討論逐字稿 Boundaries, Trust, Consent

We discussed 'Boundaries, Trust, Consent' the second discussion in the 'Boundaries' series.

Discussion:
Why was it okay (according to the parents) for the boy to repeatedly knock down the girl's castle?
Boys are supposed to be like that.
Like what?
To be naughty. To damage things, to create some damage.
Because other boys do the same thing.
They prefer the boy can show the power or to dominate or control the situation.
What do you mean by naughty?
Not behave.
So boys are supposed to break the rules.
Uh-huh. It's okay for boys to break the rules.
Most of the time, boys are more aggressive. This is what I think.

Do you personally feel it was okay that the boy kept knocking down the castle?

No. I think everyone, no matter you're a boy or girl should behave well.
I think it's just a game. It's the boy showing friendship to the girl.
Something occurred to me. When I was a child, In our class, and boys liked to make girls cry to show their friendship with girls.
For us the same.
And sometimes if the boy like the girls, they played tricks on the girls.
Is that true for boys? When you like a girl..?
Sometimes, when you want their attention.
And like Maggie said, negative attention is easier to get than positive.
Yeah, it could be true, because, in the class, the students who behave worse easily catch my attention.
And you want to give attention to the good ones, but your energy is limited, and it's easier to only pay attention to the bad ones.
I have a question. So in the classroom. If the teacher asks a questions, and if more than five students raise their hands.
Never happens.
I mean, if they want to get the teachers' attention, if you choose one of these students, they will maybe feel proud, if you choose one.
So what you mean is, if I pick one?
I mean, how do you decide to pick one?
I'll pick the one who rarely raises their hand.
Why do you want to know?
Because I read the article that told me these psych issues from the kid, the social behavior of the kid. Because in the class, one group always raised their hand, but another group never wanted the teacher's attention.
You know, in my personal experience, the group that never wants the teachers' attention has already learned that attention from the teacher is dangerous. What I mean is, it's potentially embarassing or humiliating or whatever. Not every teacher is a nice person. And for those students, it's just safer not to be noticed. Maybe I'm only speaking for my experience though.

The thing is, though, I want to go back to this 'boy making girls cry because they like her' situation. What I want to know is, why does nobody take the boy aside and say, 'Hey, you know, that's not the best way to do it, if you like the girl, it's best to make her like you too, why not do something to make her laugh?"
I said this to a kid, when he plays a trick on some girl. I'll say this to the class, so and so played the trick on this girl, to make her cry.
So do you take it further and say, here's a better way?
Yeah, next time I know.
But if the boy, their actions is different than other boys, maybe they would get laughed at. If they respect the girls, maybe they would get laughed at.
That's a horrible thing to say, you know how I feel when you say that? It hurts me. I'm a girl! It hurts to hear that a boy would get laughed at for giving human respect to girls! And also, because boys are taught to not respect girls, and this hurts!

What does entitlement mean?
You think of yourself as superior, or really great.
To have 'title' to something, means you are the owner, you have the piece of paper proving you're the owner.
So entitlement, you think you have privilege.
If you have the title, you have the right to it. If you're a citizen, and you're 18, you're entitled to the vote. It's related to 'enfranchised'.
In the US right now, the political meaning of entitlement is "extra things you don't deserve".
I'm spending time on this because entitlement is related to boundaries.
Can I say that some husbands think that they are entitled to beat their wives.
In the sense that they feel it's a right, right?

Privilege: 1. A right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich --dictionary.com

Privilege is actually the extra, whereas entitlement is the thing you have the right to, or you deserve to get.

5.any of the rights common to all citizens under a modern constitutional government: We enjoy the privileges of a free people. --dictionary.com

Oh, so that's where the confusion comes in, why people think entitlement is the same as privilege.

Entitle: 1. To give (a person) the right to do or have something; qualify; allow. --dictionary.com

So if someone gets a driver's license I'm entitled to drive?
Yes!
So any license is an entitlement to something.
So here's a thought: entitlement means the right to own something. This in itself is not a priviledge, like if everyone has the right to vote, everyone is entitled. But in a society like Haiti, where like 0.1% of the people own land, then only 0.1% are entitled, and the rest are disenfranchised. So whether entitlement is actually privelege depends on how the entitlement is distributed. Lots of entitlement = an equal society. Too little entitlement = Haiti and other deeply unfair setups. So entitlement is a kind of boundary, actually.

A 'sense of entitlement' is always used negatively.
Americans think they have the power to control the whole world.
Well, they kind of do.
[laughter]
I mean, they have the biggest military in the world. But the point is, they THINK they have it.
They think they can do everything, but why is it negative?
Does it have to do with ego?

"In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit." --the internet

So Americans believe this.
Or at least the world thinks that Americans believe that.
The ugly American, the American sense of entitlement.
Does that make them narcissistic?
What's 'narcissistic'.?
Those people believe that everyone loves them because they are so amazing.
Narcissistic people are dangerous, stay away.
But it's maybe a kind of protection.

"A good child is a compliant child."
Is a compliant child a child who does not recognize themselves as having boundaries? Or one who expects their boundaries to be routinely violated? Or whose boundaries only enclose a very narrow sense of self?
Do we have a clear definition of compliant?
Parents think they have good behavior, they study hard, they follow the laws.
I was a compliant child. Outwardly, I mean. I knew that I thought differently than the people around me but i felt I couldn't show it. I felt that my boundary of self was at the edge of my brain, I couldn't outwardly show my disagreement.
Maybe it's because you realize other people's expectations for you?
What do you mean?
Sometimes, we might have a lot of opinion, or maybe disagreement for the issues, or something we face, but we always, most of us will choose not to say it, because maybe we are so afraid to break the balance, or to let people think we are not so easygoing.
And that's a really key part of Taiwanese culture, right?
Mmmm!
I think compliant children don't ask about why. They just follow.
Or sometimes it's easier to follow the rules than break the rules.
Mmmm!
I think compliant children are protecting themselves. Because when you know the rules or the boundaries, you can just be safe in this kind of boundary. You won't attract any kind of anger.
That's interesting. That's maybe the point of having rules? It's to make people afraid of breaking them, so they can be controlled?
Because if we broke the rules we could be punished.
And I think, rules make everyone more consistent. If there's no rules, everyone behaves differently. And for gvt or controller, it's hard to control everyone. Like in class, or in school, everyone should wear the same uniform, and cut their hair short.
No hair below the earlobes. People always use the ears to measure hair!

Is a bad/unruly/uncooperative child actually a child with a stronger sense of boundaries and self?
Or maybe they just want to just get others' attention. Or just for fun.
But what would make it fun? Because you get punished, so it also hurts, so what would make it fun?
I think some children, they just don't want to obey the rules, they just want to break the rules, and attract some attention from people.
And that make them feel like excited and different from others.
So the fun comes from the excitement and difference?
Do you agree?
Um...
Some people have a leadership personality, they don't want to follow the rules, they want to create the rules.
Like a lot of cartoons, some hero or some leaders in a group, they always have a bad performance in school.
But I don't think everyone who has leadership should break the rules or create the rules, but I feel they should just create some part of the societies rules, or create some part of…you know what I mean? I just want to say not everyone with leadership shouldn't necessarily break or create rules.
What should they do then?
I feel they should get some respect from the group or society. So they have to obey at least some part of the rules.
What makes them leaders?
Because if you want to be leaders, you have to earn some respect from others, not just always break the rules. If you always break the rules, you may become absolutely different. If you always break the rules, it's hard to earn respect.
But after you earn respect from others, you can create your own rules. Like if you're president, you can make own rules.
Like in order to get elected, you have to follow the rules.
Maybe because our society regards compliance more. So if you want to be a leader, you should follow the rules, at first.
At first, you must follow the rule, then you...
But I feel like the president can't just make rules willy nilly, people will still get pissed off.
But putting aside the president, I feel like you have to gain respect first, because you need to gain support from people. If they don't respect you, you won't get their support.
My point is if someone is creative, they don't want to follow the traditional rules, they want to do a different way.
So they want to create a new idea. But they also follow the broader rules.
Do you have an example?
Like Steve jobs, he didn't go to university.
Yeah, and he really didn't follow the rules. I heard that he wanted the iPhone's OS to be called iOS but in fact that name was already patented by a much bigger company. And so he just calls them up and tells them he's going to use it, and for some reason they just accepted this. They had every right to block him and they just...didn't. He got away with it.
Some people, like Warren Buffett? He was an MBA in the Columbia business school, so I mean, he got the degree, so did he break the rules? You have to break the rules to become…?
You mean of the typical type of successful man?
So it's not a general rule that every leader should break the rules first and then create their own.
I think we're talking about different kinds of leaders, actually.
But do you think it's the rule breaking? Or is it just the different choices of your life?
Can you say more?
You know, I quit school, that's a choice. I quit and started my career. It's just a different choice, it's not breaking the rules, going to university is not compulsory.
But most parents prefer their child...
But you don't get punishment.
But you follow this rule to go to college to get a job, but some people don't want to follow this rule.
I think the difference is between the definition of rules.
Everyone has different rules. Some people think not going to university is out of the rules, but some people don't think that's a way to break the rules
So rules are boundaries actually.
But some people don't want to go to uni, but follow their expectation to go to uni
But rules are boundaries, so we're wrestling with breaking these boundaries.
The Chinese say, when it's a peaceful world, we need a compliant leader, but in the non-peaceful wartime, we need a leader who will have a new idea and break boundaries. So maybe, based on what kind of leadership this organization needs.
I heard a theory to describe the different gvt system between Ming dynasty and Ching dynasty. The Ming is well organized, so even the emperor never rules for more than 30 years. But the gvt still working
So there's a kind of term limit!
But in the Ching dynasty the emperor doesn't rule for more than 5 years, because someone will replace him, some wars will come up.
I have a different opinion, I think it's a different comparison. Because Ming is Han, and ching was the Man, so that's why they have a new system, totally different.
So which was more successful, in your personal opinion?
The Ming!
Because they were not Man, right?
The gvt kept working, no matter what happened to the emperor, just like now, for a company. If the company is most sufficient, it means even the CEO does disappear, the company can also keep working.
Why did the Ming dynasty end?
Because the Man opened the gate.
But the other factor is the weather, because the food is not enough, they can't grow. Because the people didn't have enough food, they were willing to rebel.
Just like the Taiwanese now.
But we have more than enough food!
But no one has money? It's almost the same thing.
I was thinking the Ming ended because their system was only for stable times.
So right now we are in a crisis.
So we need crisis leaders.
So Mao Zedong was the crisis leader, and Zhou Enlai was the stability leader, only Mao didn't die soon enough, for the new China to get stable right away. So had to wait for Deng Xiaoping to stabilize the new dynasty.
Like the crisis leader tends to create something new, or start a new business. At that time their company or country is smaller, it's easier to renew or restart. But for a big company or big country, if you fail, it's hard to restart. Just like our company it's too big, so it becomes more compliant to a country's rule. Because when he broke the rule, he will fail his reputation, and it's hard to rebuild our company.
Really? But I think the country is afraid of conglomerates. The gvt has to listen to all the conglomerates. They don't care about the rules? Because they are too big.
But the investors or people will lose their confidence to this company.
But I think you're talking internally and you're talking externally.
So there's no contradiction.


Concluding Statements:
For question one, when does the group set boundary for the individual? I feel the same as what I said last week.
What did you say last week, I forgot?
I said that as a workaholic, when I heard this question, I just thought, why does the company set boundaries for every worker? I just think when the group sets the boundaries for the individual, it's because it's then easy to manage all of the individuals. So save boundaries is make some rules for everyone to follow. Because everyone has different ideas, if we don't set boundaries, some people will lose their purpose or goal. So the group has to set boundaries. And for when does the indiv set boundaries for the group? I think we will have some sense about ourself. It's because of a sense of self. Because we will have some, everyone will have some, everyone will have their own preference, or their own point of view. So everyone will have to save some space for themselves. Maybe they will follow the rules everyday, but they will have some space for themselves, they will have their own opinions about the things. But it’s not the same as them fighting or obeying the rules. So my opinion is similar to last week.
But more nuanced!
So I think boundaries are more necessary. As we grow up, we will set more boundaries as individuals for the group and from ourself to other people. It's a protection for yourself, and I think it's a worthwhile way to live.

Actually I think these two questions are tied in with time. So, at the beginning, a small group or an individual, they can form a group, and they can have a dream or their feeling about their life, so they will set out a boundary, if you want to join the group you have to meet the boundary. But maybe several years later the group gets bigger and bigger, and they need some rules to manage individuals, so I think it's tied in with time.
So you're saying over time the rules get more complex?
Yes, when the group grows up, they need more rules to manage the systems.
So you're saying the Ming dynasty were just around too long? Because we were saying the Ming had their stable system.
It's the Ching and the Ming, it's not about whose system is better, sometimes it's bad luck.
So you're saying a group gets more complex, like the US.
Is the only way to manage a group to set boundaries and rules? Why can't they just let everyone do what they want?
They will take a risk. If there's no rules for a bank, someone may steal a customers' money. And if a country without rules, someone may kill others.
But I think it's related to the how mature the members in the group are.
Yes!

I think the group sets boundaries at first for the people in the group. Or the joiners, or something else, but it must set up the rules and the boundaries, if people want to join the group, they must set the boundaries, but for the people, if they come into the group, and they feel a threat, and they need some protection, they will create some boundary for themself. So there's a different time or a different position, for setting boundaries. So…actually last week I don't know very exactly when people set the boundaries for the group, but after the discussion, I think the protection is the reason for people to set the boundaries.
Protection from the group, or protection from the people in the group?
That's a good question! I think it's both!
As a biologist, I thought you would translate the question into a different question, like 'how does the cell set the boundary for the body'
That's actually an interesting question. How does the cell set the boundary?
For the body or the other cells?
For both!
Well, different cells have different functions, so they have to create different environments for their organization, they have this HLA, so immune cells recognize this HLA, but for the cells it's necessary.
It's necessary for the cells to live.
So the immune system will recognize the HLA, but if a cell comes from outside, then the immune system will destroy it, it hasn't got the HLA.
So the HLA is like a badge. I have the badge, don't kill me!
So the HLA is like entitlement.
So compliant children and breaking-rules children are like different cells in our body?
So breaking-rules children don't have HLA?
The children just use a different way to protect themselves? So now that's my statement.
No, you need to restate it here, in a whole sentence.

Ok, in the beginning, we think that people are different so we need to set boundaries, so the group will set boundaries to individuals in the group. And after the discussion, when Maggie said I realize it's on the contrary, that each type of people have their own boundary, and they want to protect themselves. So no matter compliant people or rule breaking people, there's no one want to break boundaries, they just want to set boundaries with people in their own way. So for parents or teachers, or rule makers in our society, the better way to manage groups is to realize this fact.
Principle maybe?
And then turning to the question of when the group will set boundaries for the individual: In part the group wants to protect or favor a certain group of people. For instance, if there's no boundary for our land, so those who have more money or power will earn more land, so in this case, the gvt has to set boundary to protect the poor, or people without power. But nowadays, our gvt sets boundaries to favor a certain group of people, like bankers or millionaires.

I think people in the group, and each individual, each has its own interest, and also each members is also from their own backgrounds, so I think in the group, there are boundaries, in the beginning, for each individual benefit. And for individuals, setting the boundaries for others, I think it's good to make clear where the boundary is, and it's good for others to respect that individual. And if sometimes the individual doesn't…if the boundary is not clear, actually, the individual will feel bad, actually that person is not really happy, because he or she lets go of the boundaries, so actually I think the boundaries are good for individuals him or herself, and also good for the others. And this creates better relationships.




I pretended that I was a female environmental protection president!

Boundary = 1
Boundaries = more than one

In general, talking about the concept of boundaries, it has to be plural. It's a collective noun.

The only collective nouns that are used in the singular is God, the bank, the body.

I'm going to the bank.
Banks are going to be in trouble when this decision gets handed down.

The body is a complicated electro-chemical machine.
The body = collective noun for all human bodies.

Set boundaries with people
NOT 'set boundaries to people'

In general, 'to' is going away from you, and 'for' is coming toward you.

'To' is also you moving away from where you were and towards a place.

Contraindication=point to a different direction=you shouldn't use this medicine with certain other medicines listed below indicate=point to a direction

Contradiction = say the opposite thing dict = speak

No comments:

Post a Comment