actualization. However, the behaviors for physiological and safety needs in an environment not naturally that way may often run contradictory the behaviors for success in the subsequent tiers. That's not to say they don't still have value as you grow, but they will hold your growth back if you cling too tightly to them. They are not a natural direct carryover, and must evolve along with you.
So for somebody who never had to worry about safety, as Duke noted, they may not even register your sending the allergen free menu as having any connotations to somebody being willing and able to threaten their physical safety, because there are no interactions with you that could possibly warrant such a response. You're not (I would hope) going to slip them something laced with peanut butter because of some perceived slight. Hell, even if they undermined your job or something, a job is not worth going to jail for (even 'attempted') murder. You just get another damn job if you need to. So while sending the menu might be a good basis for a working relationship, choosing to do so at this point will go a lot further if it's obviously and genuinely coming from a place of love and belonging than from safety.
Beyond that, while it may demonstrate you're paying attention, it could also come across as you being somewhere between a well-intentioned weirdo and a needy creeper. Same with this whole concept of inviting people to lie to you and showing them 'false' weaknesses. Such things come across as insincere and/or manipulative. In the context of of this new environment, these are all also red flags that can actually have the opposite effect and cause people to become more wary of you.
Yes, knowing people can hurt you but don't is an exercise in trust, but when you choose to tie that trust to safety you hold it back from becoming the foundation for everything greater than that.
I also find it interesting when you said you found your maestro-boss' weakness, the proceeded with a description of what others might call his strength. It would seem that what the physiological and safety mindsets may see as weakness, the other mindsets may see as strength. People who make their weaknesses their strengths don't feel the need to hide them.
You also mentioned previously your core value relating to protecting the people you choose to surround yourself with. Have you noticed that you didn't tie this to anything reciprocal? Neither their ability to use your weaknesses against you, even if they technically could, or what you can get from them in return? You're also sharing a whole lotta weaknesses (and subsequently strengths) here, that I'm guessing you don't share just anywhere else on the internet. That the trust that comes from love and belonging rather than safety, and is where most of the people you interact with all are coming from as well.
When people openly share their 'weaknesses' with you, they're doing so because they see your demonstrated trustworthiness as being one of your fundamental moral values rather than a conditional transaction with you. In this new environment, proving them wrong can also actually end up being just as disastrous for you as for them.
Whether it's jumping social classes, starting a new job, moving to a new country, or some combination there of, new (physical and/or emotional) environments cause us to revert to ensuring our base needs. This is where your history serves you well in this regard vs how so many others cope with this much more unfamiliar sensation to them. Just don't let it also become what holds you back as you continue to settle in. You have proven yourself strong, resilient, and adaptable, and those traits will serve you well in your continued evolution.
Thanks for the feedback, very interesting.
I do want to explain something about the allergen menu, though. The act of sending it over is not intended as a threat. For the person receiving the menu, it's supposed to be an indication of paying attention and looking out for him. Ie, "I am concerned with your safety." For the other people in the restaurant, it indicates that I'm invested in the orderly and safe operation of the social group, and that if you mess with Mr. Allergies, you'll probably have a problem with me, as well. There are a lot of downstream implications here, and one of the nice benefits is that it implies I'm a person with quite high social status/lots of social capital, but there's almost no threat implied, in my experience.
At least no more so than a parent holding their child's hand in a crosswalk. The parent is genuinely looking out for the child, but they are doing so from a higher social position, and it would be very bad if they stopped looking out for the child. There's a reason children, especially small children, tend to look at their parents as superhuman. As for the allergy example specifically, I know a person who gets migraines whenever she eats aspartame. I also know people who slip aspartame into her food when they wish to punish her. I didn't pull this example out of my butt. ;)
I guess I should rephrase some of what I'm calling weaknesses as "things people have to work (hard/constantly) to overcome." The maestro-boss has to over-perform his "Japanese-ing" to cover up for his ethnic liabilities. He's good at this, and it demonstrates both skill and pragmatism on his part. It's also something I can potentially make easier for him so long as I pay enough attention to realize it's both really important to him and probably a lot of work to maintain. If I was predatory, I'd try to exploit this for short term gain. I think the smarter thing is to show that I understand, and that I'm willing to help.
The bad news is that I'm not in a position to help with that very much. I'm still new, and I'm not willing to prioritize Japanese-ing as much as I did and do prioritize Korean-ing. I probably don't have the time or energy to do both at the same time. Which is why I'm shifting to supporting "the working hard to overcome" weakness shared by both maestro-boss and the mayor - making this small university in this small city seem global, cosmopolitan, and attractive to scholars, industrial figures, and government officials from overseas. This I can do, and it's where I'm going to focus my energy.
And you're right, this is different than looking for a weakness to defend myself in case boss-man turns hostile.
carbidetooth said:In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
I have to say I'm impressed with your knowledge of self and likewise the social structure you're involved with. I can't offer much except that the social puzzle was never a high priority for me and I suppose that steered me towards the puzzles I liked and was intuitively good at solving. Inanimate things that were not moving and intangible targets. My affinity to that kind of thing probably limited me in terms of career path, but it suits me and I am grateful for the recognition of where my joy is derived. Mostly retired now so less of a concern. Life is a sort of puzzle where we have the opportunity to find our strengths and joy if we choose to nose around, yeah? Carry on, my friend!
In a philosophy discussion, I really like this sentence.
To Daewoo: thanks for sharing your experiences. As a corn fed midwestern office berkeley living the south - I cannot much relate, but I still find it quite interesting.
In reply to DaewooOfDeath :
For the other people in the restaurant, it indicates that I'm invested in the orderly and safe operation of the social group, and that if you mess with Mr. Allergies, you'll probably have a problem with me, as well. There are a lot of downstream implications here, and one of the nice benefits is that it implies I'm a person with quite high social status/lots of social capital, but there's almost no threat implied, in my experience.
Except that there is still threat implied, at least in your thinking. It's marked in bold right there.
Certainly to me, and I imagine others here, your expanded example highlights what I consider overthinking the situation and framing it in terms of conflict when it doesn't have to be.
I can almost guarantee no one else in that room would think anything beyond, "Oh, that was nice of DoD." Five minutes later no one except Mr. Allergic is even going to remember it.
At least in the West. I have never visited Asia, let alone lived there, so I may be very wrong.
To me, this is an opportunity for to you practice decompression and just make a friendly gesture without elevating it into a strategic move. Again, given your story, I think I can understand how your thought processes developed this way. But I also think it might be helpful to look for places where you can practice thinking less about minor things, because they are no longer critically important in your new life.
Thank you for continuing this discussion. If I go past what you're comfortable with, please let me know.
In reply to Duke :
No problem at all. :)
I did some reflection on this topic, I got some feedback from others who've moved up social classes (one of whom is lurking but not posting in this thread), and I did some reading, and here are some thoughts:
1. I think that the stakes get lower the higher up you go. This is something I've heard from other people who've moved significantly up (or down). The power dynamics seems to be relatively the same, but where failure to read power dynamics in a Tijuana ghetto means a new set of concrete boots and a boat trip, the same failure in the middle class might culminate in getting fired. In the upper class it might be as mundane as getting disinvited from social functions. Panicking because I can't immediately find leverage is probably not as rational for a newly tenure tracked professor as it was for the guy negotiating with the Bloods.
2. One of the reasons the stakes get lower in higher social classes is that there are more people, institutions, and even cultural traditions protecting those folks. I'm happy to talk about this is detail, but I'm going to warn you all that it will be a can of worms. For now I'll just say that people who feel safe by default tend to enjoy a great deal of protection provided by people who are perhaps more conscious of threats.
3. There's a cluster of words that are roughly synonyms, and each carries a very negative connotation: parvenu, social climber, neuvo riche. It's not immediately clear why these are all considered negative. One of my favorite philosophers is Hannah Arendt, and she had this to say:
"(Those seeking to assimilate into a dominant culture) must take on the qualities which the parvenu must acquire if he wants to arrive - inhumanity, greed, insolence, cringing servility, and determination to push ahead ... (these assimilationists) felt simultaneously the pariah's regret at not having become a parvenu and the parvenu's bad conscience at having betrayed his people and exchanged equal rights for personal privileges." - This is page 66 of "The Origins of Totalitarianism," 1994 Harcourt version, if anyone is interested. Amazing book.
The characteristics of the parvenu Arendt describes are obviously obnoxious and harmful, but it's interesting to think why she believes they are the prerequisite to "arriving." Her answer, if I'm allowed to summarize in a few paragraphs an argument she takes almost 30 pages to develop, is something like this.
Both the entrances and exits to a social class are closed by the basic human need for security and belonging. We might call this analogous to the way a child can (hopefully) depend on his parents to be highly biased in his favor, to protect him before all other children, and to put his interests before the interests of any other child. This child's world, if his mother would one day explain that she loves him no more than little Suzy on the next block, would shatter into anxiety and psychological homelessness. In the same way, classes and social groups maintain their cohesion by protecting their members' interests and safety even if it's at the expense of another group. The only way around this is to make one's group a society of merit, and that is a state of constant competition and insecurity most people would prefer not to live in.
The important consequence of this search for belonging and safety, though, is that whenever a parvenu is allowed to move up into the group, or whenever an old member is allowed to slip down, it undermines the unspoken guarantee of safety and belonging. Ie, I'm not so safe as I appeared to be, I don't belong as much as I thought I did. Little Suzy on the next block might steal my mother's heart from me after all.
This led me to wonder how one might gain entrance to the higher levels of society without being cringingly servile, inhuman, and insolent. Arendt gives us two paths, and I think I know a third.
The first path is to align oneself with an outside but ambitious group. She mentions the bourgeoisie as the most important example of this in the 19th century, and points to the ways new money Jews attached to the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie assaulted Europe's hereditary aristocracy. In our own time, I suppose this would be something like aligning with a protest movement, or championing the move fast and break things ethic of Silicon Valley disruptors, or Crypto-currency, or joining an anti-institutional religious movement, etc.
The second way is to make oneself exotic and exciting. A defining trait of closed and secure feeling social classes, Arendt argues, is boredom. As such, exotic and (preferably) scandalous things can create openings that would not otherwise exist. She gives the example of Benjamin Disraeli (a flamboyant and exotic Jew who knew nothing about Jewish culture or Judaism), but I think the best current examples are people like Curtis Jackson (50 Cent) and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Jackson's mainstream appeal, and his incredibly savvy business instincts, all arise from the legends of his 9 gunshot wounds, his unapologetically thug roots, and his willingness to behave ruthlessly. The less exotic members of his original social class, generally speaking, don't get invited to speak at events like this.
Schwarzenegger is perhaps even a better example. His cartoonish physique and "I'm here to seduce your wife" schtick in the 80s made him seem both scandalous and exotic, and there's a reason he has a voice coach even today to make sure he doesn't lose the Austrian accent - he might become normal and thus boring.
The third way Arendt doesn't suggest but I think also works is a combination of ability and ambiguity. Ability is useful in that we can use it to appeal to the self-interest of higher groups, but in order to overcome the protective and stabilizing nature of class barriers, this ability needs to be overwhelming. In my personal experience, "crushing superiority" overcomes class barriers about half the time. If you are only 10% better, don't even waste your time, that guy with 90% of the ability but pre-existing membership has already won.
However, even crushing superiority isn't enough to reliably get results. This is mostly because ability is threatening when it seems openly ambitious. Little Suzy one block over, to reuse the metaphor, becomes even more threatening when she has an IQ of 160 and looks like Michelle Pfiffer. This is why ambiguity is necessary. It allows us to control "the frame." When Little Suzy's motives never quite make sense, when it seems like she's a bit of a moon bat or eccentric, we're too busy being curious or intrigued to worry about her stealing Mom's heart.
Anyway, my thoughts based on this discussion so far.
We live in different cultures, but my two cents, which obviously stems from my experiences.
Dont worry too much about people's opinions that don't actually matter. Think about the person you want to be and work towards that. I know too many people that jumped up social classes and just confirmed to fit in and then looked up a few years later and hated their lives. I would also challenge you on the crushing superiority not getting results. You got promoted, be good at what you do, and In most scenarios that will lead you to success. If youre a huge prick or completely outside of the accepted behaviors then competence alone may not get you there, but we all no examples of people who are very good at what they do and also very hard to work with that have climbed the ladders, it may not be the norm but it happens because competence is important. There may be some conformity that is required but it tends to be much less than people that overanalyze this stuff think.
Be yourself, do what makes you happy, be great, and quit thinking bout it too mcuh
You'll need to log in to post.
