Patience

[Ifat Glassman]

I would like to find a way to practice myself to have more patience.

I find myself getting angry when someone has a discussion with me and it seems like they are not taking the time to understand my questions, or that they give answer to other questions that I did not ask at all, or that it seems to me that they simply fail at understanding certain ideas, that I consider to be well presented.

I came across an example of one of those things that would drive me crazy on a forum about humour (needless to say I did not find it funny at all): It presented a letter to the Hebrew Academy asking a single, simple question: Is it mistaken to write male-verbs with an "h" in the end? (ignore the details of the "h").

The Academy wrote back to him, saying that at our days, nobody uses "h" for male-verbs, and that only in the bible is it used, so one should not choose to use it.

The man wrote them again, stating that his question was not answered (I sure hope anybody who reads this realizes that his question was not answered). They wrote back, saying "yes it was". He wrote again, to a manager this time. The manager wrote him back and said "you have been answered".

Now I don't know who on earth would find this thing funny. I think I would knock those people unconscious if I even faced them. These sort of things make me furious. I despise people who treat ideas as inaccurate coincidental accumulation of words. My first reaction would normally be "how can anyone be so unbelievably stupid?", but the truth is much worse: they are not stupid, they just don't treat ideas with respect.

A few days ago I corresponded with a Professor that is teaching a course I took. I asked him several questions, but his response was basically: "I don't understand what you are asking, X is the final answer, as written in the lecture slides".

I can't get it: Does he hate ideas? Or is there an option that he tried to understand but sincerely failed, for some justified reason that I can respect?

And how can I improve my patience, and reduce the irritation involved in such situations?

[DavidOdden]

And how can I improve my patience, and reduce the irritation involved in such situations?

I've actually got the answer, and I'll post it one of these days.

[DavidOdden]

Okay, thank you for your patience.

Anyhow, I would start by focusing on the part where you say “that I consider to be well presented”. I’d probably need to read the Academy exchange, but from the part that you presented here, it seems to me that the question was answered. A more elaborate answer might be (and here I’m just making stuff up because I don’t know the retails) “We know that there is a tradition of teachers telling you to write ‘h’ for male-verbs, but there is no justification for doing this in the modern language, and the fact that it was this way millenia ago is not a reason to do so now. You should write in a manner that reflects modern usage, not ancient precedent. The reason why you should write in a manner that reflects modern usage derives from the function of writing, which is to reflect in concrete symbolic form what sentences you want to say, in a way that otherw will understand you. Thus you also should not write Hebrew in Korean letters or in Cyrillic”. (The guy could have gone on a lot longer...).

So the error stems from the fact that the guy asking the question did not understand that in fact the question had been answered. And furthermore, he compounded his error (indeed, acted wrongly) by asserting that his question had not been answered, without a shred of proof that his question had not been answered. Whereas, in the first reply from the Academy, they used reason as their means of creating knowledge (in this guy), but he*abandoned reason and replaced it with emotion, by simple gainsaying.

Personally, I can’t understand how the guy could fail to understand that his question had been answered, but let me continue making stuff up. Implicitly, I guess he is thinking that the purpose of writing is to preserve the biblical language, in which case he should be puzzled by the response “only in the bible is it used”, and his duty is to say “But the purpose of writing is to preserve the language of the bible, so dismissing the fact that this is so written only in the bible denies the very reason that god gave us letters!”. At this point, the Academy official would presumably go into the longer explanation about the function of writing.

So the man’s failure was to logically integrate all of his knowledge, to understand the apparent contradiction, and to check his assumptions. He failed to understand the purpose of writing, and worse, failed to even overtly assert his mistaken belief in light of clear evidence that his belief about the purpose of writing was denied by others. Thus he failed in basic civility, namely giving the opinion of those from whom he sought advice a modicum of respect and thoughtful consideration.

Of course that doesn’t help you, but it might help that guy. His problem was that his explanation was lousy, and that he failed to take seriously the idea that he was dealing with his superiors. It would be kind of like telling Leonard Peikoff that he had no clue about what Objectivism is or telling Albert Einstein that he didn't know the first thing about science. If you really feel that way about Peikoff or Einstein then you should have nothing to do with them -- if that guy holds the opinion of the Academy in such contempt, he should not be bugging them with questions. But that doesn't help you.

I don't suppose you can post your proof that X is false, without getting in hot water. But maybe you can look over your proof carefully and try to do a point-by-point evaluation of the steps in your argument. Maybe you just misplaced a decimal point when you did the calculation.

[Ifat Glassman]

I’d probably need to read the Academy exchange, but from the part that you presented here, it seems to me that the question was answered. A more elaborate answer might be (and here I’m just making stuff up because I don’t know the retails) “We know that there is a tradition of teachers telling you to write ‘h’ for male-verbs, but there is no justification for doing this in the modern language, and the fact that it was this way millenia ago is not a reason to do so now. You should write in a manner that reflects modern usage, not ancient precedent. The reason why you should write in a manner that reflects modern usage derives from the function of writing, which is to reflect in concrete symbolic form what sentences you want to say, in a way that otherw will understand you. Thus you also should not write Hebrew in Korean letters or in Cyrillic”. (The guy could have gone on a lot longer...).

Do you think this guy is that stupid that he does not see that "h" for male is not used nowadays? All they did was to state the obvious, and then proceed to tell him that he should do what the majority does.

But one thing that they didn't do was to answer the question.

The purpose of the academy is to set the rules of grammar and spelling. Either there is a rule about "h", and then using it can be right or wrong, or there isn't. By a rule I mean a written, formal rule of the academy, and not what most people use. Most people use some verbs in a way that is wrong (according to the academy rules). Clearly there is a seperation between what is commonly used, and what is right or wrong according to the formal rules. So stating the obvious ("most people use this nowadays") is not an answer, but underestimating the man's intelligence.

He failed to understand the purpose of writing, and worse, failed to even overtly assert his mistaken belief in light of clear evidence that his belief about the purpose of writing was denied by others.

You presume to know this man's psychology, reason for asking the question, ideas about language... None of those things is evident from his insistance to have his question answered.

They were not having a discussion about the purpose of writing. He wanted to know if, according to the official rules of the academy, using "h" is wrong. A proper answer would have been "we do not have a rule about the use of 'h' for male verbs as of today, so it is neither wrong nor right to use it".

he failed to take seriously the idea that he was dealing with his superiors.

Perhaps they have more knowledge in the subject, but it doesn't automatically mean they know how to think well. I am completely against the approach that "in the presence of your superiors, only ask questions while assuming they would always be right". I detest that approach. No new knowledge will ever grow from this approach. The only thing that will be satisfied by it is the vanity of those "superiors". No thanks, I rather stay loyal to my mind, than to kneel before any "superiors", asking for forgiveness if I dare challenge their views.

That said, I treat people who are experts in their field with a lot of respect (since they are worthy of it), and double check my reasoning and facts before suggesting a contradiction.

I don't suppose you can post your proof that X is false, without getting in hot water. But maybe you can look over your proof carefully and try to do a point-by-point evaluation of the steps in your argument. Maybe you just misplaced a decimal point when you did the calculation.

Now you're just trying to get on my nerves by saying that it was probably me who was wrong. This is a joke, I'm not even going to bother responding beyond saying that I'm not going to respond.

Thanks for providing me with the opportunity of practicing patience and reading your post to the last detail (oh yeah, and the joke was nice, too: the first one, that is).

[DavidOdden]

I rather stay loyal to my mind, than to kneel before any "superiors", asking for forgiveness if I dare challenge their views.

You see, this is probably the root of your problem (you and the other guy): you made the mistake of thinking that you wanted an answer from someone. If you just want to hear a "yes" from a yes-man, then just hire yourself a yes-man.

[JMeganSnow]

You can train yourself to have patience the same way you train yourself to do anything else: repetition. The first step is reminding yourself that it doesn't matter that you feel angry or frustrated, what matters is what you do about it. Are you going to spend your life ruled by the feeling that something is taking too long or not living up to your standards? It's identical to being ruled by any other emotion.

When I'm feeling impatient, I usually try such tricks as:

1. Reminding myself of the full context. Sure, it might feel good to make a snarky comment at that idiot ahead of you in line at the grocery store (you know, the one that can't make out a check), but is this actually going to accomplish anything? No.

2. Occupy myself until the anger dissipates. Usually, I don't stay at a full boil very long, so if I intentionally focus on something else I will be better occupied to resolve the problem. Or, if it's just a matter of waiting an extra five minutes, the problem will take care of itself. This is why I can often be seen carrying a book or magazine around in public. I don't notice I'm waiting if I have something to read or write.

3. Give myself a pat on the back when I've succeeded in being patient. Other people won't stroke your ego for you, so you have to do it yourself.

The example you provided and David remarked upon can easily be solved with a final method:

4. Always explain why you think there is a problem instead of simply stating that there is one and leaving it up to the other person to figure out what it is. If the difficulty is on your end (which does happen) this is the ONLY way to resolve it.

[KendallJ]

I think a large part of patience comes from understanding cause and effect clearly in context. Impatience with something that cannot go faster, given the exact context, is incorrect. If you understand cause and effect and still are impatient, then it is a form of whim. Alternately, you maybe misreading the context and expecting things that cannot be.

I find once clarity about what essentials come to bear on a situation, one's expectations about the actual outcomes are much more in line and impatience as such is much less prevalent.

My wife has no patience for idiots, and irrationality. She has this sense of justice that evaluates a superior for instance, and says he shouldn't be my superior. She means right now. I don't let this bother me. It may be years before someones bad ideas catch up with them, but they will catch up with them. I've seen it happen, and it works. So I am happy to wait. She is not.

Communication with different people is such a variable thing, and usually getting points across even in the best of situations requires repitition. With someone who is irrational, it is impossible. The key is what clues do you quickly take from a person's behavior to understand what premises a person holds that are important and what to expect in communicating with a specific person.

[Ifat Glassman]

You see, this is probably the root of your problem (you and the other guy): you made the mistake of thinking that you wanted an answer from someone. If you just want to hear a "yes" from a yes-man, then just hire yourself a yes-man.

Two things: First, when looking at that sentence of mine again, I realize it is quite silly: For me, it is not a question of preferring one option over the other: It is an absolute: I do not "kneel" in the context of my independent judgement.

Second thing: What exactly do you mean by "kneeling before authority"? It couldn't possibly mean what I think it means.

Jennifer: The problem is not with what I do, it is in how I feel. The way it goes for me is: the first time something bad happens of type X, I get furious. The second time it happens, I laugh about it (dark kind of laughter, but it's better than just being angry) and I am able to deal with it in a very calm, cold manner, almost like a chess player (if I knew how to play chess).

Example: Last semester I took a lab in physical chemistry. Hated my tutor, and I have the feeling she didn't exactly cherished me as well. She was the type of "just do as I say and bow to my wisdom". Now, I love physical chemistry and I was planing on enjoying this lab, so I put extra time and effort into it. One experiment I conducted the experiment slightly different than how she instructed me to. The results turned out more accurate than if I used her method, but she gave me a lousy grade, even though I invested more than required in the report. I got very angry because of it, argued with her etc'. Those things repeated themselves throughout the semester. In the end she gave me a lousy final grade. My reaction was to immediately start doing whatever necessary to appeal. After I finished doing what was required I didn't think about this again. I consider this a successful case of dealing with anger. What I would like to do is be able to have this reaction not on the third time, but on the very first.

There are several types of cases that require different kind of patience:

1. Something that becomes less annoying as time progresses (you can get used to it, and the damage doesn't accumulate). Example: My lab experience.
   
2. Something that becomes more annoying as time progresses. Like investing time in something and having that time go to waist the more you invest. Example: a discussion with someone who does not listen to you, and trying to have that discussion for days.
   
3. The necessity to wait. This does not involve anger, but a certain feeling of inconvenience.
   

(If I'll come up with more types I'll post)

Your advises #1 and #2 deal with my problem #3: They offer ways to deal with an immediate source of annoyance, but do not offer a solution to problems that last long periods of time.

I find your advice #2 to be especially good.

Your advice #3: Already applying: I give myself pets on the back all the time.

Advice #4 is great, and deals directly with problem #2.

[DavidOdden]

Two things: First, when looking at that sentence of mine again, I realize it is quite silly: For me, it is not a question of preferring one option over the other: It is an absolute: I do not "kneel" in the context of my independent judgement.

Second thing: What exactly do you mean by "kneeling before authority"? It couldn't possibly mean what I think it means.

As far as the second thing goes, I am not sure how it would be relevant what I might mean were I to use that expression. The literal meaning is sufficiently far enough removed from what anybody would ever do that it's can't be taken literally. I imagine there may be potentates whom one is expected to kneel before, perhaps the King of Swaziland, but none of us hang out in the presence of royalty, no actually kneeling needs to be done, and it would not make any sense for you to say that you refuse to kneel, since I seriously doubt that anybody demands that you kneel before them (I assume that there's no issue about what "kneel" literally means, as in "genuflect").

The point I want to emphasize is that you demonstrated an unwillingness to even consider the possibility that you are in error. If I were in the professor's position and had to deal with a student who insisted that I was wrong and who refused to consider that it was they who were wrong, then I would probably calmly ask them why they were wasting my time and theirs with these questions when they were unwilling to listen to reason, and to learn new facts and methods. It's very unfortunate, but there are people who are simply unwilling to use reason, and more than once I've had to simply lay down the law and say "This is the answer, and it will be on the final", after frittering away hours trying to get them to use their minds. Of course without seeing the specifics of your interaction with the professor, it's impossible to concretely point to something and say "Here is your error". And I also allow the possibility that the professor made a sort of error, in not being able to see what your problem is. That's implicit in the notion of teaching -- having and using skill in identifying mistakes that students make, and being able to address them. I usually have an average of a half-dozen epiphanies per class about new ways that students screw up, and how to nip it in the bud. He/she has a professional responsibility to try to figure out where you've gone wrong.

[Felix]

I came across an example of one of those things that would drive me crazy on a forum about humour (needless to say I did not find it funny at all): It presented a letter to the Hebrew Academy asking a single, simple question: Is it mistaken to write male-verbs with an "h" in the end? (ignore the details of the "h").

The Academy wrote back to him, saying that at our days, nobody uses "h" for male-verbs, and that only in the bible is it used, so one should not choose to use it.

The man wrote them again, stating that his question was not answered (I sure hope anybody who reads this realizes that his question was not answered). They wrote back, saying "yes it was". He wrote again, to a manager this time. The manager wrote him back and said "you have been answered".

Now I don't know who on earth would find this thing funny.

I do.

The reason is that I tend to see other people's stupidity as a source of great entertainment. And this is a wonderful example.

I don't see any value in getting furious and everything about such stuff. I mean, all I would achieve would be that I'd ruin my day with that and to me this just doesn't sound very reasonable.

The cool thing about free will and the ability to control your thoughts is that your mood doesn't have to be determined by your environment. I mean, when presented with such an occurence of stupidity, I have a simple choice: Either I get all furious and repeat thoughts like "These fucking idiots! How on earth can anyone be that stupid!" and ruin my day or I look at it from another point of view and just laugh at these guys utter stupidity and have a lot of fun for a while.

And regarding the problem of not getting your questions answered, the reason for your anger is not others' stupidity but your demand that they should understand what you are saying and should help you in understanding. Well, some people just don't. There's no reason at all to make your emotional state dependent on what other people should or shouldn't do.

What makes you angry is not their stupidity, but your belief that nobody should be that stupid and that it's horrible if such people exist, namely the irrational notion that such people shouldn't exist (even though they obviously do):

I think I would knock those people unconscious if I even faced them. These sort of things make me furious. I despise people who treat ideas as inaccurate coincidental accumulation of words. My first reaction would normally be "how can anyone be so unbelievably stupid?", but the truth is much worse: they are not stupid, they just don't treat ideas with respect.

I instead have the belief that some people are just stupid and that they can be a wonderful source of entertainment when you can watch how they make complete asses out of themselves.

Basically it means accepting that there are things in the world that are not like I think they should be and just living with that and getting on with your life (which generally deals with making the world a bit better). Still there's no need to ruin your day with irrational demands about how the world should be when it apparently isn't.

You can and should try to limit the amount of stupidity in the world, but getting furious about it won't really help you much in this pursuit nor will it add to your general well-being.

You have to accept what is or you'll just make yourself miserable. It's not only about accepting that some things can't be changed but that for the things that can be changed, change takes time. It's not that your wish for them to be changed makes the change happen nor does your anger make it happen any faster. It's pointless.

Drop the idea that the world should be different than it is and that it should change right now (how?) and work on changing it to be better in the future (and recognize that any other wish would be irrational) and your impatience and anger will disappear.

On top of that some people will choose to remain stupid for their entire life for beliefs they themselves find very very convincing and you cannot possibly change that, because if there's one thing that's beyond your influence, it's another person's mind.

[Ifat Glassman]

To attack this issue more seriously, I'm going to go deeper into the source of emotions, and at what point exactly do we have control over them, and should have control over them.

Emotions are the result of a person's subconscious value-judgement of reality, according to their standard of values, their premises, and the knowledge of reality which they have.

Emotions are experienced more strongly when that knowledge which triggers them is under one's mental focus at a specific moment in time.

A person can choose their mental focus, and therefor they have the ability to lower the intensity of an emotion.

The question what should be under one's mental focus is: That which contributes to one's life and happiness.

If some event triggers a negative emotion, and a person has a choice about having focus on the event or not,

it is good to have it under one's focus as long as doing so helps solve the problem.

As for positive emotions: it is good to focus on the facts that trigger them as long as doing so does not collides with a higher value.

There are 4 factors involved in triggering emotions:

1) One's knowledge of reality

2) One's premises which he uses to deduct more facts from given knowledge

3) One's values

4) The automatic mechanism in our brain that attaches certain emotions to certain basic ideas (pain with loss, happiness with achieving one's values).

Man has control over 1,2 and 3:

1) Man determines his method of gaining knowledge from reality, and by that has control over the accuracy of one's knowledge.

2) Man determines his method of validating his knowledge (if at all) and by that has control over his premises.

3) Man has control over those things through shaping one's philosophy.

Man does not have control over his emotions in the time course of an immediate moment: As long as one has certain facts (or knowledge) under one's mental focus, and as long as one has a certain value-judgement, one's emotions are produced automatically. It is only in the long term that one can decide what to do next and by that controlling their emotion. (long term can be a second after one has first had their mental focus on that thing which triggered some emotion).

Man can have control over their emotions in the long-term by deciding to ignore reality (or correct their knowledge), pretend reality is something other than what it is, by choosing premises which would cancel out the emotion (but which are not necessarily validated), and by changing their hierarchy of values.

Needless to say, morality determines that 1, 2 and 3 have to be done by reason, mental integration of one's knowledge, and by observing reality.

If one experiences a negative emotion that has a justified cause, one should not simply repress that negative emotion: Such an action ruins the mind. Repression is the act of shifting one's mental focus into something not disturbing, even when there is a necessity to focus on that thing, sometimes accomplished by lying to oneself about the existence of that event, which is denial.

The only proper way to control emotions by shifting one's focus is if there is no more value to be gained by having the details of the event under one's focus, and if one indeed has full understanding of the event.

Okay, I think this is enough for now. Will post when have more.

Felix and Kendall: I'll reply to your posts more directly after this last post of mine sink in a little.

[JMeganSnow]

Something that becomes more annoying as time progresses. Like investing time in something and having that time go to waist the more you invest.

Like cupcakes? They sure go to my waist the more I eat them . . .

Sorry, that was a bad joke, I couldn't resist. Anyway, if something becomes progressively more annoying as time progresses, this is a sign that you should probably stop being patient with it. Of course, it depends on the context, but patience should be a short-term solution for when you're feeling an excessive emotional reaction, not a long-term thing. If you spend your life always being patient with everything, you'll wake up some day, realize that you're 50 years old and wind up where your life went. That's no way to live.

A concrete example: say you're dating some guy and he does something you hate like ridicule your taste in clothes in public. It makes sense to be patient with it the first time it happens because he might have thought that you would think it was funny. If you eventually come around to see that, yes, it is funny and it doesn't bother you any more, all well and good. However, if it keeps annoying you, it's time to take steps either by telling him that it bothers you and he has to stop or just dumping him.

Patience is not an unequivocal virtue.

[Inspector]

Patience is not an unequivocal virtue.

I've always made the point like this: I practice patience, not tolerance. Patience is the art of waiting to act because one knows that one will gain by doing so. Tolerance is simply putting up with something that one dislikes.

I have enough of the former to stand implacably in the face of hurricanes, metaphorically speaking (so long as I am conscious of the gain I stand to make). But I won't give a single ounce of the latter. If there isn't something in it for me to refrain from action, I will act. I don't suffer fools or their foolishness.

[softwareNerd]

In the context of the question-answer example, patience is also the art of reminding yourself that the other person probably has a different context, as impossible as that may seem to you. Impatience of this type comes from find oneself "not getting through". It is made worse if one thinks that the other person is evading rather than actually not seeing. Sometimes, they are.

As David implicitly recommended, if one really wishes to be patient, one can ask why the person does not understand: what is it that they many be assuming? what is it that they may not be understanding? Could they be right in some sense, or given some assumption?

[Ifat Glassman]

To continue my last post:

Man has the ability to determine the content of their subconscious by thinking consciously, or subconsciously.

Man should change the content of their subconscious only through thinking consciously:

The act of correcting one's knowledge, one's premises, and one's philosophy should be done consciously (for it to be good, to serve as a tool to achieve success and survival), because using reason is a conscious process, and correcting one's knowledge of reality by observation and comparison to one's existing knowledge can only be done consciously. The subconscious can only process knowledge based on existing premises and existing knowledge. Revising one's ideas and gaining new knowledge can only be done consciously.

Emotions also have the power to influence one's method of deduction: like a filter that chooses certain interpretations over others.

Depression, for example, may cause someone to choose an explanation that would inflict further pain rather than a more optimistic explanation, when there is no clear evidence to support either explanation.

For this reason (on top of others) man should attempt to gain knowledge of reality consciously, and to make his decisions consciously.

To repeat: Man should lead their life and make decisions consciously.

For the decision making to be as good as possible, it might be required to set aside an emotion by shifting one's mental focus from the event/knowledge that triggers it, into the full context of the event.

In other words, instead of focusing on the ugly side of things, one should focus on the practical side of things, as long as it is possible, and only after the ugly side of things requires no further examination.

It might not be possible (to shift focus from ugly to practical) if the ugly side of things is all one has to deal with. For example: if your goal is to judge someone's character, and one's character is butt ugly, then achieving this goal* will necessarily involve negative emotions. There should not be an attempt to stop these emotions, because they are natural reactions of a healthy mind.

*Assuming this goal is worth pursuing.

Proper negative emotions may result from having knowledge of something evil, from violation of rights (especially when the right violated are your own), from a loss of value, knowledge of injustice (especially in one's personal life), etc'.

Patience is the trait of character that allows one to persist at some activity even in the face of difficulties and dis-values (dis-value I take to mean a negative value, something that damages one's quality of life).

Patience is what is practiced when one endures something unpleasant to achieve some goal. Self control is required to practice patience.

Patience should only be practiced when the final goal is worthy. In other words: Patience, not tolerance!

I think this nice 3-worded-sentence sums up nicely what Jennifer and Inspector are saying.

sNerd: your advices are great, but what happens when someone is truly irrational? Say, your Boss. The final goal of having your job, which you love, is worthy, but the annoying Boss? You have to deal with his stupidity on a daily basis. So this requires a different kind of patience than when you're dealing with someone rational.

[softwareNerd]

sNerd: your advices are great, but what happens when someone is truly irrational? Say, your Boss. The final goal of having your job, which you love, is worthy, but the annoying Boss? You have to deal with his stupidity on a daily basis. So this requires a different kind of patience than when you're dealing with someone rational.

Yes, and I suppose the difference is that there's no change in sight, when it comes to the boss. In the case of the rational person who simply isn't understanding something you say, there's hope that persistence will pay off. In the case of the typical bad boss -- that's far less likely. So, I agree, one faces the boss with the patience that is similar to what one would use while facing something annoying but metaphysically unchangeable. The following is speculative, but perhaps there are two basic types of patience required:

• A "persistence-type" of patience when dealing with something one can change
  
• An "acceptance-type" of patience when dealing with something one cannot or does not intend to change
  

"Acceptance" here does not mean philosophical acceptance, but rather a psychological attitude that allows you to ignore one aspect of reality (or focus less on it), much as one might ignore (say) an irritating squeak in a car that one is going to dispose off in a few weeks.... or if one knows that one cannot afford to change cars for the next few years.

Also, the above is definitely not a recommendation for "acceptance" in all or most situations. One does not accept the boss's irrationality without considering the whole context. In many cases, there could be some pretty decent options. So, the practical advice would simply be: consider the entirety of the situation -- all the positives and negatives to your life, consider the possible alternatives without falsely assuming that they're perfect, consider whether there might be ways to change your current situation rather than accept it, ..etc. Then, if one has decided that, having considered the full context, the best policy is patience, then... be patient.

[mweiss]

I would like to find a way to practice myself to have more patience.

.............

And how can I improve my patience, and reduce the irritation involved in such situations?

Try becoming a telemarketer for a few months. If that doesn't teach you patience AND persistance, nothing will.

[piz]

Try becoming a telemarketer for a few months.

Or a substitute teacher.

[mweiss]

Or a substitute teacher.

Indeed. Dealing with American kids and the obstinate, arrogant American public, which seems largely as intelligent as a doorstop, could test anyone's patience.

[Ifat Glassman]

Try becoming a telemarketer for a few months. If that doesn't teach you patience AND persistence, nothing will.

Brother, I'm eating your telemarketing job with no salt.

I have worked in a claims department of an Israeli insurance company for a year.

People have been threatening fo burn me, they have called my parents by names unfit to mention on the forum, they have cursed and yelled, daily, for a year. AND, they were Israelis. Trust me, it doesn't get any worse than that.

People tend to get really angry when their car is in the garage for days, when high sums of money are delayed, when their insurance company refuses to pay them, and I'm sure you can imagine more reasons (and if you can't I can tell you 'bout it).

But in most of those cases, I was not angry at all. In fact, I did a lot more than most people on the same job to help customers out (and even people who sued us). I realized that they are in a vulnerable state and that they depend on my professionalism. I understood that anger, fear, frustration, are natural emotions for someone whose life depend on that money.

And since I hate bureaucracy, I did everything in my power to reduce it for people. Didn't get a lot of thank-you letters though, don't know why.

Humour was also my friend on that job. Luckily some people make the most funny accidents, or at least they describe it funnily. One lady hit 2 busses on the same month. Some other guy had his car drive itself to an abyss, after attempting to change a tire using a jack on a sloppy road. Or consider the guy who is complaining about being unable to drive because we had no front shield (window) for his car: "Wind and rain are getting into my car as I drive" he cries. Now I ask you, how can you be human and not find that image funny, ha? So my job had some up-sides to it.

But there were times when I lost my patience: one time, this annoying insurance agent (which was not our customer) insisted to talk to the CEO of the company. How this stupid lady concluded that she is entitled to that I have no idea, but she was certain that we owe that to her. So eventually after a long conversation I lost it and told her I am passing her directly to the CEO. Her stupidity actually waited on the line, and after 30 seconds was surprised to hear a female CEO on the line (me), telling her "Did you really think anyone would let you talk to the CEO just like that?".

Fortunately for me, no one found out about this conversation, so I didn't get fired .

But other than that incident, there were no instances when I "lost it". I actually found those "I'm coming there to burn you" things to be amusing (and if I didn't I just hung up on them - I was allowed to do that).

I was also not annoyed by someone having a hard time understanding anything: I knew it was my job to explain, and I did it well, not just to finish my work day no-matter-how.

Huh. I think my patience on that job was because of two things: 1) I enjoyed doing my job well, I enjoyed the challenge in it. 2) General respect for people's lives, which was expressed in my devotion to help them solve their problems.

I know it may seem like the atmosphere is one that is suppose to expose any weakness of character I might have, but it doesn't. Other things get to me much more. Injustice gets to me. Bad behavior of people I have high expectations from get to me. People who refuse to think get to me. People who love talking but do not consider ideas carefully enough get to me. (think, what else is there?): people who screw me over get to me.

Since I started this thread I thought some more about when it is appropriate to control my focus on things in order to reduce my annoyance at something. I didn't have a chance to try it yet though. I don't think I've gotten any better though.

P.S. Just thought it would be amusing to tell ya'll that I was fired from that job because I pulled on some guy's hair to make him stop corrupting a computer painting of mine, and refused to apologize for it.

Edited November 12, 2006 by ifatart

[mweiss]

I understand your situation, but it is quite different from mine. At least you are getting paid a salary to deal with nasty people, and the calls are coming INBOUND to you, from people who are expecting you to help them.

In my case, my income depends on successfully recruiting people through cold-calling (since I don't have any friends or relatives in a "warm market" that I can tap like most people in the company that I work for do) and I am constantly dealing with the feelings that I'm bothering people, being a pest, disappointing them when instead of me calling to give them business in their trade I'm calling to recruit them into mine, etc. It's quite stressful and I call about 70-90 people a week and so far, since October, have had a 100% failure rate. I realize that I will have to call many thousands before I find that first person who wants the potential to earn more than he currently does, and isn't put off by learning how to do financial services. I've been with the company since June and I haven't made a penny yet. But I see people that earned practically nothing for the first three years and today they are millionaires. That's what I mean by patience. Patience is holding off the sheriff who wants to seize your paid-for home for back taxes, while you struggle to get your business started.

[Ifat Glassman]

Regarding the relationships...Something I have come to realize is that when I am attempting to explain something to someone, and they do not understand, most often it is because I have done a poor job of explaining rather then them being evasive and dishonest or just plain dumb. Especially with regard to other Objectivists or people who are generally reason based in their approach to life.

The thing which I have the most difficulty with in that regard is that I might explain something in a way which makes perfect sense to me while they are still resistent to it. Something which I am absolutely certain of, even. I used to believe that this was a result of evasion or dishonesty on their part, which was a mistake. What typically causes these impasses, is that I am unable to put it in a context that they understand. Because many things, especially those things gathered inductively and connected to a large number of interconnected existants are difficult if not impossible to see without the predicating knowledge. The fix, which isn't as easy as it might sound, is to try and understand what foundational pices they might be missing in order to come to the belief they do hold.

...

Ostensibly if you love the person, you are already certain of their intellectual honesty. So when they argue something which is blatantly wrong, I assume that it is an error of knowledge rather then an error of morality and that the fault of the disagreement is primarily mine for not being able to explain in a way that makes it understandabe to them.

Thanks aequalsa. Your post is useful to me. Just wanted to put it in another place where it belongs. (BTW, I took out the "99% accepting" part which I don't understand and which (I think) is irrelevant here).

Not sure about the "usually my fault for not presenting it well enough" (there are other factors that are not necessarily related to you, nor indicate irrationality of the other person, such as a different set of definitions), but it's your premises that I like (meaning I think they are correct): that if you know that someone is intellectually honest, and rational, yet it seems like they believe in something wrong, then the error is probably one of knowledge, and the solution would be found in (friendlily) inquiring into their reasoning, based on past knowledge of them. Of course this very much depends on how much information you already have about that person.