Unlimited, Free and Ad-lib!

What is "unlimited and free"?

No, this is not a trick question. Not one of those whatsapp and FB wonky and absurd lateral thinking puzzle that you need to scratch your knee to arrive at answer. Repeating, what is "unlimited and free" and never exhausted even after the apocalyptic nuclear fusion fizzles in our 'guiding stars' when essential hydrogen is depleted.
(see I gave you a hint in that verbosity)


Advice! A human advice (to exclude guidance and divination sourced from other living beings)! Nothing like curling up to sapience extracted from a good advice and burst as a warrior ready to take on the world with this valiance. I love advices , all kinds of musky or mushy advices —"How to behave" , "How to conduct" , "How to sneeze when you don't have a tissue paper around", "How to write a post that people should read beyond first line". The ubiquitous and replenishable advice galore! What acts as a crutch to already confused mind —another confused mind (see no trick questions in this post). Although I nurture a wicked shade in my diabolical brain (yes, the same brain which is host to phantasmagorical dreams), I admire advices albeit a perversion to test the advice on the provenance before rolling it out on the 'affected party'. Why should I not? After all there is nothing more appealing or comforting than a tested, verified and sanctioned advice from my squeamish "Quality Assurance" lobe. Unsuspecting to the victim, who has magnanimously listened to my problem and doled out advice, I work towards creating a sandbox scenario to stage a social experiment and observe the results with no malicious intent, you see only as scientific study, yes sign-take-fake study, to be assured that such rigorously tested and foolproof "advice" is ready for go-live on the affected party. There may be few failings but consistency, performance and robustness with admissible tolerance in priming controlled environment and execution of test plan is good enough.


In few weeks time, I'm advised — "Be open, transparent, communicative to solve all your problems" in one of my comforting sessions. H-uh! mandarin cake walk for me, gab & gaff, I was born with two tongues (err, or may be two faces each with a tongue), how much more communicative can one be with a ear chewed off and the other one damaged from amplified shrills at regular interval. In few days, the counsellor becomes experimental subject of my undisclosed plan who has advised me to be "open and communicative". I set-up mock stage to measure the glint in this golden advice partaken from the counselling party. Step#1 Create a scenario that sows discord or feign disappointment. Step#2 When the counselling party asks what's wrong, tipping on — "Be open, talk to me". Begin to wiggle and moan,

"Look, this is how I feel about you, I'm hurt"
(Note down the reflexes, responses, and findings)


Now I'm advised "techniques in conflict management" in my next challenge. There are more books written on this subject than all the wars ravaged since Lucifer turned his back on Heaven. One needs to be wary here. Conflict management is art of avoiding confrontation zone! You need to resolve something by not talking about it. I meticulously follow every step with precision timing.
(Note down the reflexes, responses and findings)


At this point, you may impugn my methodology as the advice broadcasted by any solicitous confidant factored in the strategic traits of the 'affected party'. How can this work on the 'counselling party'? Finally after 4 paragraphs you descry my point. Very pertinent! But then I took adequate steps to ensure that only generic & universal instructions were followed eliminating any specificity reserved for 'affected party'. The impatient in the audience may ask — "Is there any imperative to conduct ourselves with our convictions." Guess not, and that is the whole purpose of this exercise to verify if my guide adheres to the key points imparted as my learning. To be fair: I hardly follow what I dole out. Easy for me to say 'do this', 'do that' and then flop to watch my television with no lump in my throat or flint in my eyes as moral scruple. Giving advice per se is a noble act, who cares of the conviction or inherent beliefs with which it is fortified. True, very true.


Yes, I know you are eagerly waiting to view my test results:


Disastrous, catastrophic!
Each time I followed the advice on counselling party, I burnt my fingers and singed my toes to my subject's adverse (and allergic) reaction to his/her own's advices.
And then it hit me loudly that "Advices are after all for others", never for self.


According to the counselling party,


Expected result : You may notice improvement
Test result: I don't like the way you are talking (be communicative) , you cannot tell me things about me that I don't want to listen (be open), I think you are crazy (be transparent), and then the subject wishes never ever to discuss on this topic (conflict management).


I don't know how to explain this deviance.
I don't even know with this conclusive yet deviant test results should I hesitate to apply on 'affected party' like a vaccination that failed in mice but may work in humans. I've come across only 2-3 people in my life who speak with the conviction of their experience and empirical knowledge. Don't mean to say that others are phoney but I don't know what to do with their advices, again it is winsome but not mandatory that great architects flaunt rococo establishments, no, they can stay within creaking roofs and stinking floors; upmarket hair saloons employ rapunzels, no, they may employ bald stylists; similarly, just because the counselling party performed poor as experimental subject in mock show, I don't doubt the earnestness of the advice. So, wrapping up the post, the unlimited and free state of advices, how is that maintained? when advices are always meant for others not for self, they're not only unlimited and free but also ad-lib (you can advise what ever you want) as long as you don't encounter whistle-blowers like me who leak — "The following advice has been approved and ready only for external market though failed all tests in our internal warehouse examination".


Explanatory notes:

To anyone who finds it too cryptic, I've added explanatory notes.
This post is my reflection on the adage "Practise before you preach".
In this modern era, are advices always meant only for others but never for self to meditate (do I even follow what I'm suggesting others to do online or offline).
Most important — when you realize that the person giving out the advice hardly subscribes to his own talk, will you still apply that advice on third party?

 

Sorry, I've added explanatory notes later on reading GG's differently-abled confession.


Explanatory notes:


This post is my reflection on the adage "Practise before you preach".
In this modern era, are advices always meant only for others but never for self to meditate (do I even follow what I'm suggesting others to do online or offline).
Most important — when you realize that the person giving out the advice hardly subscribes to his own talk, will you still apply that advice on third party?

 

No, Satchi.
I'm talking of a very different scenario here.
Everyone is missing it.


What will you do with an advice (very genuine earnest, judicious, sound) from a person who does not subscribe to his own teachings in that advice.
Mind, per se the advice is extremely appealing, sound and valuable.


This article is not about - "Why people advice" but what is the course for "advice" from such person. Would you still go ahead and apply on third person or discard it?


(very focused and specific scenario)


Everyone is missing a crucial point in my original post. I was the one who went to the counsellor for advice, so it was not unsolicited advice. Just that I ran the advice on the same person and my findings were dour.

 

I've no clue how cryptic and incoherent my writing is here but everyone is missing a subtle distinction I've highlighted in the post since you presented a scenario let me leverage that.

which is actually very good advice and after dinner when you slip beside him and coo

"Janoo, did you ever try Ayurvedic medicine"
"Yes, I had allergy to it as a child"
"Baby, did you ever try homoeopathy"
"Yes, I developed hives after that"
"Honey, did you ever try allopa..what"
"Oh, Allopathy, I was hospitalized because of that once "

"So what will you have as medicine for headache"
"English medicine, very effective"
"A-h"
"Did you read about alternative medicine for headache somewhere"
"err, no, yes"
"so you just rattled off, so you are recommending me something that you don't endorse but reckon is effective for me"
"I think we should go to sleep now"


The advice is very sound, but would you still go ahead knowing that your husband does not subscribe to what he is doling out. This is just an example ...( a very bad and poor example because what does not work for him may work for you)


But in personal advices, if there is discordance between person's talk and convictions what would you do? E.g:


"You must be open, communicative, transparent, blah"
And when I am open and communicative, you blast at me!
Would you go ahead and be open and communicative to the affected/third party?



"This is what you are supposed to be doing"
And when I try the same technique on you, I see devastating results!
Would you go ahead with that advice susceptible to similar failure on affected/third party?