I had a great discussion with one of my life-sharpeners the other day. You know those people. They are the ones with whom time spent is always fruitful\u2026 always producing of something better\u2026 in me. Granted, I have to be humble enough and discerning enough to recognize that something better is necessary and possible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We were talking about the WNBA and how they are reacting wisely (and poorly) <\/em>to their unprecedented popularity and the reaction to rookie VIP Caitlin Clark. (If not a women\u2019s basketball fan, sports fan, etc., hang with me, friends. The point of this post is not about Caitlin nor women\u2019s basketball nor about any perceived transgression within a potential gender pay gap.)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n As our conversation continued, we spoke of the reactions of some of the league veterans. One name came up, where my sharpener praised the former player, saying he really liked her. I paused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the league marked their 25th anniversary a few years ago, they celebrated the significance by releasing \u201cThe W25,\u201d designating the top 25 players in WNBA history. The player my sharpener mentioned was a name near the top of that list. <\/p>\n\n\n\n I met her once.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I met her in the middle of her storied career. Oh, indeed\u2026 she was an excellent player. Unquestionably gifted, talented and she clearly made the people around her better. Suffice it to say that she possessed most everything we\u2019d say we want in a star player; she deserved that top 25 status. Except for one thing\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n She wasn\u2019t kind to me.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Not only was she not <\/em>kind, I found her to be rude, arrogant and a little snarky, too. Don\u2019t get me wrong. I can definitely appreciate some timely, witty snark here and there. But this was different.I perceived this as an unattractive cockiness that seemed to come with celebrity status. I was grateful to meet her, but it was not an enjoyable experience. She didn\u2019t seem like any kind of life-sharpener. And now, I am the one being kind.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here, no less, is the point of our thinking this day\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s no question that my experience with this star athlete was real. It is equally true that my reaction to our interaction was valid. It doesn\u2019t make me \u201cright\u201d or \u201cwrong\u201d (way too binary of a response choice),<\/em> but as said, my emotions were valid \u2014 meaning well founded and having a sound basis in logic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But here\u2019s what\u2019s also true\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n My one time experience with the celebrity does not define who she is, even though my experience was real.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In fact, it would be unfair of me to think I could determine who she is via a single incident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Hence, I wonder\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n How often do we convince ourselves we are capable of discerning the character of someone after a sole interaction?<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026 as if that interaction represents all another is?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thank God I am not defined by a singular interaction \u2026 like the time I was openly judgmental of a dear friend\u2026 the time I flatly refused forgiveness (she didn\u2019t deserve it)\u2026<\/em> or the time I yelled another timely snark (or maybe expletive)<\/em> on the baseball field\u2026 at a 12 year old.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBut I know them!\u201d<\/em> We justify. Thinking one interaction means we know them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n No. We don\u2019t.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Single interactions don\u2019t define us. Thank God. But single interactions don\u2019t define others either.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Respectfully\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n AR<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I had a great discussion with one of my life-sharpeners the other day. You know those people. They are the ones with whom time spent is always fruitful\u2026 always producing of something better\u2026 in me. Granted, I have to be humble enough and discerning enough to recognize that something better is necessary and possible. We … <\/p>\n