Drinking leads to Thinking

I was talking with someone today, the casual talk of preferred alcohol and exploits of days past. It seems to be a requisite conversation for any budding friendship and I tend to fall into a particular pattern of stories and preferences I will describe. Both of us having a propensity to have a few glasses there were some decent stories going both ways, however I noticed a pattern in the stories of my partner. There was a recurring theme of acknowledging whether one more drink was appropriate, at which point the story would curve sharply either to the safe and sober(-ish) side or to the fully inebriated and interesting side. The key thing I noticed was the framing of the decision as whether one "should or shouldn't" have one more, whereas I generally frame the question as whether I "feel like unwinding."

It's a subtle distinction and one I didn't really put too much thought into until later in the day, when we spoke again except this time more conspiratorially. This time we were debating the merits of a particular approach to accomplishing the task. This time, however, we were both using the same language of "should or shouldn't." My opinion was generally that we shouldn't, it would make the wrong sort of waves, may lead to angry conversations pointed at me, and could end up being a waste of time. My partner shared a different take. We should do this because it's an interesting approach.

It's such a subtle distinction, the framing of questions. "How do you pronounce the capital of Kentucky? Lou-ee-ville or Lou-iss-ville?" To approach the question simply is to accept the premises on which is is based, which in my example is simple to address. However when they are questions you ask yourself, it takes a disciplined mind to identify and challenge the false premises of your own thinking. So, when I reexamine the question of "Should I or shouldn't I take on this more socially risky approach to accomplish the given task?" I find myself asking a more interesting question "Here is a tough problem. Do I feel like unwinding on it?"

The beautiful thing about this interpretation is that it neatly packages the need to inspect the conditions precedent to a decision with a much healthier sense of self agency. To ask oneself the question of "should vs shouldn't" implies these things about the agency of the asker:

• There exists a set of rules outside the control of the asker which must be abided by
• These rules are uncertain or unclear in this situation
• There is no easy access to additional clarity around the rules
• The asker is not endowed with the right of resolving this uncertainty as she sees fit

So, I will say thank you kind sir. Thank you for the inspiration to reframe and get myself out from under those subconscious barriers. With that, I have one last word: the capital of Kentucky is pronounced "Frankfort".

That’s Alot of Dishes

I stayed at a buddy's place this past Saturday night. This weekend I realized how I need more people like him in my life, and in the world in general. He is a very smart guy, but has managed to hide it behind a mild speech impediment and a complete and utter lack of guile. I'd like to relate a story of something that transpired this past Sunday.

He, his fiancee, and I were sitting around in the kitchen when she got up and drew some water in the sink to start doing the dishes. I believe there were approximately 3 clean dishes at the start of the endeavor, most of them having been dirtied when company came over the night before for an impromptu dinner party and drinks. In fact, they had done all the dishes just two days earlier. The only indication of his fiancee's intentions, aside from filling up the sink, was her instruction that "she will need some help drying when she gets to the glasses." And without another word she has begun submerging the first round of a stack of dirty dishes nearly as tall as her. It is about a half hour later and the first thing my friend says once he finds out that it's time grab a towel and help out is, "Wow, Babe. I thought that was going to take you all afternoon."

There are alot of things that one would expect that sentence to mean. It could mean that his opinion of her was low enough that she was able to surprise him with her merely by completing the dishes quickly. It could mean that he was disappointed that his time hanging out with his buddy (me) was cut short by annoying domestic work. It could mean any number of demeaning things... but it didn't. It meant that he was happy she was almost done and happy that he was now able to help get the chore out of the way sooner so they could both go back to doing what they would rather be doing.

It didn't even occur to me until afterwards that what he said could possibly be considered offensive. It is one of the most perfect examples I have encountered of the awesome power of utter guilelessness. The ability dismiss ill will by sheer lack of ill intention is definitely not a skill be underestimated.