|
In a lifetime, there are many things we strive for. Success is obvious and it can be in the form of social or financial security to stature in the marketplace. Others can say Love, whether to feel loved, to love someone or to know you are loved.
And that's where branch out. It's not about love, but rather something even more basic, but as we grow, we seem to lack the empathy or simple thoughts in considering it. Mind you, I am no perfect socialistic creature either. But I feel I am capable of reminding those who read this entry of the basic aspects of people we should take into account for: their need to improve and their need to feel needed. In other words, people seek to improve themselves or improve a part of their life and they also seek to be appreciated, needed or have a place in a group whether in the workplace, with family or with friends. There's a reason why Cheers was so magical and why many sitcoms involving the audience to a "circle of friends" within the actors was often beloved and a staple in many people's minds.
How many sitcoms can you think of that involved a group of friends with similar interests, same good humor and at a basic level of acceptance to tease one another.
+ Show Spoiler [Some examples of sitcoms] +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6joiq58Q68 Some of the few sitcoms I can think of.
The comfortability of seeing the same friends, same places and basing all conversations around the same topics offers viewers and people a form of security. Is it the security of knowing nothing unknown or unusual would typically occur within this group of friends or location? Potentially, but that is not where this topic is going.
The feeling of being appreciated is basic. Your parents have done it since you were a child. It's still being done in the workplace in the form of paychecks, a symbol that the work or service you did was, at best, adequately acceptable for a incremental form of currency. However, the verbal or physical appreciation far exceeds a paycheck for the spiritual side of you, the psychological or mental energy you have for a task. The reality of it all us that we do many things for a form of approval, appreciation can be interpreted this way. No, I'm not ignoring the exceptions that people do things for the love of it such as writing music, painting and singing, but showcasing these things to close friends or a wide audience is seeking approval. No matter how successful, great or amazing you are, you will always seek the approval of others. You are told you can't please everyone, but that's yet to stop anyone from trying.
Let's take a real example right now. Have you ever considered why I'm writing this? There is an internal need to write, express how I feel or what I am thinking. I feel that what I am doing right now will offer a form of relief. What I am writing, this very topic is a mediator to the troubles I am encountering. I don't want sympathy, hence why I didn't talk directly about these problems (I recognize they are trivial). But I do want to feel useful and exert an aspect I can be proud of at a certain level. While there is relief in writing all of this, there is a desire for others to either appreciate what I am doing or approve what I am doing and that's normal. One would say: "But that's wrong, if you are doing something with the intent to garner people's attention and this is just a tool to be reminded that people approve of your existence then aren't you being egotistical?". I feel this is an extreme viewpoint because it revokes the right of a person to ask for anything. If one took the effort to build a house and people come to reside in it, there is a level of approval that he sought out and it was accomplished. Why can't someone do something (in part) for the acceptance of others?
+ Show Spoiler +http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCHu1E0ca4E
Above is a humour clip about a good deed being, by default, selfish. However, why does the good deed become less of a deed if you benefit from it. If I donated to a charity, that charity receives the benefit of a financial stability. I get the (unlimited) mental benefit of feeling good, important or needed. The money or benefit from the charity is not any less and the mental benefit has no deterrence to its physical counterpart. Whether I feel good or not does not change the deed's ultimate result and the appreciation from the receiver.
I feel I am blurring my point. The point being that showing your appreciation to someone is good. It's not only good, it's essential no matter how trivial or pointless you feel it is. There is no loss in showing your appreciation, telling people: Thanks for playing with me has no downside. The only one I can think of is the idea that you truly believe that it was not a pleasure on their part to play with you (but that's defeated by the fact that they agreed to play with you before-hand without obligation or under circumstances that they feel guilty [there are contexts where this would be untrue, but let's not get into that].People will always seek approval and acceptance from others. The pure fact that we fundamentally cooperate with even the smallest social conventions, basic laws or human decency shows a compelling display that we are, by nature, social creatures on one level or another. Being a social creature means positive feedback from our peers (appreciation, love, acceptance, understanding, etc.).
In sitcoms, the receiver knows that any criticism coming from his companions is done with good intentions. Unfortunately, on the internet and even in the workplace, criticisms can often be smeared of overlooked by the pure fact that there is no emotional trust from the critic and the receiver. You need to be careful that what you say is equally interpreted as also being with good intentions or with your desire to see the other person purely improve.
Some pitfalls that you should avoid are - Unjustified blame (We lost because of you)
- General critical statements (You are not even funny, you should clean up your act)
- Insults, obviously (Worthless shit)
- Bias comparisons (Even your brother/partner/co-worker did better than you)
- Sweeping generalizations (You're like any other actor/singer/writer/thinker)
Essentially, anything that demoralizes someone without justification is terrible criticism. You need to ensure you cover these three key features"
- Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves. This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you.
- Be clear. Now that we've avoided attacking the person. How do you attack the problem? It's a combination of identifying clearly the issue or aspect and adding how to repair it. A man once said: there is no problem without a solution and indeed in part, that is true. You must explicitly say both, you cannot leave implications on the field. Saying: "You are very loud" shows that the person is doing something you dislike, but you leave them to assume you are want him to turn down the sound. While that may be obvious, I'm sure there are instances where it is not so clear-cut and that's where you need to make it clear.
- Balance it out. All criticisms should be met with a compliment. "Of equal proportion?" You ask inquisitively! No, not of the same level, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't at all. Some may find this pointless, but I guarantee you it makes a world of difference. The perfect set is opening with a compliment and then criticizing: "You did some good harassment in your lane, but I felt towards later in the game you weren't keeping up with how you did originally." There is an appreciation of level of approval there, remember what we talked about? The statement above says that I did good at the beginning, but perhaps I did actually start failing a bit later in the game. This is good because it shows that you acknowledged a part of someone's actions as decent and used it as a proper comparison to a later action point in the event (Circumstantially, the events that led up to the poor actions later in the game, could be a determinant as to why one did so poorly with their harassment later on in the game. If so, take that into consideration but remain firm on your point: "Good harassment early game -> You didn't achieve as much success later on -> I understand that at some key points it was very difficult for you, but in others; there was a bit of lacking only our part: you should consider attacking your opponent at a different angle or times."; compliment -> criticism -> Understanding -> (Reiteration) -> How to improve). Even if you aren't credible or you feel you equally did poor you established good intentions, firm and helpful remarks and you revealed my next point.
Understanding. If you don't show understanding or a leg room for the person to improve, they will either give up, discredit you in anger or simply not care. Neither help you and is destructive to the person and that's where issues come in. Be understanding and the person will not retaliate, but take into consideration of your bullet points. If not, well you did the right thing and self-approve yourself knowing your intentions.
As a method of practice, read this topic and try to constructively criticize me. Do it in a way I can take into account of your key points, but also know you appreciated or approve, on any level, my work
Remember the formula: Compliment -> Constructive critcisism -> Understanding/Reiteration if applicable -> How or where one can improve.
I hope this helps everyone else. This is part 1 of a few ideas I have. No idea if I'll ever finish or do another part but I have the following in my head: - How to accept criticism or inquire advice
- To gain the interest of people
- Being resourceful and showing effort
+ Show Spoiler [Some backstory] +If you're wondering how the hell I know all of this stuff. When I was a child, my father was listening to motivational tapes. I always found it pathetic, weak and odd of him to listen to other people babble for 3 hours a tape about things that would seem obvious to an adult (I was 12-13 at the time). He kept going on with it though and made my brother and I listen to it for 8 hours every drive up from Montreal to New Jersey [my parents just got divorced at the time]. This went on for maybe 4 years, about every day for 4 months (summers + winter vacations). I fought, I threw a tantrum and tried to make fun of the tapes, but he kept playing them and made them louder every time. Even when I played on my Gameboy or even late at night, he still played them until they became an incorporated part of how I work, think and see people. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3K4Sa6M_b9E Dale Carnegie was the man and my father listened to him like a religion and forced us to listen as well. Additionally, my father tried to combat our self-destructive personalities with a paper. It was a 600-word paper from this man on our name and just a lot of complimentary adjectives. I didn't understand the words then, but we read it every night in front of the mirror with passion and excitement for my father, despite our dismay or disinterest. I haven't listened to them in years, but their basic concepts of human interaction has some reside in me, I only figured who they are out, now.
 
|
Wowie, a series of self-help-esque blogs.
I'm looking forward to it!
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
1st half of blog is obvious, though in my experience friends with true reverence for one another don't need to use 'verbal appreciation'
2nd half u could just delete and write 'don't be a bitch'
|
On July 25 2011 04:50 Rekrul wrote:
1st half of blog is obvious, though in my experience friends with true reverence for one another don't need to use 'verbal appreciation'
2nd half u could just delete and write 'don't be a bitch'
They're both very obvious and basic fundamentals about people. Unfortunately, people tend to forget or don't become aware of these things.
If you already knew all of this, then you are a great person.
Thanks for your views.
P.S: We're talking about verbal appreciation for people you are not friends or decently acquainted with.
|
United States4796 Posts
On July 25 2011 04:50 Rekrul wrote:
1st half of blog is obvious, though in my experience friends with true reverence for one another don't need to use 'verbal appreciation'
2nd half u could just delete and write 'don't be a bitch'
Hahahahaha, rekrul.
Nice blog torte.
|
Thank you, I appreciate it DivinO.
|
Rekrul is too cool 
One caveat is that it sounds sort of formulaic, e.g. you even name it a "formula". Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing--I think it's quite interesting--but some parts sound as if you're a) trying to teach people how to interact with others, and b) stating that there is a formula for acquiring positive relationships, etc. (i.e. it's all planned out or whatnot). I know you don't mean that literally, but that's an issue I sort of feel these self-help types of works possess. Just a thought. Cool stuff.
|
No offense and perhaps I'm wrong but for all this effort of .. learning to deal with people you seem a bit socially awkward to me.
|
On July 25 2011 04:59 Z3kk wrote:Rekrul is too cool One caveat is that it sounds sort of formulaic, e.g. you even name it a "formula". Not that there's anything wrong with what you're doing--I think it's quite interesting--but some parts sound as if you're a) trying to teach people how to interact with others, and b) stating that there is a formula for acquiring positive relationships, etc. (i.e. it's all planned out or whatnot). I know you don't mean that literally, but that's an issue I sort of feel these self-help types of works possess. Just a thought. Cool stuff.
Thanks for the suggestion/criticism and indeed, in a sense, it is a formula, but in the great scheme of it all, it's more a guide. As a guide you can choose to follow it, take pieces that you find deemed acceptable or relevant to you personally or completely reject it with confidence (knowing that you are capable of doing these things with ease/Rekrul).
I admit I might sound patronizing or in a confident stance that would give the impression that I might be better or more knowledgeable than everyone else (which isn't true, I even stated I wasn't a perfect social creature, naturally).
The formula aspect is a bit... simplistic. It's to just help people remember, there is no actual order or form of properly criticizing someone without remaining true to your personality, so to some, I guess the "formula" rubs people the wrong way because it asks everyone to be generic or straight-forward rather than expressive and personal.
I admit, that's a huge fault.
|
On July 25 2011 05:03 7mk wrote:
No offense and perhaps I'm wrong but for all this effort of .. learning to deal with people you seem a bit socially awkward to me.
Potentially and I'm not going to say yes or no because I am comfortable with my social situation (I have faults like everyone else, huge ones [I am very insecure for instance]), but my question to you is how does this change the information written here. My source is a credible one to a degree, though this isn't a reiteration of what's he's saying, but stemming from his won achieved words and publishings.
To quote my own entry: Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves. This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you.
The information is not any less wrong purely on the basis of the person's personal stance or situation. It may be an indication to look for problems within the information, but to disregard because someone isn't what the information sets out to do isn't very fair, is it?
|
Nice blog, I enjoyed reading it, wathced the last two youtube videos as well. However, I fail to understand the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph ("And that's where stem off to.") Correct me if I'm wrong, as English is not my first language, but does it not miss the subject? Maybe a "we" should be included.
|
On July 25 2011 05:11 RHCPgergo wrote:
Nice blog, I enjoyed reading it, wathced the last two youtube videos as well. However, I fail to understand the 1st sentence in the 2nd paragraph ("And that's where stem off to.") Correct me if I'm wrong, as English is not my first language, but does it not miss the subject? Maybe a "we" should be included.
Yes, it is and you are very right!
Thank you very much, I wrote this rather quickly without properly revising it.
If I may say so, I feel your English is impeccable! I'm no great speaker either, but I would have never guessed English was your second language.
|
While there is relief in writing all of this, there is a desire for others to either appreciate what I am doing or approve what I am doing and that's normal. One would say: "But that's wrong, if you are doing something with the intent to garner people's attention and this is just a tool to be reminded that people approve of your existence then aren't you being egotistical?". I feel this is an extreme viewpoint because it revokes the right of a person to ask for anything. If one took the effort to build a house and people come to reside in it, there is a level of approval that he sought out and it was accomplished. Why can't someone do something (in part) for the acceptance of others?
I think this can be related to the concepts of eros and agape. I don't know how they are called in English so I'll try to explain them in the spoiler.
+ Show Spoiler +While agape means love in greek, eros is the name of some love-related gods. Both are used as a word for love but with a different connotation. Since they are forms of love, they are mostly used to describe interactions of people, as such examples can be found everywhere. Also, with these two forms of love one can understand a lot of the symbolical language of the bible more clearly as a lot of the christian heritage is centered around agape. I am not religious myself nor do i want to convert anyone, i just thought i'd mention it. What it comes down to is that agape is the purest form of love there is, whereas eros is nothing more than love for your ego. example: situation 1: Tony loves Claire but his friends laugh at her because she's dumb and fat. Tony isn't man enough to admit he likes her among his friends because he doesn't want to be associated with an ugly dumb bitch. This is obviously just eros, because of the love for his ego tony doesn't have the balls to defend his woman and missed out on a chance to find true love. situation 2: Tony loves Claire again, she's still a dumb, fat bitch but Tony was like:"Yo, that's my dumb, fat bitch you're talking about.". Awesome, awesome, tony's friends are laughing at him, shit just got real for Tony. Next day he talks to Claire telling her he loves her. Turns out Claire is already pregnant (she's dumb so she doesn't use protection, the baby explains why she's so fat) and she's soon to be married with the man she loves. Because Tony really loves her he's just happy for her she's got to live the teenage-mom dream and he does not attempt to break up the couple or anything, he doesn't even regret losing his friends for nothing. Tony won't go home frolicking like a deer, smelling flowers etc. (because that's just how Tony rolls) but he will still be happy for her. While Tony is a loser in both these stories, he had a chance to find love in situation 2 where he wasn't led by eros. I'm not a professional so I can't really make it that clear, also it's hard not to sound like an emotional twat using the word love so many times. edit: popped into my mind writing this.
These are just concepts and naturally don't lay out the boundaries of what's good and right in the world but for me I try to recognize as much eros as possible and filter it out of my life. When i do something for someone i want to do it because i genuinely want to help that person.
You can donate money for charity and make a huge flag about it and hang it out your window or you can also just be a good guy.
When you're doing things because you want the recognition/acceptance that comes with it, that's just Eros. It means you need the recognition/acceptance and you should really try and get past that.
Balance it out. All criticisms should be met with a compliment.
I disagree with this the most, it makes are society even more full of shit. You should give compliments where they are deserved.
If i say i enjoyed your blog, it's because i did, not because i just badmouthed it and want to make peace. Words can lose meaning when they become standard additions to sentences.
+ Show Spoiler +I did enjoy your blog FYI
|
Thanks for that! Is this concept from a particular philosopher? I am a criminal in those kinds of deeds. I actually write more to please others, much like cooking and helping. I enjoy the approval of others in order to cope with my own insecurities and feelings of unacceptability.
I think you are a better man than myself, though that isn't saying much.
Thanks for informing me, I can finally better define some thoughts of mine!
|
On July 25 2011 05:06 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 05:03 7mk wrote:
No offense and perhaps I'm wrong but for all this effort of .. learning to deal with people you seem a bit socially awkward to me. Potentially and I'm not going to say yes or no because I am comfortable with my social situation (I have faults like everyone else, huge ones [I am very insecure for instance]), but my question to you is how does this change the information written here. My source is a credible one to a degree, though this isn't a reiteration of what's he's saying, but stemming from his won achieved words and publishings. To quote my own entry: Show nested quote +Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves. This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you. The information is not any less wrong purely on the basis of the person's personal stance or situation. It may be an indication to look for problems within the information, but to disregard because someone isn't what the information sets out to do isn't very fair, is it?
That sounds reasonable but I'm not sure I fully agree with it.
If I read some piece of work and think about trying it - I wont always know how much of it is true as long as I'm not an expert at the subject. For example I wouldn't let some weak, fat 120kg weighing dude tell me how to do gain strength/lose weight. He might write a guide that sounds smart but it might not be that after all.
Btw. Examples like "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" are imo pretty bad because every somewhat reasonable person will see thats not a good thing, not because that way you attack the person rather than his work but instead because its just fucking insulting.
|
On July 25 2011 05:22 7mk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 05:06 Torte de Lini wrote:On July 25 2011 05:03 7mk wrote:
No offense and perhaps I'm wrong but for all this effort of .. learning to deal with people you seem a bit socially awkward to me. Potentially and I'm not going to say yes or no because I am comfortable with my social situation (I have faults like everyone else, huge ones [I am very insecure for instance]), but my question to you is how does this change the information written here. My source is a credible one to a degree, though this isn't a reiteration of what's he's saying, but stemming from his won achieved words and publishings. To quote my own entry: Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves. This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you. The information is not any less wrong purely on the basis of the person's personal stance or situation. It may be an indication to look for problems within the information, but to disregard because someone isn't what the information sets out to do isn't very fair, is it? That sounds reasonable but I'm not sure I fully agree with it. If I read some piece of work and think about trying it - I wont always know how much of it is true as long as I'm not an expert at the subject. For example I wouldn't let some weak, fat 120kg weighing dude tell me how to do gain strength/lose weight. He might write a guide that sounds smart but it might not be that after all. Btw. Examples like "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" are imo pretty bad because every somewhat reasonable person will see thats not a good thing, not because that way you attack the person rather than his work but instead because its just fucking insulting.
My examples are terrible and one-dimensional, you're right. I couldn't think of any at this particular point and time and I didn't want to take real-life examples because I don't like portraying people in a bad light.
Given you know, on some level, who the author is, this guide is a lot less valid or accepted and that's bound to happen especially with people who have done more bad than good (though proper advertising could probably lessen the blow).
To lessen the blow, I referenced Dale Carnegie who's helped very successful people achieved many things with his success and tips, but as I said, it isn't an entire reiteration from him (I believe, it's been awhile). It's clear that it isn't sufficient, especially if the person doesn't, understandably, recognize the person, but it's the best I could muster at the present point in time.
Overall, I feel this predicament is similar to commentators (feel free to correct me, I'm not quite confident with this comparison). While commentators themselves may be terrible, many of the things they say are generally accepted or respected enough to be criticized or counter-argued (I'm hoping you and I are the same way right now). There are exceptions to this and it isn't rejecting the idea that there aren't better commentators out there (Hearing commentating from iNcontrol and Idra given that they are familiar with the scene and experienced it personally), but rather considering that not all information should be flushed or viewed less as a guide purely because there is a stigma or viewpoint that the writer is "socially awkward" (in quotations because it isn't an affirmation).
edit: If you feel this guide is poor or simply wrong, I will retract it.
|
On July 25 2011 05:21 Torte de Lini wrote:
Thanks for that! Is this concept from a particular philosopher? I am a criminal in those kinds of deeds. I actually write more to please others, much like cooking and helping. I enjoy the approval of others in order to cope with my own insecurities and feelings of unacceptability.
I think you are a better man than myself, though that isn't saying much.
Thanks for informing me, I can finally better define some thoughts of mine!
It's more a general concept (i think) pretty well known in the philosphy and/or religion science/theology or w/e community. I'm an engineer myself so i hope i didn't step on any toes.
I have to say, i try to live pretty honest with everyone and apart from being very blunt i have some very rock-solid relationships (not much but better one bird in the hand than ten in the sky right).
Oh and you shouldn't say people are better than you about random guys on the internet so fast  , i've enjoyed a lot of your blogs already (as a relatively young TL member) so afaik you're not that bad.
|
On July 25 2011 05:33 SnetteL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 05:21 Torte de Lini wrote:
Thanks for that! Is this concept from a particular philosopher? I am a criminal in those kinds of deeds. I actually write more to please others, much like cooking and helping. I enjoy the approval of others in order to cope with my own insecurities and feelings of unacceptability.
I think you are a better man than myself, though that isn't saying much.
Thanks for informing me, I can finally better define some thoughts of mine! It's more a general concept (i think) pretty well known in the philosphy and/or religion science/theology or w/e community. I'm an engineer myself so i hope i didn't step on any toes. I have to say, i try to live pretty honest with everyone and apart from being very blunt i have some very rock-solid relationships (not much but better one bird in the hand than ten in the sky right). Oh and you shouldn't say people are better than you about random guys on the internet so fast , i've enjoyed a lot of your blogs already (as a relatively young TL member) so afaik you're not that bad.
How did you find out about it? Out of interest? Friend?
I appreciate your words of support. How would you describe the relationship you have with your friends?
|
On July 25 2011 05:16 SnetteL wrote:
These are just concepts and naturally don't lay out the boundaries of what's good and right in the world but for me I try to recognize as much eros as possible and filter it out of my life. When i do something for someone i want to do it because i genuinely want to help that person.
You can donate money for charity and make a huge flag about it and hang it out your window or you can also just be a good guy.
When you're doing things because you want the recognition/acceptance that comes with it, that's just Eros. It means you need the recognition/acceptance and you should really try and get past that.
I see a difference between the two - doing something for recognition/acceptance and just being a good guy. But I have doubts that selflessness exists at all. I think it's just another name for high empathy and understanding. I picture the most selfless creature as an ant, for example. This way, the word 'selflessness' does not hold any value, it just describes a characteristic.
Being a "good guy" means that you do things because you don't want to see yourself as a bad person. You have an inner motive to to help others or do selfless deeds. You would feel bad about yourself otherwise so you comply and do it. This way, it becomes a selfish act: you don't have to tell anyone about it at all. I'm trying to explain the same concept that is mentioned in the sitcom (Friends) that is linked in the OP.
|
I don't see why an act can't be both beneficial for you and the receiver. As I said before, one doesn't entirely affect the other if their dimensions (mental to physical) are completely separated.
|
It's always pleasant to know that there are other people who hold the same standards as you do and honestly recognize, and appretiate you for meeting them. There is absolutely no legitimate reason why other people's opinions should have any other kind of value for you. I do not value being lied to, or being appretiated for what I regard as faults, and I do not condone other people valuing it, or consider it a moral tribute to provide it.
|
I really enjoyed this blog.
Kant has a really interesting view about selfish or selfless deed, he says that all the selfish deeds are immoral ( which is a bit too harsh anyway [With Kant there are so few things moral, like not killing yourself when you are in really big pain)].
Sadly, people don't really understand how proper criticism works and I think the Internet is one of the reasons why. 99% of the people that make such comments would never say it to the people IRL, but everybody knows that.
Looking forward to Part 2
|
I'll check him out. I like Kant a lot, but I never full delved into his work beyond sociological theories.
I think those who make those internet comments or criticisms they would never say in real life don't realize how much time they're wasting.
What they are saying is hurtful and bothersome, but in the end, they will never be respected or their viewpoint will eventually never be valid because of their poor approach.
I wrote this because of an issue I was having with some peers and I also felt that personalities on the internet and in StarCraft also were receiving a lot of flack without proper criticisms to balance it out. I felt terrible for them because they do a lot, yet... no matter what they do, they will always be heinously criticized and the satisfied won't be as outspoken as the haters.
Thanks for your encouragements.
|
On July 25 2011 05:42 RHCPgergo wrote:I see a difference between the two - doing something for recognition/acceptance and just being a good guy. But I have doubts that selflessness exists at all. I think it's just another name for high empathy and understanding. I picture the most selfless creature as an ant, for example. This way, the word 'selflessness' does not hold any value, it just describes a characteristic.
This is a difference between our fundamental viewpoints on life. Not only do i believe true selflessness exists i'd say it is one of the things why i would speak separate of animals and humans. That's why your argument about the ant doesn't hold any value for me, personally.
I can't prove my point ofcourse, at some crossroads in life you just have to believe and wether some of us made those decisions consciously and some of us haven't, i think they are reflected in our choices and thus our deeds.
Culture in itself is a form of hope and belief, something only humans have developed. Culture is about becoming more human. It's a rebellion against the pointlessness of life. I added the last part for people who think believing in something without evidence is stupid, i think it points out that we as a human are forced to believe in something at some point, if you don't you might as well kill yourself.
Being a "good guy" means that you do things because you don't want to see yourself as a bad person. You have an inner motive to to help others or do selfless deeds. You would feel bad about yourself otherwise so you comply and do it. This way, it becomes a selfish act: you don't have to tell anyone about it at all. I'm trying to explain the same concept that is mentioned in the sitcom (Friends) that is linked in the OP.
If you do the act just because it makes you feel bad it would be. But that will never be the case, because if you would truly only care about yourself you would never feel bad when neglecting to do something selflessness.
I'm not going to claim people are that selfless all the time, we try shut off and look away from a lot of things (look at all the poor people in the world you and i could be helping and we just give away some money to charity to make us feel better). I just believe that people, even being helping in that way, show that true selflessness is a part of us.
I think, it's again, just a difference in point of view between you and me. Where i see evidence, you see a lack.
|
On July 25 2011 05:39 Torte de Lini wrote:
How did you find out about it? Out of interest? Friend?
I appreciate your words of support. How would you describe the relationship you have with your friends?
Interest i guess. I would describe my relationship with my best friends/girlfriend as the complete opposite of facebook. That pretty much sums it up.
I also practically only have best friends and my gf. I'm not rude to people, but i won't feign interest neither.
I appreciate your words of support.
Like this stuff. You shouldn't say this when you don't appreciate my words. It would make for very poor, superficial, shallow communication which my sole purpose in life is trying to avoid.
edit: i'm not implying you don't btw
|
On July 25 2011 06:33 SnetteL wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 05:39 Torte de Lini wrote:
How did you find out about it? Out of interest? Friend?
I appreciate your words of support. How would you describe the relationship you have with your friends? Interest i guess. I would describe my relationship with my best friends/girlfriend as the complete opposite of facebook. That pretty much sums it up. I also practically only have best friends and my gf. I'm not rude to people, but i won't feign interest neither. Like this stuff. You shouldn't say this when you don't appreciate my words. It would make for very poor, superficial, shallow communication which my sole purpose in life is trying to avoid. edit: i'm not implying you don't btw
I always appreciate someone's input. It's not a forced feeling, but the next part of my how-to section. If you check out my blog entries, I get very little comments, so when someone does speak out, I appreciate it even if it is with malice intent or a self-centered one. It tells me that the person felt so strongly about his stance that he needed to tell me.
Such effort is appreciated, even if the result hurts me.
|
On July 25 2011 06:03 Torte de Lini wrote:
I don't see why an act can't be both beneficial for you and the receiver. As I said before, one doesn't entirely affect the other if their dimensions (mental to physical) are completely separated.
Yes, it's beneficial for both, but that doesn't make it a slefless act.
@SnetteL
I need some time to think about what you wrote. I'm trying to understand your point of view, but so far I didn't manage. I will reread it later. (Can you maybe suggest a piece of literature that could explain tihs viewpoint? I might take the time to read it.) This part is really interesting:
Culture in itself is a form of hope and belief, something only humans have developed. Culture is about becoming more human. It's a rebellion against the pointlessness of life. I added the last part for people who think believing in something without evidence is stupid, i think it points out that we as a human are forced to believe in something at some point, if you don't you might as well kill yourself.
I would normally call culture a huge pile of customs, be that how we dress or how we think about the world, what is allowed and what is socially unacceptable. I would think that you are putting humanity on a pedestal too high. (Let's stick to the topic of being selfish/selfless though, debates on philosophy can easily be derailed or sink into a puddle of banalitites.)
|
Btw I also listened to one of the audiobooks done by Dale Carnegie, about "winning friends" and influencing people. I liked it a lot, includes some very useful advice. Is this blog series circled around his "teachings"?
Also, I like how you show your appreciation for almost every poster. Is that the legacy of Mr. Carnegie? Remember, it has to be honest to make it work!
|
On July 25 2011 07:39 RHCPgergo wrote:Btw I also listened to one of the audiobooks done by Dale Carnegie, about "winning friends" and influencing people. I liked it a lot, includes some very useful advice. Is this blog series circled around his "teachings"? Also, I like how you show your appreciation for almost every poster. Is that the legacy of Mr. Carnegie? Remember, it has to be honest to make it work!
Yes, more or less. It's based on what I can recall and just personal experience. My appreciation actually stems from the age-old question of "why". Why did someone do this or say that. This helps dissipate misinterpretations or misunderstandings. I have a huge problem of taking things too seriously or overreacting (despite me doing this method for 7 years about).
Upon asking why, you are engaged in thinking what the person intended to say, why he intended, what his gains or losses were and thus your reaction should act accordingly. People are not inherently evil or manipulative, but rather truthful with their intentions. So when someone actually posts, it tells me they actually took the time to express content or justified discontent.
Even with some generic replies where the person may or may not have read the whole entry, it shows that they enjoy another aspect of me well enough to say something. If it was to increase their post count or something trivial, it doesn't affect the overall feeling I get when reading it (hence two benefits not affecting one another). The effort, no matter how little or large is still exerted for my reaction. To show them I've reacted is the least I can do.
Hope that clarifies it. Dale Carnegie for me is the tape you mentioned. Influencing people and making friends.
I enjoy your inquisitiveness :3!
|
lol I like this. Nice general guidelines to be COGNIZANT of instead of instinctive choice selections.
Dunno why people are complaining about the OP not fitting into every situation though. As long as he's providing a decent amount of solvency with the guidelines he's still winning at this thing called "being a respectful/respectable person".
And also, bluntness is all refreshing and stuff, but 'respecting a person enough not to lie to them' doesn't condone sticking many sticks up your ass and calling it a day. Appreciation of someone else's values and taking people in stride, feelings and all is part of respecting a person's moral status. Y'know, Scanlonian contractualism and all that janx...
|
On July 25 2011 08:39 ymir233 wrote:
lol I like this. Nice general guidelines to be COGNIZANT of instead of instinctive choice selections.
Dunno why people are complaining about the OP not fitting into every situation though. As long as he's providing a decent amount of solvency with the guidelines he's still winning at this thing called "being a respectful/respectable person".
And also, bluntness is all refreshing and stuff, but 'respecting a person enough not to lie to them' doesn't condone sticking many sticks up your ass and calling it a day. Appreciation of someone else's values and taking people in stride, feelings and all is part of respecting a person's moral status. Y'know, Scanlonian contractualism and all that janx...
I'm afraid I don't understand your second part.
Are you suggesting I be selectively appreciative? I'm not disagreeing because I understand that by being selective it shows an even deeper form of true appreciation and understanding. But on the flipside, it creates a bias I find unfair. There are positive aspects to the even worse comments because they show a contrast between those who are supportive such as yourself and they also portray a characteristic of the person, so it is informational.
The content is something I might disagree or, in the end, completely ignore. But the exterior factors that surround the comment are good nonetheless, no?
|
No the second part was still based on the comments.
|
On July 25 2011 08:44 ymir233 wrote:
No the second part was still based on the comments.
Meant the third part :B My math is atrocious, sorry!
|
On July 25 2011 04:13 Torte de Lini wrote:
Essentially, anything that demoralizes someone without justification is terrible criticism. You need to ensure you cover these three key features"
Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves.This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you.
Im sorry for messaging you and telling you I 1 starred your blog the other day. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack because I do usually enjoy your writing. Expecting more thought provoking blogs from you soon.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On July 25 2011 08:46 Torte de Lini wrote:
Meant the third part :B My math is atrocious, sorry!
No it's my fault for mistyping the reply, since I think I knew which paragraph it was you meant o____O I think the third part was also based on them...
You had your point about how to (sort of) avoid conflict/give constructive criticism/not be a jackass. But many of the comments at the OP was in a sense backlash in saying that "honesty is THE top priority-virtue". That may be true, but I was just back-backlashing by saying that it doesn't give a person a reason to be forcefully negative/rough during criticism, nor does being blunt'/having a stick up your ass make the honesty 'better' in some sense. Respecting a person's "moral status" includes what they may feel in the short-term range, not just "do they know everything that I'm feeling right now". Slamming a person down by being honest does not respect a person's moral status and does the whole 'unjustified wrong action' thing by contractualism.
tl;dr: So I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded like a strange disagreement.
|
On July 25 2011 09:06 xxSK8rGUy277xx wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 04:13 Torte de Lini wrote:
Essentially, anything that demoralizes someone without justification is terrible criticism. You need to ensure you cover these three key features"
Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves.This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you. Im sorry for messaging you and telling you I 1 starred your blog the other day. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack because I do usually enjoy your writing. Expecting more thought provoking blogs from you soon. + Show Spoiler +
Don't be silly, stars are unimportant :B! Besides, I know you were just playfully teasing~
Thanks a lot!
|
On July 25 2011 09:09 ymir233 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 08:46 Torte de Lini wrote:
Meant the third part :B My math is atrocious, sorry! No it's my fault for mistyping the reply, since I think I knew which paragraph it was you meant o____O I think the third part was also based on them... You had your point about how to (sort of) avoid conflict/give constructive criticism/not be a jackass. But many of the comments at the OP was in a sense backlash in saying that "honesty is THE top priority-virtue". That may be true, but I was just back-backlashing by saying that it doesn't give a person a reason to be forcefully negative/rough during criticism, nor does being blunt'/having a stick up your ass make the honesty 'better' in some sense. Respecting a person's "moral status" includes what they may feel in the short-term range, not just "do they know everything that I'm feeling right now". Slamming a person down by being honest does not respect a person's moral status and does the whole 'unjustified wrong action' thing by contractualism. tl;dr: So I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded like a strange disagreement.
Bah, no worries (though I made the mistake).
Can you quote which parts you're mentioning ;D! I'm intrigued by what you are saying
|
Right...
I like the idea, I'm just not sure you convey your reason for this blog particularly well. I honestly feel like you need to reread what you wrote and clarify exactly what you are setting out to do, upfront. You acknowlege this when your wrote "I feel I am blurring my point" and then wrote another paragraph which essentially says, "people appreciate positive quality feedback." This is a somewhat minor issue as anyone who reads your blogs kows that you like to meander. You've said this yourself.
More importantly, I would posit that people who take the time to read this blog are more than likely to take the time to think about their respones. Put simply, the choir hears you loud and clear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, we all need reminding. This links with my first point, the reasoning behind this blog is a little obscure.
It always good to read your stuff. Personally I enjoy your musings about life in general more, but each to their own.
Will read part 2
|
I think you also have to consider who the criticism is coming from. It's obviously harder on the internet to see what credentials any commenter or player has when they criticise you, and I think that plays a big part too. It's somewhat similar to your point about not attacking the person but I think the difference is that it affects your reaction. No one appreciates being criticised by those who they believe are or performed significantly worse than them.
You can argue your criticism is perfectly valid, which it may be and is usually true, but the fact you are not 'on their level' is what, I think, will cause people to explode. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do here, even the best criticism can be ignored. My point here is that you can accept criticism from a friend, but not listen to it because you think yourself better than them. Whilst you may not accept nor listen to a stranger who you believe yourself better than. Personally, I believe that people (on the internet) are much more likely to listen to criticism from people who are significantly more skilled than them or at least at the same level, regardless of quality or positivity.
I also couldn't help but notice the HoN/DotA references whilst reading. My problem with criticism in those type of games where there are things which you cannot explain and go far beyond things like "harassment" or just "positioning", vague terms which don't really contribute to improving (I imagine you would agree here, not trying to call you out on an example). However it is supposedly unfair to criticise someone by saying, "You just don't get it" even though it may be completely true (There are times when it is not of course!).
For example, in Football (soccer) I can't really say "you're kicking it wrong" nor can I explain how I'm able to be better (I'm not it's just an example  ), it's just a feeling I get that has come naturally and with experience. This feeling is probably what has given rise to the quite amusing term "gamesense", though people would have you believe it's some sort of in-game telepathy.
Personally, I think it's really difficult to write a 'guide' on criticism because of how different people are and how they won't react as you might expect, so props to you. Following the guidelines you've set out will undoubtedly result in less rage but there always those who react differently. I enjoyed reading nonetheless and I hope you continue.
|
On July 25 2011 10:23 Probulous wrote:Right... I like the idea, I'm just not sure you convey your reason for this blog particularly well. I honestly feel like you need to reread what you wrote and clarify exactly what you are setting out to do, upfront. You acknowlege this when your wrote "I feel I am blurring my point" and then wrote another paragraph which essentially says, "people appreciate positive quality feedback." This is a somewhat minor issue as anyone who reads your blogs kows that you like to meander. You've said this yourself. More importantly, I would posit that people who take the time to read this blog are more than likely to take the time to think about their respones. Put simply, the choir hears you loud and clear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, we all need reminding. This links with my first point, the reasoning behind this blog is a little obscure. It always good to read your stuff. Personally I enjoy your musings about life in general more, but each to their own. Will read part 2
I knew I should have opened my blog with an italicized off-topic reasoning for why I am doing this...
The reasoning is barely important I feel. If you mean my overall goal: "Overall, I feel this predicament is similar to commentators (feel free to correct me, I'm not quite confident with this comparison). While commentators themselves may be terrible, many of the things they say are generally accepted or respected enough to be criticized or counter-argued (I'm hoping you and I are the same way right now). There are exceptions to this and it isn't rejecting the idea that there aren't better commentators out there (Hearing commentating from iNcontrol and Idra given that they are familiar with the scene and experienced it personally), but rather considering that not all information should be flushed or viewed less as a guide purely because there is a stigma or viewpoint that the writer is "socially awkward" (in quotations because it isn't an affirmation)."
It was both a tool for myself to do something productive when I was brooding or angry at something or someone (usually leading me to be self-destructive) and a way of feeling useful and distracting myself while also hoping I helped or enlightened some people [and if I didn't, I sincerely am glad you already know this].
My ultimate goal is written in the blog: "But I feel I am capable of reminding those who read this entry of the basic aspects of people we should take into account for: their need to improve and their need to feel needed. In other words, people seek to improve themselves or improve a part of their life and they also seek to be appreciated, needed or have a place in a group whether in the workplace, with family or with friends."
|
On July 25 2011 10:26 TheBeau wrote:I think you also have to consider who the criticism is coming from. It's obviously harder on the internet to see what credentials any commenter or player has when they criticise you, and I think that plays a big part too. It's somewhat similar to your point about not attacking the person but I think the difference is that it affects your reaction. No one appreciates being criticised by those who they believe are or performed significantly worse than them. You can argue your criticism is perfectly valid, which it may be and is usually true, but the fact you are not 'on their level' is what, I think, will cause people to explode. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do here, even the best criticism can be ignored. My point here is that you can accept criticism from a friend, but not listen to it because you think yourself better than them. Whilst you may not accept nor listen to a stranger who you believe yourself better than. Personally, I believe that people (on the internet) are much more likely to listen to criticism from people who are significantly more skilled than them or at least at the same level, regardless of quality or positivity. I also couldn't help but notice the HoN/DotA references whilst reading. My problem with criticism in those type of games where there are things which you cannot explain and go far beyond things like "harassment" or just "positioning", vague terms which don't really contribute to improving (I imagine you would agree here, not trying to call you out on an example). However it is supposedly unfair to criticise someone by saying, "You just don't get it" even though it may be completely true (There are times when it is not of course!). For example, in Football (soccer) I can't really say "you're kicking it wrong" nor can I explain how I'm able to be better (I'm not it's just an example ), it's just a feeling I get that has come naturally and with experience. This feeling is probably what has given rise to the quite amusing term "gamesense", though people would have you believe it's some sort of in-game telepathy. Personally, I think it's really difficult to write a 'guide' on criticism because of how different people are and how they won't react as you might expect, so props to you. Following the guidelines you've set out will undoubtedly result in less rage but there always those who react differently. I enjoyed reading nonetheless and I hope you continue.
Will be in another part on "how to receive/ask for advice".
I wrote about the idea of giving criticisms and how the person would receive it. If you give someone tips but your background is poor, no matter what you say; they will deflect and stubbornly disagree without compromise or intent on actually learning. To which you should just give up, not because he is a lost cause but because your position is neither appreciated nor ultimately changing anything in the end. The fact that you cared enough to help, should be sufficient to tie you over or moving towards another game someone else. In due time, that person will realize he might need some help and you can be there if he ever refers to you.
I think when you get criticism that you can respectfully acknowledge, you should do just that. Give them the decency of acknowledgement and then simply claim you respectfully disagree (with as much justified details as you want) or end there. Criticisms were/are meant to help, of course it depends on the person :B
I used HoN as an example a lot because it is very hard to decipher communication there. People will criticize you with vague lines such as: "You didn't harass enough or at this engagement, you fucked up". But I mention in the entry that without detail or a specific solution, the ultimate point of the criticism is lost. I've had a lot of people tell me these similar lines and when I press for more details or information, they'd give me a cop-out such as: "Don't suck" or something that is intentionally ambiguous and passive-aggressive, you can then safely discredit the person and emotionally distraught after a loss. That doesn't mean the loss of a match wasn't in part or fully your fault. But to understand why it is your fault, you might have to seek advice elsewhere (someone unassociated with the event, will be in my next part). Often times, HoN players will simply blame one person or scenario that was the "turning point" of the game and ultimately leading towards one failure because it is easier to identify one crucial mistake from another, than collectively admit that a series of problems lead to your demise. Blaming or scapegoating isn't something uncommon as I'm sure you know.
In the end it's a guide. A bar in case you have trouble going up the steps of voicing yourself clearly and with a respectable tone/intent. Those who like it can use it and those who don't can safely move on without a problem.
Thanks a lot for your viewpoint, it was enlightening! I hope I was clear in my response too!
|
On July 25 2011 06:20 FinnGamer wrote:
I really enjoyed this blog.
Kant has a really interesting view about selfish or selfless deed, he says that all the selfish deeds are immoral ( which is a bit too harsh anyway [With Kant there are so few things moral, like not killing yourself when you are in really big pain)].
Sadly, people don't really understand how proper criticism works and I think the Internet is one of the reasons why. 99% of the people that make such comments would never say it to the people IRL, but everybody knows that.
Looking forward to Part 2
Aren't we talking about his maxims?
Quoting from wikipedia: " Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never as a means to an end only."
or more in depth here
If you followed the link you may have seen: "So, for instance, Kant held that the maxim of committing suicide to avoid future unhappiness did not pass the third step, the contradiction in conception test. Hence, one is forbidden to act on the maxim of committing suicide to avoid unhappiness."
But is it possible that there exist something other formulation which has an Kantian maxim which allow suicide? Maybe there isn't. Here was an pretty interesting analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of this argument
But where those the selfish deed come in to this? Noting that: "Kant confirms this by comparing motivation by duty with other sorts of motives, in particular, with motives of self-interest, self-preservation, sympathy and happiness. He argues that a dutiful action from any of these motives, however praiseworthy it may be, does not express a good will. Assuming an action has moral worth only if it expresses a good will, such actions have no genuine ‘moral worth’" (from the link)
So they are not necessarily immoral but can be without moral, if you get my point.
|
On July 25 2011 10:30 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2011 10:23 Probulous wrote:Right... I like the idea, I'm just not sure you convey your reason for this blog particularly well. I honestly feel like you need to reread what you wrote and clarify exactly what you are setting out to do, upfront. You acknowlege this when your wrote "I feel I am blurring my point" and then wrote another paragraph which essentially says, "people appreciate positive quality feedback." This is a somewhat minor issue as anyone who reads your blogs kows that you like to meander. You've said this yourself. More importantly, I would posit that people who take the time to read this blog are more than likely to take the time to think about their respones. Put simply, the choir hears you loud and clear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, we all need reminding. This links with my first point, the reasoning behind this blog is a little obscure. It always good to read your stuff. Personally I enjoy your musings about life in general more, but each to their own. Will read part 2 I knew I should have opened my blog with an italicized off-topic reasoning for why I am doing this...The reasoning is barely important I feel. If you mean my overall goal: "Overall, I feel this predicament is similar to commentators (feel free to correct me, I'm not quite confident with this comparison). While commentators themselves may be terrible, many of the things they say are generally accepted or respected enough to be criticized or counter-argued (I'm hoping you and I are the same way right now). There are exceptions to this and it isn't rejecting the idea that there aren't better commentators out there (Hearing commentating from iNcontrol and Idra given that they are familiar with the scene and experienced it personally), but rather considering that not all information should be flushed or viewed less as a guide purely because there is a stigma or viewpoint that the writer is "socially awkward" (in quotations because it isn't an affirmation)." It was both a tool for myself to do something productive when I was brooding or angry at something or someone (usually leading me to be self-destructive) and a way of feeling useful and distracting myself while also hoping I helped or enlightened some people [and if I didn't, I sincerely am glad you already know this]. My ultimate goal is written in the blog: "But I feel I am capable of reminding those who read this entry of the basic aspects of people we should take into account for: their need to improve and their need to feel needed. In other words, people seek to improve themselves or improve a part of their life and they also seek to be appreciated, needed or have a place in a group whether in the workplace, with family or with friends."
Fair nuff. Those were just my thoughts on what you wrote. You write a lot so I am sure you are used to opinion being thrown back at you. Like I said, I enjoyed reading it, I am just not sure that it convers your point to those that don't read carefully. Which is sort of your point...
Pointception
|
Yeah, I write and talk a lot, so I am prone to a lot of hatred or criticisms
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
LOL no wonder you wrote this blog, you play HON. It all makes sense now.
|
On July 25 2011 14:47 Rekrul wrote:
LOL no wonder you wrote this blog, you play HON. It all makes sense now.
Among other games, yes. HoN is an easy to place to find examples of bad forms of criticisms, much like any other cooperative games.
|
Blazinghand
United States25550 Posts
This was really informative. I think that people are afraid to be kind on the internet, which is really sad ;( Thanks for writing this! It was a good read. The youtube videos definitely helped to break up the wall-of-textiness.
I leave you now with a quote from Alexander Pope:Alexander Pope Wrote:
For fools rush in where angels fear to 5/5.
As such, I will rate this blog post 5 out of 5 stars.
|
Thank you.
I think the fear is giving in or letting the person feel how they want to feel. It's an issue and I can't figure it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
