#infusionbreakdownshow

Episode 5: Is Love More About Fate Or Is It More Of A Choice ? (http://bit.ly/IsLoveAChoice)

I don’t think its a good idea for any of us to use our race, or ethnicity by extension, as our primary means of self identification. Race is mostly defined by physical attributes and ethnicity encapsulates shared cultural traditions (language, religion, customs, etc.); and as it relates to the total composition of a human being, this does not take into account the large degree of variation among those groups.

Jubilee, a well know YouTube channel has a video serious called “Do All ‘x’ Think the Same” (substitute x with a group of your choosing). They’ve done videos on Christians, Women, Suicide Survivors, Teen Dads, and probably any demographic you can name. Whenever I see a new upload from them for example, “Do All Women Think the Same”, the immediate reaction is no. We all obviously know that is not the case. The titular question is only a question as far as titling goes and sets the stage for the coming discussion. Its ridiculous to assume any one group is totally homogeneous when it comes to their beliefs; even though our goals may be extremely similar, but the are separated by minutiae.

Take the contrasting ideologies of Dr. Martin Luther King and Malcolm X for example- King believed in passive resistance & non-violence, while Malcolm X stood on the principle “by any means necessary”. Though this is an extremely simplified version of both of their view, it illustrates the point. Both figures stood for the empowerment of black people in a time of turmoil that makes today’s racial tensions pale in comparison, however their means to achieving that goal differed drastically between them.

The portion of the video that drives this discussion was the second question, “Can you be pro-black & date outside of your race?” and begins at 39:39. I believe you can be pro-x and date outside of your race. The bare minimum for being pro-black is being proud of your racial identity & not acting to the detriment of that group. If you believe that dating in your race is part of that, that is perfectly fine, however forcing that extension of the definition on others is not. The notion that to be pro-black you must date inside of your race comes with the assumption that one’s race is at the forefront of their identity and where their absolute loyalty lies. For many, like myself this is not true. I pride myself in being a complex individual and to narrow myself down to one dimension is something I am not willing to do.

Josh asked if my stance would still be the same if I was of a darker complexion because sometimes among people of color we are treated differently based upon our complexion & I stand by my point. By no means am I feigning ignorance to how different complexions are perceived, but who I am is determined internally, as opposed to the expression of treatment from others. I am a unique collection of interest, thoughts, and quirks. I myself could be classified into an endless amount of groups including but not limited to- U.S citizen, millennial, first-gen college graduate, person of color, black, male, straight, software developer, gardener, and the list goes on. I am who I am because I lie at the intersection of all of those planes. The addition or removal of one of those planes would not be me. Furthermore, continuing with the idea that race is but one component of being, we could potentially have more in common with a person of another race than someone within our own. A case could even be made that software developer and gardener would be better primary identifiers because activities & lifestyles are something we actively engage in as opposed to being included by default upon birth. 

Episode 4: The Talking Stage vs. Dating

Scope creep in the project management world is defined as the tendency for project’s requirements tend to increase over the span of the project’s life-cycle. For example if initially one deliverable was agreed on & by the end of the contract 3 were included. You may be wondering why I bother bring this up and for good reason; the connection isn’t obvious. As it pertains to relationships, as time progresses we’ve began to include more & more into the definition of dating. What started off as something very straightforward gradually became something that locked us down into implicit verbal commitment and created the necessity for something similar but not as serious.

 It is far more common now to hear the term ‘talking’ as opposed to ‘dating’ now and I believe it has a lot to do with misconception of what dating really is. As I defined in the video right around the 17:00 minute mark (http://bit.ly/IBDSDating), dating is simply when two individuals who have a shared mutual interest in one another spend time with one another to see if they are compatible enough to pursue something further. Sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t. By that definition there is nothing wrong with dating multiple people at once before choosing who you want to enter into an actual relationship with; but nothing within that definition implies exclusivity or commitment.This isn’t a pitch for living a polygamous lifestyle though. 

Scope creep is also evident in dating when an individual behaves in a way that implies taking the interaction more seriously than they actually perceive it for personal gain, most often but not limited to sex. The example given in the episode was texting someone for 15 hours out of the day (facetiously, but I know some people guilty of this) when you are not in & have no intention of pursuing a relationship with them. This also applies to getting gifts, meeting each other’s families, & saying you love them when you don’t. The person on the receiving end would be justified in believing that they were moving toward something more. This isn’t always intentional, and I would argue that it is easier to do when you aren’t acting with intention. If there is no target you cannot miss.

As more got crammed into the definition of dating the connotation of the word changed. When I first heard ‘talking’ it was in a very non-committal way indicating the lack of seriousness within the interaction, which would confirm this belief. I.e

Guy 1- “Is that your girl? You two have been spending a lot of time together lately.”

Guy 2- “No we’re just talking”.

To this point, another distinction was made in the episode- the seriousness (compared to talking) by which we see dating. When I asked Desmond about his parents prior to their marriage, did they talk or date, he responded “they dated”. The end result of that interaction was marriage. To me that illustrates the idea that dating is above talking and not simply a synonym. When you are seeing someone who you are proud to be seeing as opposed to something more casual with a lower ceiling, you are much more likely to say that you are dating that person.

Episode 2: Does Your Vote Matter?

I. Should People Care More About Doing The Right Things Or Doing Things Right ? (0:36) 

The first question we discussed on this episode was whether it was more important to do the right thing, or to do things right. While watching the episode back, this portion stood out the most, Desmond said-

“Focusing on doing things right is synonymous with someone who is more on management, who is more comfortable with doing the least amount of work with the least amount of effort and getting the maximum amount of product, whereas someone who is focused on doing the right things they do tend to carry more leadership roles & obviously with that leadership role you get effectiveness but with doing the things right with management you get efficiency.” 

This distinction was part of a presentation I sat in on recently on The 5 Levels of Leadership: Proven Steps to Maximise Your Potential the John C. Maxwell.  Management consists of controlling a group or a set of entities to accomplish a goal. Leadership refers to an individual’s ability to influence, motivate, and enable others to contribute toward organizational success.

I agree with everything just stated. However for that same reason I believe and reaffirm my stance that it is more important to do the right things. If we were to all adopt the idea of doing things right, the problem within that line of thinking would become apparent quickly. On the way home from work, you car is breaks  down on side of the road(flat tire). At that same moment, you remember that you had been meaning to start a consistent workout regiment. With this in mind you, you lie down on the pavement and begin cranking out crunches- with perfect form. You are working on your goal, executing the exercise the right way; full range of motion holding at the bottom, but the more pressing matter remains unattended to. The tire is still flat.

This management/leadership dichotomy plays out everyday in the choices that we make. Every person on the planet has goals and aspirations.. The things that we do either move us closer to the goal, move us further from the goal, or do not matter as it relates to the goal. What I’ve learned about the hyper-successful is that they find as many ways as possible to increase the amount that move them towards their goal & minimize the ones that move them further from them. Even if you’re doing the right things poorly, the least benefit you’d receive is the foundation of a good habit. 

Episode 2: Do All People Have Equal Value No Matter Their Actions ?

At face value this appears to what would be a very straightforward conversation, but it was not the case. The major theme of the episode was the definition of value. On one side you could choose to define value as the amount of contributions an individual has within a given domain, say in their field of occupation or within their family. On the other side, value could be defined as an individual's worth as a human which could go down a very dark path when issues of life & death come into play- who is worth more? And by extension who deserves to live more? 

 I believe that we all have an innate base value as humans, and that our actions have the potential to add value to ourselves & those around us. Transitioning into a young adult, I struggled with a paradox of self identity as well as finding meaning in life. I’ve always had an extremely high perception of myself and knew I was capable of doing great things but the outside world did not seem to always reflect this. This in turn put me in a state of turmoil known as cognitive dissonance, in which one’s beliefs do not match their reality. Cognitive dissonance induces stress as we try to sort these contradictions out. The thought process would be as such- “I know that I am capable, but I failed a ‘x’ (a test, a relationship, a goal). Does this mean that I am not capable?” This was replayed ad nauseam.

This line of thinking did not serve me well, and after much deliberation & research I came across the teachings of Dr. Jordan B. Peterson. One of his ideas that helped me the most is best illustrated by Rule 7 of 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos, Purse What is Meaningful (Not What is Expedient) and summarized in the following passage-

“Meaning is when everything comes together in an ecstatic dance of single purpose- the glorification of a reality so that no matter how good it has suddenly become, it can get better and better and better better more and more deeply in the future. Meaning happens when that dance has become so intense that all the horrors of the past, all the terrible struggle engaged in by all of life and all of humanity to that moment becomes a necessary and worthwhile part of the increasingly successful attempt to build something truly Might and Good.”

There is an intrinsic relationship between internal meaning(value) & responsibility as stated by Peterson. We find value in accomplishments,  in the hope that the value & derived meaning will justify our suffering. Life is extremely difficult. Anything worth having requires sacrifice & work. Our plans will go awry & life isn’t always fair. Loved one will  pass on, and even we ourselves must face mortality. 

I began to think about how I defined myself and instantly thought of achievements I was proud of. Leaving my hometown at the 18 and setting up a life for myself in a new city hours away. Being a first generation college graduate with a degree in Computer Science. Finding a career so early on that I looked forward to getting up and going to, even on rough mornings. Starting the Infusion Breakdown Show podcast with Josh and Desmond. The amount of work I put into my personal development(self-regulation, empathy) and the obstacles I’ve overcome up to this point. For other people it may be their marriage, parenthood, or the business that they’ve started. It in these things that we find value.

As stated before, we all have a base level of value; there is something sacred about human life but even that can be transcended through achievement and the acquisition of value. For example, look at the millions of people who were moved & inspired by the life of Kobe Bryant. Most of us had never met him, and others, like myself, were not even fans of the game he played. He transcended basketball and represented being the greatest at what he did, further supported by the case for this being made even before his death. Check out a few of his accomplishments-

Won the NBA Championship 5 times, with 3 of them consecutive from 2000-2002. He was named  NBA All-Defensive First Team 9 times during his career. 

Put up 81 points in one game against the Raptors in 2006- the second highest amount of points scored in the NBA to this day. 

His career spanned 20 years in a league where the career expectancy is just under 5. 

He was ranked 3 on the NBA- All Time Scoring list until Lebron James surpassed him in that regard a day before his untimely death.

Episode 1: Is it Harder to Love or be Loved?

This is the where it all began. Looking back on this episode I am extremely proud of how far we have progressed to the modern incarnation of the IBDS. The brunt majority of this episode was spent on the first question- “Is it harder to love or be loved?”

My answer has aged well, and if anything was strengthened by this discussion & my subsequent experiences. Conversely to what Josh stated in the beginning I believe it is harder to be loved than it is to love others. The reasoning behind his answer was the presence of expectations; if the relationship does not play out according to the internal script it then becomes hard to love, as the behavior in question was not taken into account. This implies to me the existence of an ideal of the relationship by which the actual relationship is compared against. I understand this train of thought very well; when the unexpected occurs, we must reevaluate our reality and construct knew plans. We  have entered uncharted territory.  

Paraphrased from what I said in the episode, I believe it is harder to be loved that to exude love for a few reasons; the first being our ability of self comprehension and our love languages. With being oneself, comes an innate wholeness; we have access to our thoughts, motivations, & feelings to the degree of totality. With that being said, it does not mean that we exercise absolute control over these things (i.e being shown something triggers a thought not native to ourselves, knowing we shouldn’t be angry & lashing out, etc.), just that we exhibit the capacity to do so. With other people, however, we will never be fully knowledgeable of the contents of their minds. Perhaps we take their words for fact, maybe their actions, or a third possibility- a solution of the two. Regardless of which approach we take, we will never know how another individual feels. When there is congruence between the actions and words, we can come to more stable conclusions. Seldom is this the case though, people are largely incongruent between their words and actions. As it relates to the question of is it easier to be loved or to love- I know when I love, I do not know when I am being loved. Certainty makes all the difference.

The 5 Love Languages, first coined by Gary Chapman in his 1992 book The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate are as follows:

Words of Affirmation

Acts of Service

Receiving Gifts

Quality Time

Physical Touch

When two people come together to form a relationship there are bound to be at least some difference in their love languages, and sometimes it is enough to cause misunderstanding. If you receive love best in the form of physical touch or acts of service, and the person you are dating gives you a gift instead it obviously does not mean that they do not love you. This could simply be indicative of them projecting their particular love language onto you- because I feel loved when I receive gifts, that is how I will love others. While this is done with good intentions, and I believe the majority of us would draw little issue with the act of receiving a gift; I believe the issue becomes when our love language is excluded entirely. Take the aforementioned example- you receive a gift from your partner and love in the form of physical touch, likely you are satisfied.Now take away the touch, you are simply given a gift. You may appreciate the gesture but it does not resonate in the way you are most receptive to. Understanding someone your partners love language(s) makes the difference in loving & loving effectively. 

The second reason I feel that it is easier to love than to be loved is that it is quite common, to the point that it may as well be axiomatic of being a human, is the phenomenon known as unrequited love. He loves her but she sees him as only a friend, another woman loves him but he has eyes for the first woman. Everyone has experienced unrequited love at some point in their life, and far more numerously that mutualistic love if my personal experiences or testimonies of people I’ve spoken to are anything to go by. The frequency by which this occurs is heightened if it happens that you possess a propensity to be attracted to inattentive individuals; constantly vying for their acknowledgement/affection. Conversely if you were to ask someone how many times has someone loved them, that they did not love back you could expect that number to be much less.

Thirdly, to be loved requires one to be in a state in which they are receptive to love. The same could be said about being in a state to give love, however what I’ve observed is that most people have a main love interest at any given point in time. Very few people are completely unoccupied. This occupation does not have to be physical either, I would argue that mental/emotional occupation is even more prevalent. Openness to love is not an all encompassing state, but a state exclusive to one individual. Loving someone who is closed off or disinterested is disappointment waiting to happen but still it happens. Sometimes it isn’t even the case that the person is disinterested entirely but that they are going through something that inhibits them from participating fully in love, for example recovering from trauma from a bad breakup.