When I listen to music, like popular music, the music of young people, I start thinking about relationships. It makes me mopey. I'm starting to get old enough that it doesn't seem so crazy to put all of that behind me entirely. It's something I've often both intended and lived. Most of my life has been single, unpartnered. But I go to the gym, or get tired of my book on a walk and play a song, and all the old pain and longing wells up again. And I wonder if this is secretly why old people don't listen to young people's music anymore. It brings up too much. There's too much lost, too much irrecoverable, too much that can't be fixed, too much hopeless. I could still choose to live another way, with another purpose - I think. But eventually you cannot even choose. Eventually it's all gone.

It's the plight of the empathetic person that you will often lack empathy. It's partly because you are considerate that you notice, or that when someone tells you, you listen.

Empathy is not a fundamental requirement in all situations. You have the right to feel or not. But if you are the empathetic sort, you know there's so much more work to do.

As Einstein once said (I paraphrase), if you think you have problems with math, I assure you, mine are far greater.

I'm far from the most empathetic person, nor am I comparing myself to Einstein. But I notice my deficiency constantly. And I am after all on the empathetic side. That isn't my doing, not entirely. What I realize is that my natural gift of empathy, like in all likeliness yours, makes life dramatically richer. I'm thankful for it. I do not take it entirely for granted.

Compassion is the air empathy breathes. Without compassion, empathy doesn't do much good. And when empathy fails, compassion is still possible.

I've always felt creatively deficient. Then I realize... always. Not always. Usually. Sometimes I am not. The space between the two can fill a boat and sink it. Or it could propel a piece of confetti into orbit. Why would you want to do that? It's something I suppose.

Organizing cables is actually pretty difficult.

What you generally want is:

• Cables out of the way, even hidden
• Everything very easily unpluggable at once for lightning storms
• The identity of the appliance unambiguous from its plug
• The power block very easily accessible to encourage maintenance
• No tangling, so no unaccounted for extra cable length
• The setup easily modifiable, so preferably no drilling, stapling, gluing, screwing, nailing, sanding, taping, labeling, etc
• As little as possible plugged in while off, slow-draining
• As little as possible plugged in and on while not in use

When you think about this, you realize it may be an impossible task. Putting cables out of the way means making appliances difficult to rearrange. You have to crawl under your desk, pull it away from the wall, shift the large TV set, etc. It also obfuscates the connection between plug and appliance, as the cable is in hiding. Clearly identifying plugs means labeling them, which means you can't hot-swap extensions without ruining the system. Making labels easily switchable or modifiable means the words are likely to rub off or the tags fall off. When you wind up cables to pick up slack, suddenly it's much harder to move items around. And this compounds: you move one item, it pulls on another, but that one can't move, and this other one can't move, and this other... When you think everything's finally set up for most use cases, you realize that too much is plugged in and you're wasting electricity. When you unplug items, the plugs get lost in the shuffle, so you're even less likely to want to use those appliances, so the plugs get even more lost and their cables even more tangled...

I try to be careful with the phrase "political correctness," because used as a term of criticism, it's tossed around as an excuse for disregarding culture, diplomacy, perspective, bias, empathy, etc. Everyone who's lived or traveled much internationally knows that their own culture and subculture is just one of many. After experiencing the international revelation, you know that it would be foolish to completely disregard the cultures and customs of others, just as you would think those others would be foolish at best if they completely disregarded yours.

The revelation, if you do experience it, brings two seemingly opposite shifts. First, you are less sensitive to insult. You realize that cultures, customs, standards, manners, styles, displays of emotion, body language, personal space, dialects, and other practices differ. You assess from a broader view. You're more aware of your own cultural expectations and where they stand in relation to others, and you see that you could have grown up with any other expectation simply by being born in a different place or time, or even just in a different family. Your understanding and tolerance expand.

The second is that your sensitivity also expands. By this I mean sensitivity toward others. You understand that what does not upset you, or perhaps even anyone you know, could upset someone else, and this someone else could still be perfectly reasonable and decent.

People who grow up in abusive circumstances often suffer the opposite forces. They become less sensitive to the upsets of others (after all, they may have experienced and gotten used to worse, or may have learned to grow up in self-preservation mode, focusing less on saving others they cannot save, just trying to stay alive). And they become more sensitive to possible disregard, rejection, insults, mockery, or abuse toward themselves. The combination tends to give many new potential friends a very bad impression, even quite quickly after meeting the person. But it's quite a predictable result of childhood abuse.

The next time you see someone with this kind of double standard, keep in mind that it's probably mostly or completely invisible to them, and also probably not simple to correct even if pointed out to them directly.

What I will call "hypercorrectness" can show up in regard to others or to the self. That is, someone can become overly concerned about minor details even to the point of their "correctness" becoming totally incorrect - either when it comes to how others are treated, to how they themselves are treated, or both.

"Hypercorrectness" is usually a language phase young children go through. That's its typical meaning. For example, when I was little, I had noticed that you add "-ed" to make actions past-tense. So I argued intensely that "went" wasn't a real word, and "goed" was right because it took "go" and added "ed." This was both amusing and annoying to my mother, and she's often told the story - and I remember it clearly, in fact. But it's a classic mistake children will make. They will learn a rule, then overapply it, thinking it's more regular, universal, and infallible than it really is. That's hypercorrectness.

I've worked for many years as a tutor, most of those years in centers that are very diverse. I'm white. And European by family and country of birth. Most of the students I have taught, though, have been peoples from all around the world. And relevant to this next point, in a center where I worked for three years, more than half of the students were black. One thing I noticed occasionally was that two, three, or four students would be talking, and I would hear the word "white," and then I would hear "SHHHH!! Don't be a RACIST!!!" and then laughter and other comments. Some of them might look over at me. This was not something I minded one way or another, and it amused me, and I guess it was nice to feel like people were concerned about not offending. But it's hypercorrectness. There's nothing actually wrong with saying the word "white" or the word "black" in reference to a person. Black people typically call themselves black. No, they are not literally black of skin. But that's what people say, and they say too. And I also call myself white without mulling it over or thinking there's something wrong with that, even though I am not literally white of skin. But then someone who is different from you is in the room, and you don't want to refer to them in a way they don't like - or, necessarily, call attention to the difference. So you may well be on your best behavior and try to be extra careful not to say the wrong thing. Hence hypercorrectness of this kind.

Another time, a black student pretended he had forgotten the race of someone who was openly racist toward his family in a true story he was writing. He started to say white, then interrupted himself and said he didn't remember. He didn't want to offend me or make the wrong implication, which I immediately understood. It was an uncomfortable story, but it would not be racist of him to identify the racist as white while telling the story to a white person. But I totally empathize with his situation in that moment. I was uncomfortable about the story, and it was just a piece he was writing - making me personally uncomfortable wasn't what he was going for. But it was a good story to tell, and it had really stuck with him for a reason.

Hypercorrectness can be perceived as biased or racist. For example, in a study in which participants were asked to direct someone to one of several photos by describing it, the participants who avoided using charged words like "black" (when that would have made things easier) were seen as more biased/racist than people who used outright racial slurs. That's kind of extreme! Sometimes it's the things you don't say, right? But it goes to show that correctness and hypercorrectness are not exactly simple. And in some cases that inference will be correct. If someone considers "black" a dirty word - enough to avoid it when it would be really useful - that might mean they consider people of color to be somehow bad in general. Another circumstance, though, is that they do not want to offend or draw attention to a contentious difference or point of pain. They are simply anxious or bending over backwards to be accommodating (and perhaps not doing so quite right, but it's the thought that counts).

This topic is too complicated to brush aside with one hand and one contemptuous reference to "political correctness." There's nothing wrong with correctness. Correctness is good. And hypercorrectness is actually quite understandable. Often it means well.

Understanding usually means respecting. But sometimes even if you don't understand, respect will be important. Whether "political correctness" is the sensitive, useful, diplomatic, realistic kind or the hypercorrect kind, is it very hard to understand?

If you want to confront someone on an issue, your own self-control is paramount. It isn't just their potential defensiveness you need to think about. First and foremost, your self-control. Shoot for these goals:

Specific, Actionable, Sensible, Accurate.

SASA.

You also need to give them Space to agree or disagree. If you go in with the attitude that you'll bully them into submission, that may not go very well.

SASAS.

Maybe a better way to present the last one would be Willing to listen and give them the space to agree, disagree, clarify, take some time, etc.

SASAW.

Specific, Actionable, Sensible, Accurate, Willing.

Specific: They need to know what you're saying. Vague claims like "You don't care" are difficult to assess. Better: "You don't care about celebrating my birthday."

Actionable: A person not only must be able to do something about your complaint, they must also come to that realization. A person able to do something they don't know they can do probably won't do it. "I'd like to go to a nice restaurant on my birthday" is actionable in a way that "You don't care about celebrating my birthday" may not be.

Sensible: Not only should it be generally regarded as sensible, but it's important for your listener to see how it's sensible. Getting this across is part of confronting them. People won't respond well if you confront them with demands they don't find sensible (even if they are Specific, Actionable, etc - even if the demands ARE sensible, the person has to realize that, or it probably won't work). "I celebrate your birthdays the way you want. Why are mine always secondary? A nice meal seems like a nice, normal thing to do in general."

Accurate: You may feel that if you phrase things strongly, people will hear you better if they weren't hearing you before. Sometimes this is true. But it's a double-edged sword. You can just as easily shut people off by exaggerating or throwing in dubious or incorrect extras. "You've never, ever cared about me, even to show up at a nice restaurant to celebrate my birthday with people who are your friends" could be off-putting and unpersuasive to someone who does care and/or has celebrated your birthday at times. Often understatement works better than overstatement. Go for what no one in their right mind can deny. Don't go for the big emotional wow-factor. "You've celebrated my birthday before, but not in the past 3 years." Or, to bring back the example used under Sensible: "You don't seem to care about celebrating my birthday" is even more specific and accurate than "You don't care about celebrating my birthday." Someone might feel they care - or there might be other factors getting in the way - and that might not be getting communicated. But if it seems that way to you, that is an accurate, specific statement that it seems that way to you. It allows people to see your point even if they believe they do care very much, for example. Otherwise, they might be forced to simply disagree: "But I do care!" which will possibly lead to you feeling invalidated, brushed aside, gaslit, etc. "You don't seem to care about celebrating my birthday" is pretty easy for anyone to agree with, even if they kind of don't agree with the premise that they don't care, as long as they recognize you have feelings on the matter, and they care about how you feel. Make it easier, not harder. This example is easier because it's actually truer. You know how it seems. You don't actually know how the other person feels. Stick with what you know for sure.

Willing: I'll leave this mostly to you, as it means many things. It's a bit of a wildcard, as it's about openness and adaptability. But one tip is: Don't tell people what they mean. If someone says a thing and you don't like it, and you push back, allow them to adjust. Don't try to pin them to your interpretation. Don't make it a cross-examination. Let people tell you what they mean, and what they meant, even if that sometimes involves allowing them to change the story a little bit. You will thank me. Trust me on this. It allows people to make the little changes their own. Also, be willing to see people as real, whole people. Don't try to reduce them to categories because you happen to be upset with them. Allow them to be real and multifaceted. Be willing to let them be them. They can tell the difference.

Often people will not agree with you at first, but if you observe these principles well, you'll find that they drift toward agreeing with and accepting and respecting you, more often than not.

Alternative: Non-Confrontational Storytelling

A great technique is to tell a short, personal story about something you experienced and learned. Present it as your own unique experience, not as theirs, not as some eternal truth. Allow yourself to be fallible in that story, but open to learning. Then just move on to some other topic, or some other activity you have lined up. This gives just about the optimal chance that someone will actually change their mind about something you bring up. Rarely will a person change their mind on the spot when confronted (especially if confronted angrily). But quite regularly people change their minds over time because they know people who see them as real people and recount some of their experiences, and listen to experiences in turn. It's a lot less confrontational up-front, but it gets a lot more work done over time.

You can be frank about what you believe, but own it as your belief, and don't beat someone over the head with it, or act like they must accept your belief. Saying "I think Coldplay is a great band" is very, very different from an extended argument in which you try to prove Coldplay is a great brand in such a way that the other person feels you are giving them no option but to agree, whether they actually agree or not. People will almost always accept personal sharing along the lines of "I think Coldplay is a great band" as long as you allow them their own opinion just as freely as you share yours. This kind of simple, personal statement exposes people to other views without threatening, guilt-tripping, or otherwise trying to control the situation. It's much more effective.

Still, sometimes we all do need to confront people. You might want to use SASAW, then, or just keep it in mind as a reference point.

It's really best not to engage with people when they want to fight dirty. If you maintain your self-control and behave much better than they do, they'll often find a problem with that, too. You count to 10 before speaking, and they ramp up the yelling because "you have nothing to say" or "you're a coward." You decline to dig into the details on something they claim that's inaccurate, and "you can't argue" or "you don't have a leg to stand on," or else "you're ignoring me" or "you never hear anything I say." You point out the errors in conduct they're making as politely as you can, and you're "condescending" or "up on your high horse." You address logical unsoundness or empirical uncertainty (with or without any fancy words) and you're "egotistical" and "calling me stupid to my face." You agree with untrue things they say to appease them and you feel dirty and dishonest and weak because you were bullied into lying.

There's no winning. Get out. Leave that bullshit atmosphere.

And if you're responsible for that atmosphere: Stop. Improve. This is misery that you're foisting on others and even yourself. It makes you look terrible. Please learn better methods.

Ok, so it is possible to find ways to validate people's carried-away, somewhat abusive angry feelings without outright lying to them. But for that, it really does help if you don't mind lying to them partly, at least by extensive omission (suppressing comment on everything you know is off-base, instead finding something you can relate to so that they can feel heard). It's harder to be totally honest and remain validating toward someone you flat-out disagree with and think is throwing a tantrum, and not even on sensible grounds. It's possible to find compassion for that person and see it their way without actually biting the bullet and agreeing with a lie, some misconception they seem to be clinging to. But that takes practice, training, experience. Basically no one is born with that skill. It's extra. It's nice to have - really, this is a great, amazing, priceless skill, but it's extra. We can't assume everyone will know how to deescalate. The default, reliable solution is: Leave the scene. Just do it. Say why, leave. Don't be mean. Don't be rejecting. Don't get guilted into continuing. Don't defend yourself. Be brief. Be clear. Leave.

It seems hard at first, but it gets easier fast when you see how well it works.