(Names are changed to protect your privacy.)

Just go to the “Contact Jane” page
and ask your question in the contact form.

This question is from Jered in San Diego, CA
(Real names are never used.)

Jered: As we all know, the head of BP Oil is being crucified in the press. From my perspective, his personal comments to the public and Congress are the sincere truth.  His people are working around the clock to solve the problem. He goes home to the UK for personal family time and to get a few hours of fresh air. Certainly, his mind is preoccupied. Yet no matter what he does or says that is truthful – the public is unsatisfied. How does one handle these situations? It’s as though the truth is insufficient as compared to a carefully postured response.

Jane:  We don’t really know the character of Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP, or really what responsibility he does or doesn’t hold for what occurred.  But I agree that he may very well be saying the sincere truth, but that many people want a scapegoat.  They want someone to emotionally pay for their suffering, as if that would make them feel better.

The whole idea of sharing the suffering seems to be very strong in people.  If I am suffering, then you ought to be suffering also — or you don’t care, you are selfish, you are a bad person.  But this has nothing to do with any real solutions, or any easing of human pain.

This is a triggered kind of emotional response, and not reality-based.  Whether Mr. Hayward is outwardly suffering or not, has no actual benefit to anyone who is suffering because of the oil spill.  It won’t have any effect on solutions being found any faster, or people getting compensated any faster.

People who are invested in finding scapegoats for their suffering are looking in the wrong direction for any real solutions, and are invested in holding in place vibrations of misery, hatred and pain.  As a result, I would guess, this is only one of many sources of misery in their lives, as this is what they would attract.

To answer your question more directly, about how to handle this kind of situation:  Rather than the focus being on how other people might respond to us, as if that is the source of our well-being, and trying to cater to them, the real dialog is between oneself and a larger perspective, beyond the limited human scope of things.  In other words, specifically in relation to Mr. Hayward, I’m sure there are lessons for him to learn, or he wouldn’t have found himself in this kind of situation in the first place.  For example it is possible that he might have an emotional defense system of keeping himself at a distance from getting emotionally or personally involved in general, believing that that will keep him safe.  This experience could rock that defense system, and be a huge wake-up call for him.  Perhaps if he had been more personally involved, he may have prevented what happened.

* Limiting Decisions: Unconscious decisions, usually made before the age of 6 or 7, such as “I am bad,” “I am not good enough.”  “People can’t be trusted.”  They are always some form of deciding that life doesn’t work, and usually that there is something inherently wrong with you.

(Janet said she feels Anita often judges and disapproves of her. Then Anita said she was being a mirror for Janet.)

(To Anita) “While it’s true that people see things in others that reflects some vibration in themselves, people can, at the same time, actually be seeing something about the other person. It’s not always just projection. Both things can happen at the same time. I think people, more often than you are aware of, have that same response to you of you being judgmental and disapproving, as a first response. So that’s information for you to have. It might be a way you are getting people to keep away.”