We all know how it feels to be stuck between a rock and a hard place— when you have to choose between right and right, and that might make no sense given it seems you couldn’t possibly choose wrong, but trust me, one is more right.
I have a million, billion, trillion examples of analysis paralysis. Generally, this concept is associated with big decisions one has to make. There’s a lot weighing on it, and the pros and cons list for either side seem about equal. What do you choose in that scenario?
To be honest, I’ve never had much analysis paralysis with big decisions. I mean, there are times I definitely have, but the majority of the time, I’m able to make a choice and run with it.
Deciding on a college? Made that choice fairly easily.
Choosing my first job? Decided that very quickly.
Picking out my first car? Also pretty seamless.
You get the picture.
It’s not the big decisions I have a problem with. It’s the small ones.
The one where you have to decide which friend to defend while being able to see both sides of a disagreement.
The one where you empathize with someone who is clearly in the wrong because you believe in people getting second chances.
The one where you don’t want to sound like Ms. Positive when someone you love is irrationally angry about an issue that could just use a little perspective.
The one where you don’t want to perpetuate a problem and give into their negative antics, if you choose to forego the Ms. Positive persona.
The one where you want to approach a problem slowly and carefully, but you’re working against a person who’s filled with impatience.
The one where you have so many points to make but no space to say them, so you say nothing.
The one where saying nothing automatically leads others to assume you are ill-informed or completely uninterested.
The one where you are strategically crafting a response so that no one takes what you say out of context.
The one where you want to be supportive of a friend but also want to say, “What in the absolute hell are you doing?”
The one where you wonder if anyone else in the room is trying to figure out what to say next or if it’s just you who’s surveying the audience and questioning if it’s even worth mentioning.
Ask me to make a big decision, and I’ll have it made within minutes. Ask me to make a decision that involves the emotions of other people, and I become paralyzed.
It’s not that I don’t know what’s “right”. It’s that each person has a version of what “right” is, so everyone is going to react to “wrong” differently.
I can denounce “wrong” behavior or statements. Those aren’t hard for me to spot. It’s just that, while I’m silently calling out something that is “wrong”, I’m simultaneously thinking what drove that person to make the “wrong” decision in the first place. I’m a lot more curious about people’s thought processes and belief systems than I am about focusing on the “wrong” behavior or statement.
For instance (this is completely made up):
Person A says, “Women shouldn’t be in positions of power.”
Person B chimes back, “You are an ignorant, rude asshole.”
First off, blanket statements are literally the bane of my existence. When I write about people, events, or ideas, I try my best to use less constricting diction to allow space for anything/one that doesn’t fit the mold I’m describing.
SO, a blanket statement is USUALLY never right.
**This is a helpful test taking strategy, as well. 99% of the time, if a possible answer to a multiple choice question has the word “all”, “every”, or “never” in it, you can eliminate that choice.**
To group an entire sector of people into one sentence is simply inaccurate, so Person A is definitely not “right”.
But will barking back with an emotionally charged comment solve anything? Probably not.
You can’t fight a misogynistic mentality with derogatory insults. You can try as hard as you want, but that’s going to end in exhaustion and more hate, 9/10 times.
There are very obvious issues with “Women shouldn’t be in positions of power,” but there are far more issues within Person A’s ingrained beliefs than there are in their verbiage being uttered.
When you’re dealing with a problem and you want to resolve it rather than put a bandaid on it, you have to keeping asking the question “Why?” That will lead you to the root of a problem. If you don’t try to solve an issue at its root, you’ll only ever solve for downstream problems, which isn’t effective long-term.
No one would make misogynistic comments if there weren’t beliefs, ideologies, or slanted perceptions behind them.
So, you can yell at someone for being misogynistic, but you’re only working against a moment in time’s problem.
And that's where my analysis paralysis comes into play.
Do I sit there and try to educate someone who is so close-minded?
Do I sit there and address the issue with the person who’s fighting fire with fire?
If I sit there and contemplate my strategy, will I lose the time I had with both of them?
If I sit there for too long, will my silence be misconstrued with misogyny when I am just trying my best to think of a way to bring a level-headed perspective into an explosion?
Within minutes of any conversation, argument, or debate transpiring, I immediately begin churning fact over emotion over intention over rationality over fact, and by the time I’ve figured out an appropriate path,100 new elements of the conversation have come into play.
Am I overthinking? In every sense of the word, yes.
Am I also trying my best to regard each person as a whole human knowing that the same approach isn’t going to work for every individual? Also, yes.
I detailed one example, but I see scenarios like this arise all the time. Person A says something out of line or clearly “wrong”, and Person B is quick to ridicule Person A. Ridicule may be a useful tactic when Person A is making an off-handed comment that isn’t exactly representative of their beliefs, but if Person A is deeply attached to and rooted in a slanted perception, that ridicule means nothing.
We are a really complex species. It’s hard to decipher what approach is best suited for individual scenarios, and that’s a constant dialogue taking place in my head when any type of conflict arises. “How will they respond to what I’m about to say? Am I tailoring my approach enough for them to see it from a different perspective?” These are questions I try to ask myself before asserting my position into a conversation.
As you can see, I am plagued with analysis paralysis. It’s hard to assess a situation, figure out a solid communicative plan, and deliver it in an appropriate, relevant timeframe. I feel like there are times I hesitate to say something in a conversation, group message, or in a circle of people, and I want to make it known that it’s not because I have nothing to say... believe me, I do (my entire blog is proof that I have a decent amount of shit to get off my chest). It’s just that I usually have so much to say that I don’t even know where to begin. I know I’m not the only person to have these thoughts and feelings, so it’s probably happening in the minds of a lot of other people, too.
One last thing: there are times when a carefully crafted approach is irrelevant, and you should say whatever it is that’s on your mind, regardless of how the other person will react. There have been so many times I’ve just word vomited my thoughts. Sometimes it feels damn good to leave it all out on the table and just say your piece.
Other times, it’s healthier to make progress on a problem, and that’s when you’ll need to be strategic in your response.
I have yet to really resolve my analysis paralysis, but I wanted to put this out there in hopes that anyone who feels the same understands they are not alone. If anything, I’m in between that rock and a hard place with you.
Comentários