Since we cannot remember all such pieces of evidence and describe them well, it is difficult to convince others of our interpretations.
Even if we could remember and describe well, most of us do not have the patience to listen to them. Somebody was complaining about the three-hour monologue on a family funeral, the other day...
You are right. That means we should forget about asking others to integrate the information that we give to them.
And yet, they tell us that our judgments are either too optimistic or pessimistic!
If we give a concise summary of an exchange or an event instead, that would necessarily be based on our view of it. For example, we could say, "He was very angry when he left the room," instead of recounting how his eyes looked, how he was breathing, how he turned around, how he grabbed the door knob, how he closed the door, and so on.
Whatever we do to explain better, we will be told that we are looking at it in a wrong way.
And you do look at an exchange in a wrong way.
Are you saying that you are unbiased, but I am?
It was a generic 'you,' comrade.
Why did you dropped the generic 'we,' then?
You see, these small things matter, but we usually do not remember them.
You have changed the focus of our conversation ever so slightly... Anyway, we tend to retain in our memory only the overall impression that the details give us. Plus, there are historical elements in most exchanges.
For all these reasons, I respect the interpretations of the persons involved.
If you are only indirectly related to the exchange or event, your view should matter less for that fact.
Unless you have a very strong reason to present yours as the more plausible, or you happen to have the obligation to rule over them. You could be a guardian, instructor, judge, supervisor, leader, and the like.
Aren't we back to the issue of personality, then?
I'm afraid we are. There will always be people who are pushy enough to tell others that they are wrong.
Overconfident souls do not see anything wrong in bulldozing their way with their opinions. Many are unaware of their might. The ones who are aware nonetheless push through, because they are so convinced of their goodness.
You know, many people like being told how they should think. For them, a person like myself is totally useless, because I don't tell them what they should be doing.
Even if they ask your opinion?
I would offer it if asked, but I always add that the final decision is theirs.
I bet they don't like that either.
To me, they are effectively asking me to play God. I refuse to accept the request because I do not believe that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. If it did, I am certainly not that being.
How can they ever think that you are?
Some are quite desperate. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they are so unwilling to think for themselves... The conclusion is that when you are decent enough to refuse to be God, people may resent you for that. They will say you are unsympathetic, cold, aloof, heartless and so on.
It's surely ironic that being respectful comes at a price. But I think the problem is that your definition of respect is different from others'.
Talking about respect, I have discovered lately that my instincts in that department are very much---how should I put it---developed. I always thought I had the tendency to overreact in general, but not so.
Comrade, you must admit that there are benefits to getting older. We become so sly that we find justification for everything we do!
Once in a while, I notice that I am acting angrily or offended, and surprised by my own action.
Slyness comes easily, but not maturity. Is this what you are getting at?
What you said is true, but that's not the point here. In the cases that I just described, I examine the situation later and realize that I was reacting to lack of respect.
If that is not an excuse for being rude, I don't know what to say.
Such a self-effacing and self-doubting person that I am...
An oxymoron, comrade. Would you ever trust someone who describes her/himself as nice?
The paradox is that a nice person ceases to be one by admitting so, but it is not rare that we encounter such declarations.
How easily people say, "I am nice," depends on the culture. Whether your "nice person" label should be confiscated upon reading it out loud yourself is culture dependent, too.
We need to make some kind of judgment, and in my world, uttering that line is an unmistakable proof to the contrary.
I thought you have been watching too many Hollywood movies, but you never get used to that one, eh?
Let's say I am so ruthless in my self-examination that most think I lack self-confidence. What they do not realize is that it is my self-confidence that allows me to disclose the results of those examinations.
I can't tell whether this is better than the earlier assessment of yourself. You are obscuring the true nature with convolutedness, ahem.
During an interaction with a person, I sometimes realize that I am all of the sudden angry for seemingly no reason. I am surprised by my own emotions, and that surprise sometimes shows as well. I am struck by feelings of remorse for exhibiting anger, especially because it does not seem to be justified. After the event, I think about it carefully and cannot but conclude that the person that I was with lacked respect and my behavior was in response to that.
How could anyone agree to that kind of argument?
This is exactly what we talked about last time. The other persons' gesture, eyes, tone, etc. indicate that they have little respect for me. They are certainly not aware what these details reveal. In most instances, they do not even know how little respect they have for me. But my instincts pick up the clues before I can clearly formulate in my mind what the attitude of the other party is.
As I recall our previous conversation, you know that it is almost impossible to convince others of your interpretation.
They'll just say I am paranoid and/or rude. But trust me, because I am loathe to be self-congratulatory, I had thought about this mechanism of mine for the longest time.
And you have come to the conclusion that your actions are provoked by others...
You should be happy; I fully accept that many will not understand the mechanism.
Do not despair, the American Psychiatric Association is to release the new version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders very soon.
Did you want to talk about the Americanization of the fields of psychology and psychiatry? If you are diagnosed ill according to that manual, it simply means you are not an average American. As we all know, that can be a very good thing. Most likely, you will be making contribution to world peace for being who you are. Or, you may be labeled mentally ill even when you are not. Think about their aversion to unhappiness and pessimism---it's unhealthy!
Now, now, let's just say that psychologists and psychiatrists need to talk more to anthropologists and sociologists, but they have not done so yet. About being average, we are all ambivalent about it. We find both comfort and boredom in being surrounded by people who are more or less like us.
By definition, most of us cannot escape the fate of being average.
It's more precisely called 'mean' for good reason, my dear comrade.
You are right. That means we should forget about asking others to integrate the information that we give to them.
And yet, they tell us that our judgments are either too optimistic or pessimistic!
If we give a concise summary of an exchange or an event instead, that would necessarily be based on our view of it. For example, we could say, "He was very angry when he left the room," instead of recounting how his eyes looked, how he was breathing, how he turned around, how he grabbed the door knob, how he closed the door, and so on.
Whatever we do to explain better, we will be told that we are looking at it in a wrong way.
And you do look at an exchange in a wrong way.
Are you saying that you are unbiased, but I am?
It was a generic 'you,' comrade.
Why did you dropped the generic 'we,' then?
You see, these small things matter, but we usually do not remember them.
You have changed the focus of our conversation ever so slightly... Anyway, we tend to retain in our memory only the overall impression that the details give us. Plus, there are historical elements in most exchanges.
For all these reasons, I respect the interpretations of the persons involved.
If you are only indirectly related to the exchange or event, your view should matter less for that fact.
Unless you have a very strong reason to present yours as the more plausible, or you happen to have the obligation to rule over them. You could be a guardian, instructor, judge, supervisor, leader, and the like.
Aren't we back to the issue of personality, then?
I'm afraid we are. There will always be people who are pushy enough to tell others that they are wrong.
Overconfident souls do not see anything wrong in bulldozing their way with their opinions. Many are unaware of their might. The ones who are aware nonetheless push through, because they are so convinced of their goodness.
You know, many people like being told how they should think. For them, a person like myself is totally useless, because I don't tell them what they should be doing.
Even if they ask your opinion?
I would offer it if asked, but I always add that the final decision is theirs.
I bet they don't like that either.
To me, they are effectively asking me to play God. I refuse to accept the request because I do not believe that there exists an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being. If it did, I am certainly not that being.
How can they ever think that you are?
Some are quite desperate. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that they are so unwilling to think for themselves... The conclusion is that when you are decent enough to refuse to be God, people may resent you for that. They will say you are unsympathetic, cold, aloof, heartless and so on.
It's surely ironic that being respectful comes at a price. But I think the problem is that your definition of respect is different from others'.
Talking about respect, I have discovered lately that my instincts in that department are very much---how should I put it---developed. I always thought I had the tendency to overreact in general, but not so.
Comrade, you must admit that there are benefits to getting older. We become so sly that we find justification for everything we do!
Once in a while, I notice that I am acting angrily or offended, and surprised by my own action.
Slyness comes easily, but not maturity. Is this what you are getting at?
What you said is true, but that's not the point here. In the cases that I just described, I examine the situation later and realize that I was reacting to lack of respect.
If that is not an excuse for being rude, I don't know what to say.
Such a self-effacing and self-doubting person that I am...
An oxymoron, comrade. Would you ever trust someone who describes her/himself as nice?
The paradox is that a nice person ceases to be one by admitting so, but it is not rare that we encounter such declarations.
How easily people say, "I am nice," depends on the culture. Whether your "nice person" label should be confiscated upon reading it out loud yourself is culture dependent, too.
We need to make some kind of judgment, and in my world, uttering that line is an unmistakable proof to the contrary.
I thought you have been watching too many Hollywood movies, but you never get used to that one, eh?
Let's say I am so ruthless in my self-examination that most think I lack self-confidence. What they do not realize is that it is my self-confidence that allows me to disclose the results of those examinations.
I can't tell whether this is better than the earlier assessment of yourself. You are obscuring the true nature with convolutedness, ahem.
During an interaction with a person, I sometimes realize that I am all of the sudden angry for seemingly no reason. I am surprised by my own emotions, and that surprise sometimes shows as well. I am struck by feelings of remorse for exhibiting anger, especially because it does not seem to be justified. After the event, I think about it carefully and cannot but conclude that the person that I was with lacked respect and my behavior was in response to that.
How could anyone agree to that kind of argument?
This is exactly what we talked about last time. The other persons' gesture, eyes, tone, etc. indicate that they have little respect for me. They are certainly not aware what these details reveal. In most instances, they do not even know how little respect they have for me. But my instincts pick up the clues before I can clearly formulate in my mind what the attitude of the other party is.
As I recall our previous conversation, you know that it is almost impossible to convince others of your interpretation.
They'll just say I am paranoid and/or rude. But trust me, because I am loathe to be self-congratulatory, I had thought about this mechanism of mine for the longest time.
And you have come to the conclusion that your actions are provoked by others...
You should be happy; I fully accept that many will not understand the mechanism.
Do not despair, the American Psychiatric Association is to release the new version of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders very soon.
Did you want to talk about the Americanization of the fields of psychology and psychiatry? If you are diagnosed ill according to that manual, it simply means you are not an average American. As we all know, that can be a very good thing. Most likely, you will be making contribution to world peace for being who you are. Or, you may be labeled mentally ill even when you are not. Think about their aversion to unhappiness and pessimism---it's unhealthy!
Now, now, let's just say that psychologists and psychiatrists need to talk more to anthropologists and sociologists, but they have not done so yet. About being average, we are all ambivalent about it. We find both comfort and boredom in being surrounded by people who are more or less like us.
By definition, most of us cannot escape the fate of being average.
It's more precisely called 'mean' for good reason, my dear comrade.
Posts
