Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I disagree with the whole concept of relabeling bad things so that they sound more positive. It does nothing to resolve the issue, but instead hides it under a different label. Makes it seem better when in fact it's worse. In a way relabeling negatives to make them sound positive is really enabling the negative to continue.
An example is a conversation I had with my MIL years ago. She was explaining her daughter (my wife) to me. That when she was in school, they had many teacher conferences where the teacher said my wife was "stubborn." My MIL went on to say how she had to explain to those teachers to say "determined" instead of "stubborn" because "determined" was so much more positive language. Well the problem is there is a huge difference between "determined" and "stubborn." "Determined" has a goal and innovates, adapts, and overcomes to reach the goal. It is a learning style. "Stubborn" is a refusal to learn and instead when encountering an obstacle to their goal, beats their head against the wall and complains about the unfairness of the wall being there. "Determined" just opens the door.
This is a good description.
I'm tired of being told to rephrase everything into more positive language. Not everything is positive. Some things are negative and some people are very negative.
I'm tired of being told to rephrase everything into more positive language. Not everything is positive. Some things are negative and some people are very negative.
A good example but not what I'm talking about. Are you being deliberately toxic?
Yes, some people can be "very negative" and still, by your own definition, that is something that can be changed.
I've been working on having detached compassion for people who can be toxic versus holding a grudge or ruminating over their behaviors. Most of them are in pain due to things they have experienced, and I try to be compassionate to that, but I've had to go either no or minimal contact with some people. They can try and transfer their pain onto others and feed off the negativity to make themselves feel better but that's an unacceptable way to go through life.
I like your term, “detached compassion,” and I might borrow it sometime.
Yes to everything in your post. Better to try for some compassion than to hold onto a grudge, which means the people who torment you in real life, are living in your head.
People who feed off negativity must end up terribly lonely.
A pet peeve of mine is calling a fellow human "toxic." That's like calling a child "illegitimate" or a newcomer to the States an "illegal." Most of us have figured out that use of those terms is thoughtless and unnecessarily dismissive.
The fact that professionals who should know better are promoting this labeling seems less than an enlightened approach to wellness. But perhaps it's typical in a world where we all seem to be increasingly withdrawing from difficult social solutions.
What I hear when someone uses this rather lazy and unkind language is "someone I am unable to detach from." And my thought about that is it's worth learning about coping with the various types of toxic behavior because, unless you're a hermit, you're going to be bumping into it off and on until they put you in the ground. Doesn't hurt to have some practice at what works.
If you think for a moment about the crux of the dilemma it frequently lays in the desire to control the behavior of another, a frustrating and impossible task. Detachment, preferably of the light-hearted variety, is a great solution for a lot of these situations.
Not everyone who is emotionally exhausting is being deliberately harmful. For many it has become a maladaptive coping style. And it's source isn't always anger. Attempts to fill human needs can be another reason for disturbing patterns of behavior.
It isn't humans who are toxic; it's dysfunctional behavior that's toxic. Now isn't that a less, er, toxic way to view each other?
I like everything you have posted. But, IMO, some few people truly are toxic. Thank goodness I do not now have dealings with any of these. But I know they exist.
I do take your point that we should not be labeling peopke we simply do not like as toxic.
I'm not talking about relabeling or sugar-coating. I'm talking about the difference between saying (and believing) "Johnny is an evil boy" and "Johnny has evil behavior."
Is that really such a difficult concept?
I do not believe in labeling children. I never told mine that they were bad children. When I punished, I told them why they being punished. I did not seek guidance, when I probably should have, when one of my kids seemed to be inattentive, because I did NOT want that child labeled from then on in the school’s permanent record.
But in your life, you will encounter people who will attempt to sow discord, put you down, claim your work as theirs, attenpt to seduce you, spread untrue gossip, betray your confidences, and/or other awful things that impact you. I think the biblical phrase, by their fruits, you shall know them says it all. They are toxic.
It isn’t you; it really is them. So, defend yourself as best you can.
That’s what I liked about the short article. It identifies these people as aholes.
Thank goodness most people are not like this. At least, most people I know aren’t.
If you think for a moment about the crux of the dilemma it frequently lays in the desire to control the behavior of another, a frustrating and impossible task. Detachment, preferably of the light-hearted variety, is a great solution for a lot of these situations.
Not everyone who is emotionally exhausting is being deliberately harmful. For many it has become a maladaptive coping style. And it's source isn't always anger. Attempts to fill human needs can be another reason for disturbing patterns of behavior.
It isn't humans who are toxic; it's dysfunctional behavior that's toxic. Now isn't that a less, er, toxic way to view each other?
Like some of the other posters, I feel this is splitting hairs. If somebody in your life has consistently dysfunctional behavior, the best solution is to limit contact or cut off contact, depending on the situation.
I have a friend who is clearly struggling with some mental illness. She has paranoid delusions about medicine, the internet, or people nearby talking about her (when they're not), and gets quite strange when she has a few drinks. I've come to realize that at this point spending time with her almost always leaves me feeling awful, that she puts her "need" to get drunk ahead of my comfort level, and is totally unwilling to be open and honest with me about what her health situation is (my guess is she doesn't take her meds).
In short, I'm getting nothing but used for rides to "lunch" (always manages to have 4-6 beers wherever we go) and possibly treated to a paranoid meltdown and total personality change after the drinks. She was less sick when I met her 10 years ago, and I used to feel some give and take, not all take.
I feel very sorry for her, is it "her fault" that her behavior is awful? I think she has some control. She could certainly choose to be honest with me, instead of always trying to manipulate me into the situation she wants. She has driven away most of her other friends before now. I have stayed with her and taken her to "lunch" because I didn't want to take away her last sense of a relationship outside her family who take care of her. I think mentally ill people deserve friendship too, but I've been used up and am going to put myself first now as I should have done a long time ago. I don't yet hate her but I'm cutting her off from my energy supply.
She's toxic, her behavior is toxic, what's the effective difference? Her unwillingness to be honest means she has no interest in changing her behavior.
So Stanford professors act like the "mean girls" in high school now? Wow.
"Stanford’s a pretty passive-aggressive place, so it wasn’t really in your face. But if someone was acting like a jerk, we would gently shun them and make life difficult for them."
I like everything you have posted. But, IMO, some few people truly are toxic. Thank goodness I do not now have dealings with any of these. But I know they exist.
I do take your point that we should not be labeling peopke we simply do not like as toxic.
I think it's fine to think of them as toxic because all that means, is that they are toxic to you.
It's not necessary for everyone else to think they are toxic. I don't think my disgust for someone has to win the approval of others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
