"This is my truth"

[Chancie]

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I do have a friend who believes that DNA is a triple helix; she is just about positively sure of this. <-- not the kind of personal meaning I usually expect

[Nat]

I'm tutoring a very advanced English language learner who is a scientist. She aced out of the GED prep manual for English, so we are working mostly on increasing her vocabulary, tweaking her grammar and punctuation, increasing her listening/word-recognition abilities (she says she often misses the meaning behind stories and jokes because she misses a few critical words). Anyway, I'm having her listen to Ted talks and write down the parts she doesn't understand. The last one she chose was a talk by Isabel Allende who started out her speech with a question: what is truer than truth? Her answer was "the story."

My tutee did not understand how this question made any logical sense. In fact, over and over again, she has known the literal meaning of the word, but not the figurative ways in which the same word can be used. I don't know if this has more to do with her scientific brain or if her 1st language (Farsi) is more distinct in the words used to express literal vs figurative stuff. So I am constantly challenged to try to explain stuff that I haven't ever thought twice about - to a person far more intelligent than I am. It's an enjoyable challenge.

Anyway, in trying to explain Allende's question, this was pretty much the answer I gave her:

In the science world, truth is based on facts. So in your work-life I imagine most people will speak about truth meaning factual, actual truth.

But in English, there is another idea of truth that's not necessarily related to facts. So especially when you are listening to non-sciency people, you may hear "truth" used more to mean something personal or something from your heart or an abstract idea. It might be a religious idea or it may be related to the idea that there is a truth at a deeper level than facts can reveal.

But I didn't get into the, "this is my truth," conversation. I wish I'd thought of it. I don't have trouble with most, "this is my truth," statements and I have probably used the phrase a few times myself. My understanding of, "this is my truth," is that it's an attempt to acknowledge that we have each had our own life experiences which have shaped for each of us how we view and interact with the world. I think it's a statement that tries to set a tone which doesn't impose one's own thoughts, beliefs, filters, lens, what-have-you on others - and in that way I see it as a respectful and humble way to begin to express something possibly unpopular. But I have also seen it used as a defensive way to plug one's own ears in the face of challenge, as a way to deny or escape accusation of prejudice or ignorance.

When it comes to evidence, science, math - I don't believe in personal "truth." When it comes to defense against actual knowledge, defense against learning, I don't believe in personal "truth." But in matters of personal experience, in the realms of the heart and of the spirit, I believe very much in personal truth and I think there's enough room in the world for anybody to acknowledge having one.

The other day, I mentioned aquatic ape theory to AJ and she said there were a lot of holes in it. I wouldn't say "aquatic ape theory is my personal truth." it's just a theory that catches my fancy. I'm neither a scientist nor a mathematician, so I live more in the world of figurative individual truth than I do in the world of factual truth.

I'm not down with that triple helix ish though. My personal truth is that she needs to be held down and corrected.

[Cin]

Nat's post got me thinking about something that happened this morning. I guess it's a little off topic but if you tilt your head and think figuratively rather than literally it might fit okay.

People have often told me that I’m literal. They say things like you take things too literally or you need to stop being so literal and so forth. I have steadfastly refused to accept their observations. Instead I have always maintained that I am simply taking people at their exact word in an attempt to get them to be accountable for the actual words they say rather than me trying to interpret what they could mean by what they say. I have always believed this is a fair and clear way to communicate. And I have always had a need for clarity. I don’t believe I’m incapable of figurative thought. I have always been able to understand the possible meanings and interpretations behind a statement or an action. I just prefer to take people at their word.

Besides that I have always believed being literal means lacking the ability for abstract thought or lacking imagination. I conflate it with seeing the world in black and white. I looked up the meaning of literal today and this is what I found:

Literal
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I still want to refute the claim that I am too literal. But something happened this morning that is making me rethink my position.

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Nat's post got me thinking about something that happened this morning. I guess it's a little off topic but if you tilt your head and think figuratively rather than literally it might fit okay.

People have often told me that I’m literal. They say things like you take things too literally or you need to stop being so literal and so forth. I have steadfastly refused to accept their observations. Instead I have always maintained that I am simply taking people at their exact word in an attempt to get them to be accountable for the actual words they say rather than me trying to interpret what they could mean by what they say. I have always believed this is a fair and clear way to communicate. And I have always had a need for clarity. I don’t believe I’m incapable of figurative thought. I have always been able to understand the possible meanings and interpretations behind a statement or an action. I just prefer to take people at their word.

Besides that I have always believed being literal means lacking the ability for abstract thought or lacking imagination. I conflate it with seeing the world in black and white. I looked up the meaning of literal today and this is what I found:

Literal
1. in accordance with, involving, or being the primary or strict meaning of the word or words; not figurative or metaphorical: the literal meaning of a word.
2. following the words of the original very closely and exactly: a literal translation of Goethe.
3. true to fact; not exaggerated; actual or factual: a literal description of conditions.
4. being actually such, without exaggeration or inaccuracy: the literal extermination of a city.
5. (of persons) tending to construe words in the strict sense or in an unimaginative way; matter-of-fact; prosaic.

I still want to refute the claim that I am too literal. But something happened this morning that is making me rethink my position.

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

Yes, my friend, I think that maybe you should.

However, I do not think that if one is literal in their communication means that they do not have the ability to think abstractly. Nor do I think it means that they lack imagination.

I am pretty darn literal. It can be frustrating to others. Not as bad as the above example, but....I guess for me I have always seen it as being very specific. Hmmm...I will need to ask tantalizingfemme what she thinks about this one.

Anyway, I have no problem with abstract thought. I do not think that I have a lot of imagination, however, but I don't think this has anything to do with me being literal.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

LOL. I can certainly see how the "small bowl" conversation could be exhausting if you're having them all the time. On the other hand, unless her hands are broken or something, she could always just get her own damn yogurt and avoid the conversation altogether.

I very briefly dated a guy years ago who used to get mad at me because I wouldn't do what he wanted until he told me what he wanted. He didn't want to have to say "I don't want to do that, I'd rather do this." Instead, he wanted to say "Oh, well, okay. I guess. *sigh*" and then have me just know that meant he really didn't want to do the thing I'd just suggested and instead wanted to do something else. The relationship didn't last long. Personally, I'm a fan of literal thinking.

[Cin]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

LOL. I can certainly see how the "small bowl" conversation could be exhausting if you're having them all the time. On the other hand, unless her hands are broken or something, she could always just get her own damn yogurt and avoid the conversation altogether.

I very briefly dated a guy years ago who used to get mad at me because I wouldn't do what he wanted until he told me what he wanted. He didn't want to have to say "I don't want to do that, I'd rather do this." Instead, he wanted to say "Oh, well, okay. I guess. *sigh*" and then have me just know that meant he really didn't want to do the thing I'd just suggested and instead wanted to do something else. The relationship didn't last long. Personally, I'm a fan of literal thinking.

You know that’s a good point. I hate it when people won’t verbalize their wants and needs and try to get others to do what they want without them having to own it. I always wonder what that’s about. Is it maintaining deniability or something? Like they can always claim “I never said I didn’t want to do that, you just assumed that’s what I meant.”

But I’ve also noticed people don’t want to be asked to explain the intent behind a word they use. If your meaning can be misconstrued because of ambiguous word choices, then I believe the onus is on you to clarify your intention. This is a sticking point with most.

And perhaps it would be easier for my wife to just get her own yogurt. But luckily for me, easy isn’t likely to be her preference. I do back off quicker than I used to though. If somebody says “stop being so literal”, I do. In the past I would spend a good deal of time pointing out how the problem wasn’t about being too literal but about ambiguous word choice. Now I figure that response must mean they don’t care whether I am clear on what they are saying and my quest for clarity is just going to piss them off. So I let it go with a “I’m not too literal” mumbled under my breath.

And it's so nice to see someone saying they are a fan of literal thinking. Makes me think it's possible it might not be such a bad thing after all.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Miss Tick

Me: “You want some yogurt for breakfast.”

A: “Sure bring me a small bowl.”

Me: “You mean those tiny ramekins.”

A: “No, in a regular cereal bowl.”

Me: “Well, they only come in one size.”

A: (with a sigh, cause life with me is quite exhausting between my need for clarity and my literal interpretation of things.) “Just put a small amount of yogurt IN the bowl.”

Me: {with wonder as light dawns on Marblehead) “Oh I get it, you used ‘a small bowl’ to refer to the quantity in the bowl. Like a small portion or a small piece.”

A: Yes dear, that’s right. That’s EXACTLY right.”

I don’t know I guess maybe I should reconsider my position on whether I am literal or not.

Actually, from what was said, I would have thought she was talking about the size of the bowl itself too. If I am talking about the amount of food to go in the bowl, I would say something along the lines of "cupful" or "half full" or "a few spoonfuls".

[Cin]

Originally Posted by Gemme

Actually, from what was said, I would have thought she was talking about the size of the bowl itself too. If I am talking about the amount of food to go in the bowl, I would say something along the lines of "cupful" or "half full" or "a few spoonfuls".

Well that was my original thought. So are we too literal or are others too vague? There certainly seems to be no shortage of those willing to play fast and loose with the meaning of words. I never should have turned in my Clarity Police badge

[tantalizingfemme]

[QUOTE=DapperButch;438523]I am pretty darn literal. It can be frustrating to others. Not as bad as the above example, but....I guess for me I have always seen it as being very specific. Hmmm...I will need to ask tantalizingfemme what she thinks about this one.[QUOTE]

Are you literal? Yes....literally.

[Ginger]

Originally Posted by Chancie

'This is my truth' is not an expression I would use, because the word 'truth' means something different to me.

But, I think that when people say, This is my truth, they are claiming their right to express their feelings, even in the face an audience that is disinterested in their deep feelings and concerns.

I agree with the general spirit of what you're saying, but instead of "This is my truth," I would say, "This is my experience."

I find it useful to at least be clear with myself on what I've experienced, and not let anyone try to force me to experience something I just don't experience.

I'm sorry, I'm probably being confusing.

I mean, two people can be in the same place at the same time, they can be the only two people in the room and the only two people interacting, but have a different experience or interpretation or memory of what that interaction was all about.

This is a challenge in relationships, but I've found that if I just stick to being honest about what MY experience is, I at least feel grounded in that. It's a place to start.

And just as you notice that people "claim their right to express their feelings," I notice that I claim my right to express what my experience was, which often involves feelings, as in, That felt reassuring, or That felt like an attack.

The other person might not have intended to be reassuring, or attacking—but that doesn't mean it didn't feel that way.

Ah, intention. That's the root of expression, I guess. Or the root of understanding.

Jeez I can't believe I said that, "the root of understanding," LOL. But I meant it.

[Medusa]

I liked what you said, IslandScout!

I also agree with you that intention is the root of expression.

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Medusa

I liked what you said, IslandScout!

I also agree with you that intention is the root of expression.

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?

I might have to rethink this some but to me, duplicity is a deliberate attempt to be deceitful.

People, including ourselves, can say many things that may make others feel badly. We might say it nicely and sweetly and only nick their ego a bit. Or we might say it with brutal honesty which may feel more like being hit with a 2x4.

Communication is a 2 way street. It is not only what and how something was said, it is also how it was received. And there can be complicated aspects playing into both things.

For example, if I am feeling rushed for time or have a lot on my mind, I tend to be more direct. If I am in a relaxed mood, I can be more gentle and cautious with the words I use. If I dont recognize someones mood i.e. if they are feeling insecure or something, a direct answer is likely to lead to a bad place. If they are just unsure, a direct answer might be reassuring. Tricky stuff.

Using your skirt example, it would feel like duplicity to me if I didnt think the skirt was flattering to you and felt forced to say wow that is lovely. That, to me, would be deceitful.

That make sense?

Like Tick, I am quite used to being told I am too literal. Seems to happen when people use words or phrases in ways that are unfamiliar to me. Thus, I am confused as to what they really mean.

[Vivacious1]

I have never used it, but, to me it would mean, what holds true for me. My beliefs, the way that I live and the things I live for.

[girl_dee]

Originally Posted by Medusa

I think that when we post here or interact with another person that we generally know our own intention. Maybe we intend to just relay an experience or maybe it's about finding common ground. I'd like to think we try to get our intention across by being really thoughtful about the words we use and how we frame our position.

There are, of course, people who say or do things who are not in touch with their intentions. They might say "I didn't intend for that to feel ugly to you" and truly mean that but it might be a scenario when they said something like "That skirt you're wearing is the ugliest thing I have ever seen".
While they didn't intend for that to feel ugly (maybe they thought they were being helpful), I might wonder if they are really out of touch with how their words affect other people. Something about insensitivity maybe?

And perhaps this might fit in the "Duplicity" thread. If a person says or does something that feels really ugly, and perhaps it's something really overtly ugly, but the person is so out of touch with how what they do affects others, is it duplicity? Or are they just an insensitive, self-centered asshole?

This is truly food for thought. Are we out of touch with how what we do affects others??? ....

We live in a world where we are writing words 99% more than speaking them.(Texting primarily ) If we do speak them, it's not in person, its via a phone call. We cannot see how the person is taking what we are saying. DO we even care anymore?

The written word carries some vibration but there is no tone to match. Maybe our intent is not to hurt them, but does one care how the other person receives it? i would hope so, but i fear we are becoming completely insensitive. Do we forget there is someone else on the other end of the screen?

Sometimes our words carry a huge weight with them, a vibration, and it can really sting to the receiver, no matter what the intention. Is it just their problem? Do we get to hit send and be done? It feels so callous.

Maybe someone is having a bad day, but is the receiver aware? How could they be? If i have normal interactions with someone, then i become short with them because of something going on in my life, i at least let them know that i am dealing with something, so they aren't left to feel they have done something to offend me. i hope i do anyway, maybe i don't.

i am learning to get a thicker skin and try not to take things personally, but its tough. i wish i didn't have to do this. Maybe i am always thinking its about me, maybe i am too sensitive. Whatever the case, it's just hard.

Is it too much to ask that people put some thought into it before they hit send?

i am not a fan of digital communication in today's world.

That's my truth

[Femmewench]

Originally Posted by girl_dee

This is truly food for thought. Are we out of touch with how what we do affects others??? ....

We live in a world where we are writing words 99% more than speaking them.(Texting primarily ) If we do speak them, it's not in person, its via a phone call. We cannot see how the person is taking what we are saying. DO we even care anymore?

The written word carries some vibration but there is no tone to match. Maybe our intent is not to hurt them, but does one care how the other person receives it? i would hope so, but i fear we are becoming completely insensitive. Do we forget there is someone else on the other end of the screen?

Sometimes our words carry a huge weight with them, a vibration, and it can really sting to the receiver, no matter what the intention. Is it just their problem? Do we get to hit send and be done? It feels so callous.

Maybe someone is having a bad day, but is the receiver aware? How could they be? If i have normal interactions with someone, then i become short with them because of something going on in my life, i at least let them know that i am dealing with something, so they aren't left to feel they have done something to offend me. i hope i do anyway, maybe i don't.

i am learning to get a thicker skin and try not to take things personally, but its tough. i wish i didn't have to do this. Maybe i am always thinking its about me, maybe i am too sensitive. Whatever the case, it's just hard.

Is it too much to ask that people put some thought into it before they hit send?

i am not a fan of digital communication in today's world.

That's my truth

On the whole my truth thing - isn't there your side, my side and the truth? I don't use the phrase mainly because it holds no meaning for me. "I believe" suffices. I wonder if it's simply a variation on "xyz holds true for me?" I don't attach a deeper meaning to it than if someone used "I believe." And when all else fails, I go to the dictionary which to me indicates it's unnecessary as "believe" is defined as: "accept as true...feel sure of the truth of'"

Communication - that should be its own thread. It's hard enough sometimes to explain face to face where you have all the cues you can receive and not have some miscommunication going on. I can read a T/F question five times and come up with six answers. I'm also a literal person; I don't get poetry for that very reason. If you want me to understand something, use clear language.

What I think is clear language and what you think is clear language may very. And thus miscommunication.

[JDeere]

My truth.....

I truly want to stay out of touch with the world and stay in my own bubble, however I do not have that luxury, at all!