"its not my fault, its just the way i am"

It's blame-shifting. Sigh.

I think an awareness of one's faults and limitations is pretty much essential to operate as an adult, but ideally that awareness should be used to avoid situations where you know those faults will flare up.

"Oh, that's just their way!"

which begs the response

"yes, it is just their way, and that's why i'm giving out about them."

I *hate*it when people say this, steve! I was genuinely trying to clarify, though looking back at it, and from your response, it does look more obvious that you did indeed mean what I suggested, rather than 'why don't people change?'

actually it seems some people DO change but others do not but they 'why' in that it somewhat moot as its clearly down to the individual's influences and experiences (often beyond their control) dictating their behavioural patterns mentally.

It seems though that a variety of reasons might exist for why someone wouldn't change things about themselves that they see as flaws; some people may feel powerless to change, some people may not really want to change, some people may just be too lazy to change, etc, etc.

FWIW, I've said this before many a time (although my variation was/is "I can't help it, that's how/what/who I am"). I think it's important, if you're trying to change behavior patterns, to do it one thing at a time; that is, if you really want to change. ;-)

I think I deplore this as a character trait almost above all others.

HSTENCIL

Ronan is right, who would actually say "it's not my fault" before the second part? Of course "It's not my fault" is an abdication of responsibility.

The second part people "say" all the time; whether or not they say it out loud is a different story.

Then the key to the question is what prompts this sort of a statement? Is it a spontaneous utterance, a warning, or a response to a request for change?

I have some sympathy with 'it's just the way I am' said about certain traits. Eg. I wouldn't want someone who was honest to the point of occasional rudeness to change, necessarily, even if it sometimes made me uncomfortable.

I'm thinking back to my last performance review, when my then-boss and I identified some areas for me to work on (of course, even if you're Mr. or Miss Perfect, there's still areas to work on in a performance review!). I clearly identified things that I thought I needed help with, and my then-boss agreed. What happened next? Nothing. I kept waiting for help. I kept wondering when someone was going to take the time to help me develop skills that I couldn't develop on my own. I'm still waiting, although at this point it's moot since I'm being let go.

So this is my fault, even when I clearly asked for help?

Well I think in that case it generally shows

1. ungratefulness for someone caring enough about you to take the time and effort to explain a problem and giving you enough credit to think the relationship could be salvaged.

2. unwillingness to at least try to understand the other person's point of view. It's akin to "I am not interested in the specifics of what's troubling you about my actions, suck it up."

Much depends on the context and history of the relationship, however. It's hard to read all that much into a naked statement on its own.

Why you ask? Because from the minute I got here (and even before that, actually) this boss has cultivated an environment of intimidation and fear. Almost everyone that I worked with before her arrival is gone, bullied out of their positions. In this culture of politics and reprisal, I was supposed to go to this person who I didn't trust for help?

but 2 wrongs don't make a right.

This upsets me more than anything else on earth. But they SHOULD. It should be like maths, where negative and negative makes a positive. I mean, that's logical, they cancel each other out. Why can't everything be more like maths? Why do we have to have these annoying, unpredictable humans fucking everything up?

Tico Tico raises a good point. Whether assigning fault is beneficial is a good question.

For example, I can see how, if accepting responsibility for fault has been beneficial to the growth of the relationship in the past, then saying "it is my fault, it's just the way I am, I make the same mistakes over and over but I am trying my best to do this less, can you see that and accept me on whatever terms you value our relationship as I try to be better?" is one thing, but if accepting responsibility for fault has not been productive, then saying "it is my fault, it's just the way I am, I make the same mistakes over and over and I have tried my best to do this less but we always seem to repeat these problems, can you see that and accept that you have the option not to have a relationship with me but I'm kind of stuck with myself?" is another kettle of fish.

gareth: How do you interpret the statement?

"Sometimes it's difficult to change things, even when you can accurately identify that they are problems, if you receive no help from others."

What about if you cannot accurately identify a problem and you are recieving help from others? Should that other perosn let you be the way you are?

?

Also if I call you stupid, if you call be stupid we were both called stupid.

(We've had that discussion before.)

Ok, will do

"it's not my fault, it's just the way I am"

that's not exactly a tactful turn of phrase, though. it's the "it's not my fault" bit that gets me. unless it's something like "it's not my fault I only have one arm," then it's fine, but i kind of doubt people generally say it that way.

Cause I am
Whatever you say I am
If I wasn't, then why would I say I am?
In the papers, the news, everyday I am
I don't know it's just the way I am

Person A: "Who are you voting for?"
Person B: "I'm not going to vote."
Person A: "Why not?"
Person B: "Because it's stupid. It won't change anything."
Person A: (Cites recent examples of election results impacting our lives.) "You should vote."
Person B: "Well, whatever, it's not my fault, it's just the way I am."

And also just because someone doesn't succeed in "never doing it again" or whatever doesn't mean they deserve to be berated.

Jesus some of the attitudes here. I'm friends with people generally because they are my friends, not because they succeed in being fantastic people all day. The important thing is getting along, and by this I don't mean never discussing problems, anyone who knows me knows I argue alot, but it's the being able to put things aside because you like the person which matters most.

I just think it's better to point out instances where the statement is ok rather than where it is totally dud.

It's called not judging my own worth based on the attitudes of the people around you. I used to say this a lot to myself when dealing with my family, and still do. There is nothing intrinsically 'wrong' with me that prevents me from getting along with my relatives like a good 'ol boy. It's just the way I am.

I'd really like to see the majority attitude here used vs. various fun topics like manic depression, eating disorders, or addiction. Everybody, shape up! It is your fault! You have to change to please the critics!

WTF.

If you justify it then you are really analysing it as opposed to just changing the thread title to "fools we have known and hated".

"IT BETTER NOT"

Acceptance of another's idiosyncracies is part of friendship, but how much liberty-taking with the goodwill of others is really acceptable? At what point does it veer into a bully's ways?

...and I'll agree all the time

should be. not my fault etc etc

Those two don't sound very different to me, except that the latter has a demand in it ('you should like me anyway') and you can't DEMAND for someone to like you.

One of the things he does, in the second verse, is to try and take the attention off himself and point out that many of the faults he's accused of are also present in the media, parents, etc., but without denying his culpability as well. So maybe one of the things the phrase in question is is a response to a feeling of being persecuted, and shouldn't be taken so literally; like "why are we so focused on my problems; you have them too!" A lot of responses so far have kind of been assuming that personal arguments between friends are rational and operate on judge-and-jury principles, but surely this rarely happens? Meaning, most of what's at stake in the argument goes unspoken?