Just one of the concepts we're pressured to perform, never mind the consequences.
There’s a huge, crazy-making paradox in our society. And indeed, in most Western societies today.
We say social skills are the most important skills people can possess. In a time when binary, black-or-white thinking is being phased out on multiple fronts, there still seems to be one bright line that divides winners and losers: those who are good with people and those who are not. If you’re good with people, that will make up for a multitude of vices. But if you’re not good with people, that can outweigh your education, passion, hard work and every other positive thing you bring to the table.
Clearly, there is incentive, all over, to prove yourself rich in social skills. But herein lies the crazy-making: the main way we have of proving our social adeptness is in how other people feel about about us, and in how favorable their actions are toward us. Ask someone to describe a socially skilled person and they will describe a popular person, a person chosen enthusiastically by others, a person who doesn’t have to work too hard to get others’ consent.
One small problem: we cannot control that. We cannot control how others feel about us, or whether they choose us out of the many other people they meet every day. But we still judge how good we are with people, by this uncontrollable metric. To all our detriment-- professionally, emotionally and psychologically.
We can follow all the social rules, we can be as friendly and outgoing as possible, we can fit perfectly into our environments. But if it doesn’t generate the right results— others liking, trusting and choosing us— our people skills will be found lacking, no matter how perfect our behavior.
We live by “impact, not intent”. “Results, not excuses”.
We don’t do a good job of dealing with the unintended consequences of those messages.
Or judging where they might not work so well. We Americans love universal messages applicable to any and every scenario.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
The flawed way we measure interpersonal skills is one thing we must question if we are interested in lowering our collective levels of stress and burnout. Quite simply, we need to measure how good we are with people by what we do have control over, not by what we don’t.
I am new to Reddit. Originally, my goal was to make Sbubbies; but my first Sbubby post was rejected for my having insufficient karma. So I posted on a few other subreddits to beef up my karma a little, and I plan to take advantage of the suggestions they made to get my graphics accepted.
For the most part, my posts got favorable responses. Except for, unfortunately, what I see as my most important ones, posted to r/niceguys:
About not being owed interactions from others: unfortunately I can kind of see where they'd think they're owed. You see, for about 20 years now our media has been constantly going on about how important relationships are to our health, not just mental but physical.
Meanwhile, we're measuring our social skills and our general characters by how many people are in our lives. All this presents relationships as something "you have to get NOW" and you can't wait to just naturally unfold. After all, there's so much at stake including your reputation and even your health. So, these dudes see anyone saying no to a relationship, or interaction, with them as denying this life-affirming social juice. Therefore denying them growth, experience and even health itself.
Harping on how important it is to receive love and relationships from others, when we are NOT in control of whether that happens, is not the way to teach anyone how to handle rejection. Playing up how dire the consequences are for not receiving what is basically a gift from others, only makes people more desperate to get that gift. How about, media, we not measure our characters by something we have no control over?
The response to that one was, “don’t make excuses for NiceGuys™, the media is not to blame.”
So then I responded:
You're right. The media did not make creeps creepy. They chose to be creepy.
But the media did raise the stakes for getting or not getting relationships. If people weren't constantly hearing that you are always better in a relationship than not, than people overall would feel much more comfortable with being single and/or alone. People overall wouldn't be feeling like they must fill a relationship-shaped hole in their lives at all costs. And they would be much less inspired to impose on others.
In short: it wouldn't make creeps un-creepy, but it would take the pressure off and make non-creeps less likely to act desperate and creepy.
Both of my comments got negative karma. Meanwhile, “No Excuses” got a positive boost.
I wasn’t making excuses. But the posters to that subreddit believe I was. Or, equally likely, they believe they must vote my comments down in order to send a “no excuses” message.
The problem, of course, is that this forecloses any discussion of this-- the futility of proving a character trait by something you can’t control. Or, of how the media makes our anxiety worse, and even makes the incel problem worse, by setting up relationships as rewards. Rewards, for better personalities and better people skills— and the absence of them as evidence we lack those qualities. How doing that makes us more likely to disregard consent, because we become more desperate to prove ourselves.
We could do with fewer avenues for pressure, fewer ways to feel like life is a competition. We would feel more comfortable being alone without that constant drumbeat. And we would still hold creeps accountable.
We don’t need pressure to collect relationships like merit badges— we shouldn’t even be thinking of them as merit badges! Not having to worry that singleness = socially inept would mean a lot more self-confidence for the unmarried. And possibly for everyone else who lives outside a traditional family.
But none of that will get explored on that particular subreddit thread. Any comment that was less than a full-throated indictment of creepy men had to be discounted, because sending a message of accountability trumps everything else.
Even if one of the consequences is, continuing to pass along unexamined one of the most gaslighting messages our society has to offer.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
There’s a lot that’s lost in our quest to set a tone, send a message, or display a social signal. Parents do a lot of harm if they attempt to teach their children emotional regulation by telling them to “man up”. We excoriate conservative lawmakers who shred our social safety net on a single-minded quest to “teach the poor how to be self-reliant”. We laugh at our “president’s” attempts to show wealth and success “plumage” like a peacock. A lot of harmful things we do to other people come back to social signaling-- and putting the messages we send, and symbols of membership in our groups, above our compassion.
The last thing we need is quashing discussion about the hidden cruelties of our everyday lives. The last thing we need is more avoidance of the subject of how gaslighting our normal behavior can be. The last thing we need is shutting down of anything for even going slightly “against message”, for that kills any possibility of mitigating unintended consequences of following that message.
I think of the hapless Wells Fargo employees. Or rather, I think of their scheming managers-- who in the end were almost as hapless, since they were responding to pressure from above them. They were likely invoking Yoda as well as quotas. “There is no try; there is only do.” There is only making profit for your company at all costs. Go ahead and sign up your customers for accounts they don't want or need. Forget about getting consent, because that will spoil everything. Just do it.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
For most of my adult life, I have struggled with how I’m supposed to prove I have good people skills. I don’t have the best track record: I’m not married (though I have a long-term partner), I have no children, I’ve never held a managerial position, I have a checkered work history in general, and in my youth I was neither popular nor did I play team sports. That’s at least six negative items in my “experiential CV” that potentially make me less competitive in the professional and personal marketplace. It’s been a source of great shame for me.
Even though I don’t want marriage and kids, even though I wasn’t interested in sports as a youngster. I feel like I’m at a disadvantage in the marketplace without those "merit badges".
I feel pressure every day to prove my soft skills, by collecting and showcasing as many relationships and social experiences as possible. It’s right there in most job advice columns: you can’t just say you have a skill or a strength, you have to showcase it. And others’ opinion on your soft skills especially will always be more reliable than yours.
I’ve always felt like experiences and skills I’ve picked up by myself-- which are the majority-- are worth less in the competition for opportunities. I love the hobbies I've picked up alone. I love writing. I wouldn't part with my solo adventures for the world. They've given me a necessary mental boost.
But they aren't with other people... so the marketplace says they don't count for as much on my experiential CV.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
Sometimes I wonder if I should have ignored my preferences and raised a family anyway, to build my character— because what if that turned out to be the only opportunity I would get to practice leadership and other soft skills? I sure haven’t gotten very many opportunities from work.
But that's a terrible reason to bring a family into the world. Moreover, it's selfish-- more for my benefit than my kids'.
I might just as likely end up being a Karen-- which would be even worse for my character.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
So imagine my relief when I read this article, calling into question the very idea of an experiential CV. Finally, someone was questioning this anxiety-inducing societal idea. Finally, I saw that my hang-ups were not merely personal problems… they were symptoms of neoliberalism. They were symptoms of our society operating exactly as it was engineered to do.
What too few people have been saying about neoliberalism thus far, is the psychological damage it causes. The constant competitiveness. The devaluing of life experiences that don’t put one on a path to traditional success. The constant onus on you to improve yourself, at your expense and in your dwindling amount of time. An ideology about health that moralizes misfortune: those with chronic diseases must have brought their ills on themselves.
The “market” is a gaslighter that says you are worthless if nobody wants you. That there’s something wrong with your personality, your character, your aura if you are not “bought”; i.e. chosen. And that you must spend your life improving yourself, running in the hamster wheel until someone chooses you— and being chosen is the only way to know you have enough soft skills, that you generate enough of a spark with others.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
Millennials and younger generations are rightfully standing up against most of these toxic messages, disguised as concern for your well-being. Unfortunately, they show no sign of giving up the measurement of social skills by being chosen.
I fear the pay gap in favor of married men will persist with them, even though we’ve debunked the “family wage” and “married people are more productive” ideas. No: married men will be seen as deserving higher pay for a new reason: their bangled ring fingers and coupled social media profiles are “proof” of better soft skills.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
But neoliberalism also changed our morals. Under the guise of respect for reality and other people, we were called upon to switch off our generosity for the less fortunate... it's only "enabling" them. We mustn't have universal health care or paid leave-- the "moral hazard" is too great to allow that.
"No excuses" is a key phrase in the neoliberalization of our moral values. Explanations and extenuating circumstances take extra time and may add extra stress. This used to be considered a manageable hazard; but in the new light of the market, explanations became excuses. Taking this extra time became inefficient, and therefore unacceptable.
In fact, perhaps what best defines neoliberal thinking is this sense of a forgone conclusion. "There is no alternative", said Margaret Thatcher. Debate is over. Don't bother protesting the injustices in this system, they are a sign that the system is working as designed. You're wasting everyone's valuable time by even trying. (thereby twisting the concept of showing consideration for others)
There is only one way to succeed in a neoliberal society and economy, and that is the market leaders' way. Stop fighting it-- that's a sign of whining and excuse making. Whiners don't win. You can choose to be a whiner or a winner-- never both.
And so, emotional strength got redefined as turning off your normal human impulse to care for the less fortunate (they're taking advantage of you), ignoring your gut instincts of things going very wrong (always trust your logic more than your intuition), and above all stopping debate, stopping discussion of new alternatives, and just shutting up and getting to work. But always on yourself-- never on your society or your economic system. The system is infallible. TINA.
Negotiations and possibilities got foreclosed-- that would undercut a clear, succinct "accountability first" message. We winnowed back our sense of what was possible in the American economy and our culture. Large tech projects like the would-be CERN in Texas were shelved so America could present itself as "fiscally responsible". We told ourselves, these were necessary prices for a strong economy and more stalwart spirits.
It's had precisely the opposite effect on our famous American can-do spirit. All the sadder because it was sold to us as something that would make us happier, smarter, stronger, better people.
It's hard to boldly go forth when you're worried about your experiential CV.
✏ ✒ 🖋 🖊 🖌 🖍
Even the most liberal Americans have "marketized" morals, because they've been presented to us as how we demonstrate such character strengths as taking responsibility, consideration for others, and being grounded in reality.
Cancel culture is a thing because we see it as the best way to demonstrate awareness of our impact on others. Our no-negotiations stance is at work here: talking with the people we've hurt and attempting to make amends is not good enough; we must go overboard in order to perform accountability. We can't try, we must do. We must showcase.
Zero-tolerance was similarly all about sending a message-- "look, we care about your kids' safety, and this no-debate, no-asking-questions, metaphorical sledge hammer is the way we put that caring into action."
Doing stupid, reductive things that often end up doing more harm than good, because we believe it's the best way to perform good character and send the right messages-- that's us owning ourselves. That's us putting ourselves in the stress pressure cooker.
Wouldn't we be a better society if, in fact, there was an alternative?
I certainly plan to do a lot of discussing, debating, and negotiating about it.
