I’ve noticed that I’m not exactly the same person with everyone.

With my friends, especially when I was younger, I could be more goofy, more spontaneous, and more willing to just go with whatever was happening. With my parents, I was much more careful.

Not because I was pretending around them.

My parents were strict and old school. There were jokes and things I could casually do with friends that I knew might be understood differently by my parents, so I learned to adjust. I knew what I could say, what I should probably keep to myself, and when it was better to just be quiet.

For a long time, I thought this was simply what people meant when they said we have different sides. But something changed as I got older.

I’m 26 now, and I’ve actually become much closer to my parents. I can joke with them now. We talk more openly. They ask for my opinion. Sometimes they tell me about their problems and ask what I think.

And that made me realize something I hadn’t really considered before.

I didn’t only become a different person around different people.

I also became a different person around the same people.

The relationship changed, and somehow, a different version of me became possible inside it. That makes the idea of a “real me” a little harder to define.

Because which one is real?

The teenager who was careful around her parents?

The adult who can now joke with them?

The version of me who is goofy with friends?

The version who becomes quiet in certain situations?

I don’t know.

But Psychology gives us some reason to question the idea that personality should look exactly the same everywhere. We can have relatively stable traits while still behaving differently depending on the situation. The person I am doesn’t disappear every time my surroundings change. Certain parts of me simply become more noticeable.

A person can make me more talkative. Someone else can make me cautious. Someone can make me feel generous. Another person can somehow make me lose my patience over something I normally wouldn’t care about.

I see this with my sister.

She’s often hot-tempered, although of course not all the time. Sometimes she gets angry over something that seems small and easily solvable, and I can feel my patience getting stretched.

It would be easy to say, “She brings out the worst in me.”

And there is some truth in that. But that sentence doesn’t tell the whole story.

She can trigger my impatience, but she doesn’t own my reaction. I still decide whether I snap back, walk away, explain myself, or let the irritation pass.

Someone can bring something out of me without creating it from nothing.

The same thing happens with the better parts of us.

There are children in our neighborhood who sometimes come around because they don’t have much. Sometimes they don’t even have enough food. When I see them, I find myself wanting to give something.

That generosity is already part of me. But the situation gives it somewhere to go.

The person doesn’t necessarily create the quality. They give it a reason to appear.

This happens in relationships more often than we realize.

Someone makes us feel safe enough to become more open.

Someone else makes us cautious, feel funny, makes us defensive, makes us more patient.

Someone tests our patience until we discover that we have much less of it than we thought.

None of this means that one person has discovered the “real” us while another has met a fake version.

Different relationships give different parts of us room to exist.

But I also don’t want to turn this into an excuse.

I’ve heard people say things like, “That’s just how I become when I’m around them.”

Sometimes, yes. The relationship genuinely affects us.

But if we stop there, we can avoid looking at ourselves.

There is a difference between saying “This person brings out my anger.”

and saying “Because this person brings out my anger, I’m not responsible for what I do with it.”

The first can be an observation.

The second gives away our agency.

And this is where the whole idea gets complicated.

If other people can influence which parts of us appear, then how much of who we are actually belongs to us?

We like to imagine there is one stable person underneath everything. One “real self” that exists regardless of who we’re talking to.

But I’m not sure it’s that simple. The self is partly relational.

There are parts of me that only become visible in certain relationships because those relationships create the conditions for them.

I couldn’t have been as open with my parents when I was younger because our relationship wasn’t what it is now. The trust, maturity, and understanding between us developed over time.

So some parts of us might not be sitting somewhere inside us, fully formed, waiting for the right person to uncover them.

Some of them develop through the relationships we experience.

And yet, that doesn’t mean other people completely determine who we become.

I am still the one moving through all these relationships, remembering what happened, making choices about how I treat people.

I’m still capable of noticing, “I don’t like this version of myself,” and trying to respond differently next time.

So when I ask myself which version is the real me, I still don’t have a satisfying answer.

I can be myself with my friends.

I can be myself with my grandmother.

I can be myself with my parents.

And somehow, I’m still different with each of them.

I don’t think that makes me fake.

Being authentic doesn’t require behavioral consistency.

Being the same person everywhere was never the point.

There are probably parts of me that remain stable even when the way I express them changes. My values, memories, tendencies, choices, the things I care about. I just haven’t figured out exactly where the boundary is between those things and the situations that shape them.

So now, I’m comfortable saying that I am one person with many versions.

Some are louder. Some are quieter

Some appear because I feel safe. Some because I feel threatened. Some because someone needs something from me. Some because a certain relationship has taught me how to be that way.

They’re all part of my experience of being me. But being aware that a certain version exists doesn’t mean I have to let it control me.

That’s the part of authenticity I understand now.

I don’t have to be the same person with everyone to be real. But I do have to take responsibility for the person I become in each room.

Subscribe

Share

Comment

I bought a book recently. I wanted it. I was excited about it. And I could afford it. So I bought it.

Then, after the excitement wore off a little, I remembered I already had books at home I hadn't read yet.

And there it was.

Oh, I shouldn't have bought it yet.

Not because the book was too expensive. Not because I couldn't afford it. Mostly because I still have books here anyway. This might just end up sitting on the shelf too.

It's funny how fast the question changes.

Before buying it: I want this.

After buying it: But did I need it?

I do this with a lot of things. If I want new clothes, I look at the clothes I already have. and say I already have something like this.

If my phone still works, buying a new one turns into a whole negotiation with myself. “It still works anyway”. There'll be a new model next time anyway.

But when it comes to my family, my brain uses a completely different calculator.

Food for the house? Okay.

Something my sibling needs? Okay.

Education, medicine, something I think the family needs? I don't spend nearly as much time arguing with myself about it.

But if I want a new shirt. Do I really need this?

A book. I still have books anyway.

A phone. It still works anyway.

It's not that I don't like spending money. I think I've just learned to be careful about where it goes. And lately I've been wondering why some spending feels immediately fine, while other spending needs a whole meeting with myself first.

Maybe it isn't really about money.

Maybe it's about what we believe money is for.

Growing up, I heard the usual reminders.

Don't waste money. Don't waste food. Money isn't easy to earn. Save up.

We weren't the kind of family where money was something you never had to think about. There were times things were fine, and times money was tight. So I learned early that money could disappear pretty quickly if you weren't careful.

I don't remember ever consciously deciding, I'm going to grow up and question every purchase I make. It wasn't that. I think I just learned to value money. And honestly, I'm glad I did. those lessons are useful. Don't waste food. Don't waste money. Save when you can. There's nothing wrong with any of that.

But something happens when a useful lesson follows you long enough. Eventually your parents don't have to say it anymore.

You say it to yourself.

We tend to think of money as numbers. ₱500 is ₱500, whether it goes toward groceries, a book, a shirt, or something for my sibling. Mathematically, it's the same money.

But it doesn't feel the same.

We give money jobs. This is for food. This is for savings. This is for emergencies. This is for the family. And then there's whatever's left over for something I simply want. Those categories don't feel equally easy to touch.

If the money is doing something I consider important solving a problem, helping someone, taking care of something necessary. I don't argue with myself much. But if the money is just going to buy something enjoyable? Suddenly I become the finance committee.

Do I really need this? Do I already have something like this? I could just save this. I might need this later.

It's not exactly guilt. It's more like a permission slip. Some purchases come with one automatically. Others have to apply for one.

Maybe that's because we quietly turned a practical distinction into a moral one. Need sounds responsible. Want sounds a little suspicious. Need doesn't have to explain itself. Want does.

Say it out loud: I need this. It feels complete.

Now: I want this. It feels unfinished. You can hear the question waiting right behind it. why?

And sometimes that's a fair question. Sometimes we really should wait. Sometimes the honest answer is that we already have enough, and spending would just be a bad decision. Being careful with money isn't a character flaw. Saving isn't deprivation.

But there's a small leap we sometimes make without noticing: I don't need this turns into I shouldn't spend money on this.

Those aren't actually the same sentence.

A book can be unnecessary and still be worth having. So can a trip. A nicer shirt. A better phone. A meal you didn't technically need. Necessity tells you whether something is required. It doesn't tell you whether something is worth having.

I think this is where it gets interesting, because money isn't only about buying things. It's also about choosing between different versions of your life. The money I spend today is money I can't save for tomorrow, and the money I save for tomorrow is money I can't use today.

So every time I spend, there are really two of me at the table.

The one I am right now.

And the one I imagine I'll become.

Future me might need this for an emergency. Future me will probably be glad I didn't spend everything on something I just wanted in the moment. I like thinking about it that way, because it makes saving feel less like refusing myself and more like taking care of someone I haven't met yet.

But then there's the other person at the table. Me. Right now.

And I wonder sometimes whether taking care of future-me has become so automatic that I forget present-me is also supposed to be at that table. Not every peso has to be insurance against something that might go wrong someday. Some of it is just allowed to make today a little better.

That doesn't mean spending without thinking. It means admitting that security isn't the only thing money is for.

I used to think having money simply meant being able to buy whatever I wanted. That felt straightforward as a kid. Now, when I think about money, I think about savings, emergencies, security, the future. I don't think that's because I became afraid of money. I think I just learned its weight.

And maybe that's what makes this hard. Because learning to value money is a good thing. But once you understand it's limited, almost every purchase becomes a small negotiation between possibilities. This ₱1,000 could be this, or it could stay in savings, or it could go toward the house, or it could sit and become part of an emergency I might need someday.

The money doesn't change. What changes is the story I attach to each use of it.

Maybe that's why "can I afford it?" was never really the whole question. You can afford something and still choose not to buy it . that's reasonable. You can also afford something and buy it even though you don't strictly need it. that's reasonable too. The harder part is deciding what makes the second choice legitimate. Usefulness? Meaning? Simply wanting it enough?

We rarely sit down and write these rules for ourselves. We just develop them. some from our families, some from having too little, some from finally having enough, some we build on our own as we get older. Eventually they get so familiar we stop noticing they're rules at all. We just call it who we are.

I don't think the goal is to stop asking do I really need this. It's still a useful question. Maybe the goal is just to notice it isn't the only one.

Because sometimes I don't need this can be followed by but is it worth it to me? And sometimes the answer will still be no. That's fine.

But sometimes the answer might be yes, not because someone convinced me I "deserve nice things," not because life is short, not because spending is self-care. Just because something doesn't have to be necessary to have value.

I still catch myself doing the math on a shirt I could easily afford. I probably always will.

Maybe that's the strange part about becoming more careful with money. You don't just learn how to save it. You slowly build a whole philosophy about what it's for and you only really notice you have

One when something small, like a book, makes you stop and ask the bigger question underneath it.

What do we believe money is for?

Maybe you didn't join a family activity because you simply didn't feel like going. Suddenly, you're antisocial, you don't want to be with them, you're a killjoy.

Maybe your family wanted you to take a certain course, but you chose something else. Now you're stubborn.

Maybe you don't tell them everything because you're not ready to talk about it. So they assume you're hiding something.

Maybe you don't want to join a conversation where everyone is gossiping about someone who isn't there. Now you're judgmental. Or acting like you're better than everyone else.

Sometimes the explanation is much simpler than the story people create around it. You just didn't feel like it.

And yet, when someone has already decided what your behavior means, the instinct to correct them can be almost impossible to resist.

That's not why I did that.

You don't understand.

That's not who I am.

I've done this more times than I'd like to admit.

I've explained decisions because I wanted people to understand that I wasn't being stubborn. I've defended myself because I didn't want someone to mistake explaining my side for disrespect. I've tried to explain things even when the explanation probably wasn't going to change anything.

And it made me wonder:

Do I actually want to be understood, or do I just hate being misunderstood?

They sound like the same thing.

I'm not sure they are.

I've noticed this especially when I make decisions other people don't agree with.

There was a course my family wanted me to take, but I chose something different.

There was also someone I was getting to know whom they didn't approve of.

I had my reasons. So I explained them.

And sometimes I explained them again.

But there is a strange point you can reach in these conversations where you realize that the problem isn't that they don't have enough information.

They heard you.

They just don't agree with you.

And no additional explanation can guarantee that they'll change their mind.

"You don't understand me" is much easier to hold onto than:

"You understand what I'm saying, but you still think I'm wrong."

The first feels like a communication problem.

The second might simply be a difference in judgment.

And there's nothing left to explain away.

I've also learned that sometimes defending yourself doesn't look like defending yourself to the other person.

You try to explain your side during a disagreement.

They hear it as talking back.

You think you're clarifying.

They think you're refusing to admit you're wrong.

Now you're no longer just arguing about what happened. You're arguing about what your attempt to explain yourself supposedly says about your character.

It's strange how quickly an explanation can become evidence against you.

And I think that's partly why we keep explaining.

We're not only trying to change the facts.

We're trying to change what those facts mean about who we are.

Psychology has a concept called self-verification that I find interesting here.

In simple terms, people often want others to see them in ways that are consistent with how they see themselves.

So when someone describes us in a way that doesn't match the person we believe ourselves to be, it can feel strangely threatening.

"That's not me."

Of course, that doesn't mean our self-image is always accurate.

We know our intentions from the inside.

Other people experience our behavior from the outside.

Those two perspectives can disagree.

And sometimes the person who says, "You're misunderstanding me," really is being misunderstood.

But sometimes they're being shown something about themselves that they don't want to see.

A friend once gave me one of those moments.

I'd agree to go somewhere, and then when the day came, sometimes I wouldn't feel like going anymore. I'd make an excuse.

After enough times, she said:

"Lagi ka namang ganyan." (You're always like that.)

My first reaction was basically:

Was I?

There was some defensiveness in that question.

But honestly, she had a point.

Sometimes someone else's perception of us isn't a misunderstanding.

Sometimes it's a pattern.

And that's uncomfortable because it's much easier to think they don't understand me than to consider that maybe they understand something about us that we haven't noticed.

This is also why I don't think the answer is simply to stop caring what people think.

I care what some people think.

Especially people I love.

If I hurt someone, I don't want to dismiss them by saying, "That's just your interpretation."

If someone points out something I've done repeatedly, I want to be able to listen.

If I've actually done something wrong, I want to know.

Sometimes explaining yourself is an act of love.

Sometimes it's accountability.

Sometimes it's necessary because a misunderstanding has real consequences.

But sometimes you've already explained yourself, and you're no longer communicating.

You're trying to make someone believe you.

I learned that distinction with someone I was getting to know.

There wasn't one dramatic reason I decided to stop. It was more a collection of small things that didn't sit right with me. the way he communicated, the way he handled certain things, and what his actions made me feel.

He wasn't a bad person.

He just wasn't meeting something I wanted. so I decided to stop.

He came to his own conclusion about why.

He thought I must have someone else.

He kept insisting on it.

So I explained.

He didn't believe me.

I explained again. and again.

Eventually I reached a point where I thought:

If that's what you think of me, okay.

And strangely, I felt relieved.

Not because I suddenly stopped caring.

I hadn't. Part of me still wanted him to understand that what he believed wasn't true.

I just didn't want to keep explaining anymore.

And that distinction stayed with me:

Caring and continuing to explain are not the same thing.

Maybe that's what makes this so difficult.

We often treat caring and not caring like they're opposites.

Either you care deeply about someone's opinion, or you're completely detached from it.

But there's something in between.

I can care about what someone thinks of me without making their opinion the final authority on who I am.

I can listen without automatically agreeing.

I can clarify without needing to convince.

I can accept that someone sees me differently without immediately deciding that one of us must be stupid or dishonest.

And sometimes I can even admit: Maybe they have a point.

That's harder than saying "they just don't understand me."

Being misunderstood by someone you love also feels different from being misunderstood by a stranger.

With people close to us, there is an expectation underneath the relationship:

You know me.

So when they get something important about us wrong, it can hurt in a way a stranger's opinion doesn't.

Wanting to be understood by someone we love isn't weakness.

It's part of being connected to them.

But that doesn't mean we can demand perfect understanding from them.

People only ever know parts of us.

They see what we do, what we say, what we don't say, and what they remember.

They fill in the gaps. We do the exact same thing to them.

I've done it too.

I've assumed someone's silence meant they were angry or they don't care when maybe they were simply tired.

I've interpreted someone's behavior without knowing what was happening inside their life.

We're constantly building stories about people with incomplete information.

And then we're surprised when someone builds the wrong story about us.

This is where Stoicism becomes useful to me. not as a philosophy of pretending nobody's opinion matters, but as a reminder that there are things I can influence and things I can't.

• I can explain.

• I can tell the truth.

• I can listen.

• I can apologize.

• I can change my behavior.

But I can't climb inside someone's mind and rearrange the story they've already created about me.

• I can't make someone believe me.

• I can't force someone to forgive me.

• And I can't spend my entire life trying to edit every version of myself that exists in other people's heads.

Maybe that's what letting go actually means.

Not "They're right." Not "I don't care."

Just "I've said what I needed to say. What you believe after that is yours."

There is a freedom in that.

Not the dramatic kind where suddenly nobody's opinion hurts anymore.

I don't think that kind of freedom exists.

Someone can misunderstand you and it can still hurt.

Someone you love can get you completely wrong and you can still wish they saw you differently.

You can care and still let go.

You can listen and still disagree.

You can admit when someone has a point without handing them complete authority over your identity.

And maybe, before explaining yourself one more time, it is worth asking:

What am I actually trying to protect?

The truth?

The relationship?

My reputation?

Or simply my discomfort with knowing that someone has a version of me I can't reach in and edit?

I don't always know the answer. and that's part of being human too.

But I know I don't want to spend my life standing in front of people with evidence, trying to convince them that I'm not the person they've decided I am.

Sometimes you explain.

And sometimes you've already said enough.

You don't have to agree with their version of you.

You just have to accept that you don't have unlimited authority over what lives in someone else's mind.

Maybe that's what I was doing when I finally said:

Okay.

I hadn't stopped caring.

I had just stopped trying to make someone believe me.

And maybe those were never the same thing.

Being understood is something you can invite. Not something you can force.

Subscribe

Share

Comment

That's uncomfortable to admit, because I like to think of myself as someone who treats people the same no matter what they can offer me. I never treated anyone badly because of their status — I know what it's like to be on the other side of that, to have people treat you differently because of what you have or don't have. So it's easy for me to say I respect everyone. And I do believe that.

But somewhere along the way I noticed something smaller and harder to catch. I get nicer to my parents when I need something from them. And when my sibling doesn't help me with something, when I ask and they conveniently pretend not to hear me. I get annoyed almost immediately.

It's not that I don't respect them. I do. But my behavior still shifts depending on what I need.

That's the distinction that's stayed with me, respecting someone and treating them according to their usefulness are not the same thing. You can genuinely believe you respect people and still behave differently toward them depending on what you need from them.

I see it outside my family too, though. it's easy to turn "I noticed this in other people" into a way of feeling better about myself. That's not the point.

At gatherings, I'm usually one of the people asked to help . getting things, cleaning up, running errands. Honestly, I don't mind. We can't really contribute much financially, so helping out feels like my version of contributing. That's something I can give.

But I've also noticed that relatives who are more financially successful, or who took a "good" course, or who have an impressive career, get listened to more. More attention. More interest in what they have to say. Not from everyone, some of my cousins treat me the same either way, and that's worth saying, because this isn't about every single person doing this. But enough people do it that I've noticed the pattern.

I've seen versions of it in school and in dating too — a teacher with obvious favorites, a classmate who only really paid attention to people who were smart or popular, someone whose interest shifted once they found out what you actually do for work, or suddenly appeared once you became successful. Which makes you wonder: were they interested in the person, or in what the person became?

That's probably why this quote stuck with me:

"A great man shows his greatness by the way he treats little men."

I don't take "little men" literally. When I hear it, I think of the people who often get treated as less important because of their circumstances — farmers, janitors, yayas, construction workers, delivery riders, people without money or connections, people who never got the chance at a good education, people whose work matters but doesn't come with much recognition.

I've seen people go humble and polite around someone more successful than them, then turn rude or dismissive toward someone they've decided is beneath them. I've also seen people talk about kindness and treating everyone equally, while behaving differently the moment there's nothing to gain from being kind.

But I don't want to make this into a story about rich people being bad and poor people being good, because that's not true either. I've met wealthy people who are genuinely kind. I've also seen people with barely anything act like they're better than everyone else. Sometimes someone only needs a little more status than the next person for it to change how they act. It was never really about how much someone has. It's about what happens to the way we see a person once we realize they can't do anything for us.

And that's where I have to include myself in this, not just point at it.

I don't think being friendly with someone because you need their notes makes yo badI don't think getting annoyed at a sibling who won't help you makes you a bad person. People depend on each other — we ask for help, we return favors, we build relationships partly through exchange. There's nothing wrong with that on its own.

I get irritated sometimes too, and I don't think feeling irritated is the problem. What matters more is what you do with it, whether you let a bad moment turn into deciding someone deserves less respect. People have bad days. People get tired. People are dealing with things I know nothing about. I don't think one moment tells you everything about a person.

But if you keep seeing the same thing from someone, respectful to people with power, dismissive to people without it. at some point that stops looking like a bad day and starts looking like a pattern. I trust patterns more than moments, at least when I'm looking at other people. I'm less sure I can say the same about myself, since most of what I've noticed in my own behavior is a handful of memories, not something I've actually tracked over time. Maybe that's worth sitting with too.

Yes, I respect everyone. I believe that about myself, and I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to sound like I've had some deeper realization.

But respect isn't only a belief you hold. It shows up in smaller places. who gets your attention, who you make time for, who you find interesting, who you notice at all. And if I'm honest, some of that still runs on what a person can do for me, even when I don't mean for it to.

Noticing that doesn't make me a hypocrite. It just means I can finally see, in myself, something that was always easier to see in other people first.

Who still matters to me when I don't need anything from them? That's the part I'm still sitting with.

Subscribe

Comment

Share

When I got home, he called and told my mom. Naturally, I started defending myself before anyone had even finished the conversation.

“He's Just my friend”.

He was my friend, so technically the answer wasn't completely false. But I knew I was using the word “friend” to avoid saying what was actually going on.

I was still studying, and dating wasn't something I was supposed to be doing yet. I didn't want the questions, the disappointment, or the possibility of being judged. So I kept explaining: he was just a friend, we happened to be together, there was nothing to worry about.

I had an answer ready for everything.

Looking back, I realize I was explaining far more than the situation actually required.

I wasn't really trying to convince my uncle that he was wrong. I was trying to protect myself from what might happen if I admitted he was right.

And that made me wonder:

Why do we sometimes defend ourselves even when, deep down, we already know the other person has a point?

Sometimes the problem isn't being wrong

I've noticed the same reflex in smaller ways since then.

When my aunt criticizes me, my first reaction isn't always reflection. Sometimes it's irritation. I get short with her. I focus on how she said something instead of what she said.

Because criticizing the way something was said gives me something to fight against.

It is much harder to sit quietly with the possibility that the criticism itself might be true.

And if I'm honest, she's often right. I just don't always want to admit it to her specifically.

With my father, it's different but related. Sometimes I argue back. Other times I go quiet because answering at all feels like it might come across as disrespectful.

But that silence isn't necessarily peace. Sometimes it's me swallowing what I actually want to say and letting the irritation sit there.

I used to explain all of this to myself as, “I just don't like being told what to do.”

That's not completely wrong, but it's incomplete.

There's a difference between not wanting to be controlled and not wanting to be caught being wrong. The first is about autonomy. The second, I think, is closer to shame.

When correction feels personal

Psychology gives us a useful way to understand this.

Guilt and shame are related, but they're not quite the same. Guilt is closer to “I did something wrong.” Shame is closer to “There is something wrong with me.”

That difference matters.

If someone tells me, “You shouldn't have done that,” I can look at the action and decide what I need to change.

But if I hear it as, “You're irresponsible,” “You're dishonest,” or “You're a disappointment,” the conversation suddenly becomes much more personal.

I'm no longer just defending an action. I'm defending my image of myself.

Research on self-threat offers one possible explanation. When criticism touches something important to our identity. being honest, responsible, competent, trustworthy, or a good person, we may become more concerned with protecting that sense of self.

That doesn't mean every defensive reaction is secretly guilt. It doesn't mean every person who argues knows they're wrong. And it certainly doesn't mean every criticism is fair.

But it does suggest something worth noticing: protecting ourselves from the feeling of being wrong can compete with actually listening to what we're being told.

I've felt that competition in myself.

When my aunt corrects me, part of me may already know what she's saying is reasonable. But another part of me is thinking, Why does she have to say it like that?

And suddenly I'm arguing about her tone instead of thinking about her point.

I may not like the way something was said, but I can still ask whether there is something true in it.

That's a distinction I'm still learning.

I saw myself in my siblings

The clearest place I've caught this pattern is with my siblings, because with them, I get to see the same behavior from the other side.

I criticize them sometimes. partly because I want to help, and partly because, like many older siblings, I can fall into the habit of thinking I know better.

When they become defensive, argue, or find a reason why something wasn't really their fault, I get frustrated.

I think, Why can't you just admit it?

Then I remember myself.

I've argued with my father for the same reason. I've gotten irritated with my aunt even when I knew she had a point. I've refused to do something because I was still annoyed about how someone had spoken to me earlier—and called it principle instead of admitting that I was simply still angry.

That realization was uncomfortable.

I was asking my siblings for a kind of openness I wasn't always willing to give the people correcting me.

I wanted them to understand my intentions when I corrected them. But when someone corrected me, I sometimes became so focused on how their words made me feel that I forgot to consider their intentions.

The yardstick we use on other people

That's why a piece called “Father Forgets,” attributed to W. Livingston Larned, stayed with me.

It describes a father sitting beside his sleeping son, thinking back over all the small ways he had been impatient with him that day—all the corrections, frustrations, and expectations he had placed on a child.

One line especially stayed with me:

“I was measuring you by the yardstick of my own years.”

I think that's what I sometimes do with my siblings.

I expect them to take correction calmly when I still can't always do that myself.

I expect them to understand that my criticism comes from concern, while sometimes forgetting that my own parents may be correcting me for the same reason.

I measure their reactions against what I think they should be able to handle. But I forget that I'm still learning how to handle those things myself.

Being right isn't the same as being effective

This brings me back to Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People, particularly the chapter “If You Want to Gather Honey, Don't Kick Over the Beehive.”

Carnegie's argument isn't that people should never be corrected. It's that the way we deliver correction can affect what happens next.

If someone feels attacked, the original problem can quickly disappear underneath the need to defend themselves.

I've seen that happen in my own life.

History gives us an interesting example.

After the Battle of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln wrote a strongly worded letter to General George Meade criticizing him for allowing Robert E. Lee's army to escape.

The letter still exists.

Lincoln marked it:

“never sent, or signed.”

The historical record tells us that Lincoln wrote the letter and did not send it. We can interpret his decision in light of what we know about how he sometimes handled anger, but we should be careful about claiming we know exactly what was going through his mind.

Still, the basic lesson is interesting.

Lincoln could believe Meade had made a serious mistake and still decide that sending an angry letter was not the most useful thing to do.

Being correct and being effective are not automatically the same thing.

Sometimes we are right about the problem and wrong about the way we're handling the person.

Understanding isn't the same as excusing

This is where I want to be careful.

Understanding why someone becomes defensive doesn't mean excusing what they did.

If my siblings do something wrong, they still need to take responsibility.

If I do something wrong, understanding that I was embarrassed or afraid of disappointing someone doesn't erase what I did.

Empathy doesn't mean removing consequences. Accountability doesn't require cruelty.

I can understand why someone lied and still believe they shouldn't have lied.

I can understand why someone became defensive and still expect them to take responsibility.

I can recognize that someone's reaction came from shame without telling them that the reaction was acceptable.

Maybe that's the distinction I was missing before because:

Understanding asks, “Why did you react this way?”

Accountability asks, “What are you going to do about what happened?”

We need both.

I'm still learning this

I wish I could say that realizing all of this changed how I respond immediately.

It hasn't.

I still argue. I still get irritated. I still catch myself getting annoyed at my siblings for doing exactly what I do.

Knowing the pattern hasn't made it disappear. It has just made it harder to pretend I don't see it.

The next time someone corrects me, I want to give myself a second before I respond.

Not because they're automatically right. Not because every criticism deserves to be accepted.

But long enough to ask myself:

Am I actually disagreeing with what they said or am I reacting to how it feels to hear it?

And when I'm the one correcting someone else:

Am I trying to help them see something or am I trying to make them admit that I'm right?

I don't always know the answer in the moment.

I'm not sure I'm supposed to.

Subscribe