I've been thinking about common understandings and expectations.
Common understandings are often unspoken and underpin how we navigate a lot of social situations. They often result in expectations of the way people "should act" and the way things "should be".
Expectations are the root of most of the satisfaction and friction that a person experiences in their daily life.
Let's go through how expectations affect how we respond to things, the joys and pitfalls of unspoken understandings and how the two factor into so many of our interactions.
Try to think of a relationship that you have where everything is just silky smooth. The jokes always land, the going is easy, the tension is never taut and things just click, as they always have.
Now, try to think of a relationship where your interactions are simply stunted. You have to constantly explain your meaning, the proverbial ground is littered with eggshells, there's a vague sense of unease and things just clack, as they very well might always.
The first usually feels better and, let's caaaall iiiit, 90% of the time this is how you choose your relationships, BUT the second type is oddly persistent and I think they have the potential to develop into some of your strongest bonds.
They're two ends of a spectrum; one side has a natural chemistry in which all reagants combine in a predictable way to create a reaction that is simply pleasant. The other side has a disjointed friction that can feel obnoxious to struggle against. However, if you overcome that static friction and its lessens into kinetic, you can see a snowball effect of unexpected enjoyment.
During an episode of The Crown, a character gives a speech to a very rich* prep school class. He explains that after these students graduate that they'll go out into the world as judges, ministers, commanders and industry leaders and be faced with difficult decisions that will have great impacts on the world around them. Whether the decision is literally within combat or not, they will all be battles of a kind. In battle, he says, there is an unspoken shorthand, an understanding, that is required amongst comrades in order to survive. He describes that these students, through their training at the school, will learn that shorthand and will be able to recognize it within others. Through working with others using this shorthand, together they will be able to navigate any battle effectively.
- *I'd use the word "elite", but I believe that use of language dignifies the myth of wealth-superiority equivalence that those darn pesky, rich ruling class folk have been spreading
The speech hit me hard as an example of how important common and unspoken understandings are*. They feel better and they so often work better, at least in times of crisis. I thought of times playing sports where all of the training and hard work my teammates and I put in manifested on the field. I compared that to the poor synergy I'd see when playing simple games of pick-up. I can only imagine how that feels in more extreme environments.
- *it's also actually an eerie description of how systems of privilege can be abused, because when you replace "battle" in the above analogy with "perpetuating institutions that enforce inequality" and imagine all those young eager students as old detached, yet remarkably powerful, people it's freakin' scary
All this to say, it feels good to have an unspoken understanding with someone. Things between you, whatever they are (co-habitation, jokes, getting work done, playing sports) just work. I think this derives from a few things, but primarily: we have a natural tendency to be lazy and communication takes effort. I wanna just do what I do and not have to be constantly alert. I don't have the time or energy to declare everything that I want so it's nice to just mesh with people. Also, there's a certain profound resonance when you're on the same page as another human. It validates uncertainties and ease discomfort when you know that there are others out there like you.
Sarcasm is a good example of common understanding. There's nothing more funny to me than someone saying something in a sarcastic tone, but people actually agree with that thing.
"This show has suuuuuuuch a good story" or "wow, what a great price" then you're sitting there thinking "it IS a good story!" or "is the price that bad?". Sarcasm is just "counter signalling": saying the opposite of what you presume is the common perception of the situation. It relies on the "truth" being so blatantly obvious that simply saying the opposite is funny.
My grade 8 teacher once replied to a kid being sarcastic by saying "sarcasm is the lowest form of humour"*. I didn't understand it at the time and actually kinda thought the teacher was being obtuse. We were probably just learning what sarcasm even was, how could we ever process this super hot take on it? You're here to teach us, not neg us, smh. SO! I thought he was a dick until recently because I dooooo now see what he was getting at.
- * the reply, that may-or-may-not be an edited memory, was "I thought yours was the lowest form of humour?". If that actually happened, the teacher most certainly stopped by the Wine Rack on the way home.
Really, any kind of signalling relies on common understanding.
People get pretty actively upset about all sorts of signals. Virtue-signalling: is that post a meaningless gesture that is just letting everyone know where you stand or does it actually raise awareness to help the cause? Signalling wealth, intelligence, prowess or accomplishment can all come across as arrogant. NOT signalling these things can seem strange or even deceitful. I've definitely avoided speaking up in some scenarios out of fear of seeming arrogant and then the truth comes out and it's awkward.
Giving and interpretating signals revolves around common understandings. How strong was the signal and how obvious was the information that you were signalling? It can be a bit of a "damned if you, damned if you don't" interaction and can be genuinely hard to tell. If you have a thing for thumbs or beating women, then here a couple rules:
- signal when you think people are lacking the information that the signal sends (e.g. if someone is struggling, "hey I actually know how to do this thing and I can help")
- counter-signal when you think people already know something (e.g. someone is talking about their new car and they know about your Tesla, just listen instead of, "omg cars! That reminds me of MY car. It's a Tesla, but like, no big deal or anything, just thought you should know.")
Forming relationships is the process of gaining understanding of something that cements itself into expectations.
When you "get to know someone", you learn big things about them and also just generally get a feel for what they're like. You're building up empirical evidence for how they behave in a variety of situations and this is how you form expectations of them, however strong. These expectations affect everything from hanging out, to watching a movie to travelling together.
Simply "getting along" could be described as a bunch of very small-scale expectations being met: how much you should talk vs listen, the sorts of subjects you can discuss, the type of humour you have.
Living with someone, in contrast, would involve a bit larger set: how should common areas be used, should dishes be cleaned right away or is some build up acceptable, should you eat every meal together, should you tell each other when you're coming/going.
You might not like to hang out with someone that you would enjoy going to a game with. You might love travelling abroad with someone who you'd never live with.
Getting to the level of unspoken, harmonic understandings is great and should be something we work towards, however I think putting too much stake in this can cause unnecessary tension in our lives and cut us off from some really positive experiences. Our expectations are deeply personal and nuanced, forming a core part of who we are. How much do you trust your own expectations, though? How much weight do you give them? Being pleasantly surprised or exposed to new experiences is, as a rule, a good thing. Diversity enriches everything.
The other half of this is that the resilience you build by working through misunderstandings is just a very useful life skill. Similarly beneficial are developing good communication skills and being able to dampen your sensitivity to expectations.
You came into this reading expecting nothing and now you're pleasantly suprised :).
You value your time, were hoping to learn something and now you're upset at this B-tier content :@.
Learning how to manage your expectations is one of the most basic life skills one can learn. For any gamers: it's a permanently imbalanced God-tier* mechanic that, tbh, should be nerfed.
- *also in this tier: turning passive downtime into something slightly more (i.e. "micro" habits), asking for help, telling people how you feel about them, the "power hop" move in basketball, being white, being a man, being rich
We know about the basics of expectations. When they are not met we are not pleased. Here's an equation to model that:
Emotional Reaction (ER) = outcome - expectation
- ER = the higher the number, the more positive your reaction
- outcome = larger positive numbers are better actual outcomes (-infinity -> +infinity)
- expectations = larger positive numbers are better expected outcomes (-infinity -> +infinity)
So! Some examples:
I win the lottery (huge positive outcome) - I didn't even know I was entered (0 expected outcome) = A huge positive expectation gap and I am very happy, yay!
After pooping, I see there's no toilet paper and further, there's none left in the house (moderately negative outcome, which also DID just happen, btw) - I thought there was toilet paper and there always is and there SHOULD be because I'm an adult, but fuck apparently I'm a child (small positive expectation, amplified by shame) = A decently negative expectation gap and a slightly wet bum (there was a bidet, thank god), which is quite quite frustrating
The above example gives a previously unaccounted for phenomenon: the compounding effect of the self-criticism. I failed some larger task that is just so basic that I was low-key triggered. It amplified the negative emotion I would've felt. Normally, the toilet paper would just be a -10, but this extra shitty feeling maybe multiplied it to -20. So now our equation could look like:
ER = (actual - outcome) x ???
What're some other things that might amplify an expectation gap? There are definitely some basic physical phenomenon to start:
- being tired
- being hungry
- worn at the end of a long day
- a long time since last positive sexual experience (LPSE)
Then some more social things:
- are we sharing the burden with others (comradary)?
- are people watching us (pride)?
- do we dislike someone involved (spite)?
Lastly, our own relationship with the expectation:
- how long have we had the expectation for?
- what does it mean to us? How core is it to our life?
Thus, we now have our complete model of how expections and outcomes result in emotional reactions:
ER = (outcome - expectation) x Physiological Factors x Social Factors x Relationship with the Expectation
Let's take this basic model of expectations and dive deeper into the world of communication and relationships.
The general set of expectation-building in relationships as described above overlays on our natural inclinations to project our expectations outward. Everyone falls on a sliding scale of how strong our expectations are for "how things should be done".
Nothing is going to replace the sheer harmony of comfortable experiences where all of your expectations are met. A heavily curated holiday and hanging out with old friends are pure bliss. The point here is NOT that you shouldn't have expectations, they are part of what makes you who you are. The point IS that these preferences taken to the extreme can be stagnant and sedating.
There's an "implementation issue"* with putting stake in expectations: they MOSTLY won't be met. Most situations have too much randomness and you have too little control. An extreme example of this is a very wealthy person who can constantly pay to have specific experiences, such that they can meet most of their expecations most of the time (sterilized these expectations are is up for debate). The other end of the spectrum is a broke person who is even at the whims of a stiff breeze. The majority of people are somewhere in-between.
- *implementation issues = the constraints of actually bringing a principle or idea to life. You can't ever achieve 100% of an ideal and that shouldn't discourage you from trying. Work around the implementation issues as much as possible and use the idea as a guiding light.
For relationships, you can't possibly have aligned and unspoken understandings with everyone. We do instinctively smooth out a lot of situations by relaxing our expectations of people, but it can help to have a framework in advance. Some guiding principles:
- you should care more if the outcomes are really important
- you should care more if the interaction happens a lot
- you should care more if the relationship is more intimate
SUPER META LIFE HACK = your expectations of your expectations being met should be really low! Or, "be flexible", without sacrificing the core of who you are.
You should try to let go for most things, but when it matters, you should be explicit.
Putting in effort when there's an effortless alternative is not very instinctive. You're doing this internal calculation of whether or not the consistent discomfort of an experience is worth the effort to correct it. How much better could the situation be and how soon? If I have to be constantly alert and say something but the situation is unlikely to change, is it even worth the effort?
People like to take the path of least resistance + talking about things is uncomfortable + our capacity for small stresses over time is high = we mostly don't talk about things, even to our own detriment
Little disagreements often come about from such a fundamental difference in perspective that some people involved won't even notice them. Sometimes even if the person is aware of your perspective, their own blinders are so strong that it's genuinely difficult for them to address.
In the realm of "coexisting on the day-to-day", let's take an inventory of some passive-aggressive or unsustainable practices that we might have encountered or taken for a lil' toxic test drive:
- leaving notes in places that tell people how things should be done
- optional: putting smiley faces on them
- constantly correcting the action yourself but saying nothing. A technique I like to refer to as "putting the cross on your own back and then complaining it's uncomfortable".
- making performative/exagerated gestures while doing the thing. I personally prefer a resigned "siiiiigh" or some sharp "huff"s.
Here are some alternatives that are more explicit, healthier and altogether more productive:
- build systems/structures that don't rely on best-intentions or unprompted memory
- agree upon things IN ADVANCE
- tends towards over-communication, rather than under-communication, at least in the beginning
Being explicit is uncomfortable, often tedious and eventually infuriating, but I think the long-term value that it can add is worth it. You might get to a level of unspoken understanding and harmony, or at the very least you'll have habits/systems in place that are CLOSE to that level. The worst case is a greater understanding of each other (even if it's laced with distaste).
Our expectations form a fundamental equation through which we interact with the world. They are amplified by how we feel in any given moment, the subject matterr of the expectation and a wide variety of social factors.
Common understandings with people are a sort of expectations between them and unspoken understandings genuinely feel good.
We should try to let go of strong expectations with people in order to be more flexible, which will generally make us happier and increase our enjoyment of more interactions.
If we can't let go of a poor common understanding with people then we should try to be deliberate about resolving it, even though it's difficult. It might not always work, but it's the first step to improving a situation and often get lead to even deeper understandings than we would have naturally.
~Tyty
...
And further, some semi-related things that I couldn't quite place. Even less edited than above.
Bro, lemme tell you, bro, about talent. Talent is great and all, but you know what? This thing called hard work beats talent every time.
So this is just obnoxiously false. I think what it should say is:
talent often beats hard work, but talent will always lose to talent AND hard work
Aside: I often wonder why it's phrased as it is. It's probably that for short snazzy sayings it's better to skew the sentiment to one extreme so you can make an impression and be memorable. Also, you want to skew towards the side that makes it "better safe than sorry". We'd rather have people work hard and not rest on their laurels, so just give this rule and enforce it. It's just hilariously wrong when we're young and I think deflates kids. I can practice A LOT and then truly just meet someone who's much more talented in some way and get crushed.
- Aside^2: plz crowdfund my book called "Depressingly Realistic Fairy Tales". The first story is about a tortous who was a prideful little fool, got upset then challenged someone to a race it had no business participating in and then how it only won because its opponent was soome combination of arrogant and narcoleptic. The moral is NOT "slow and steady wins the race" (depending on the race: "as fast as possible wins the race" or "as fast as possible without activating anaerobic systems in your body, while also keeping your mental strong for a fast push if you need it, wins the race"). Don't be prideful and get goaded into bad decisions. Playing 'down' is a lose-lose for you, but still don't take it lightly because anything can happen. THOSE are the morals. There's also one about TODO: another fairy tale!
The underlying ideas here that I'd like to apply to relationships is:
- when something is easily acquired, your natural appreciate for it is likely to be lower than if you had to work for it
- if something works well, but has never been "battle tested", you can't be quite sure about it'll perform under stress
I first learned this idea in highschool when an ex-partner* at the time was losing touch with her best friend from grade 8, while I was still hanging out with my close friends. Her and her friend went to different schools and had moved away from eachother (not that far, but maybe enough for back then). She said (in the worst tone you could imagine reading this), "do you really think you'd still be friends with x, y and z if you didn't still live near them?". I thought she was pretty wack for saying this, though I now reluctantly agree that in general yes it hurts your chances, especially during formative years. People did move schools, but still lived close. One of my oldest friends, though, moved away in grade 3 and I still talked to him soooooooo...
-
- do we backdate gender neutral terminology? I thought of her then as my girlfriend, so shouldn't I write that? Yes, we do, I think, because the idea is to reframe how we approach and perceive gender going forward. It's honestly not that awkward.
After she said this, I heard the phrase "friends of affinity or circumstance" and it has echoed in my mind ever since. I might've heard it from a cool, older, edgy person who I thought was cool. Who knows? I loved the phrase and the idea. It was a cool description, but I think she got her prescription wrong, hinting that we are only really friends with people with who it's convenient to have a relationship.
I think it increases how easy it is, but doesn't guarantee it. Likewise, strong affinities don't always work as we expect them either.
This is all setup for the idea of "working hard for common understandings compared to natural alignment".