|
Sometimes there is a difference between honesty and lacking tact. Between the truth and an uninformed opinion. I can't say which you are having not talked with you often, but I know that while I consider myself a very honest and straight forward person, I rarely offend people and those who actively tell me how blunt they are I find to be not so much honest as they are making excuses for being insulting. People who say "I don't mince words" and such I often find to simply be bad communicators.
Like if someone tells you a story you can say "That was really fucking stupid, what is wrong with you?" or you can say "That may not have been the smartest thing in the world. Couldn't you have just etc etc" One is simply insulting, puts the person down, doesn't really offer anything, and the other engages the person intellectually and makes them think about the situation, rather than what a jerk/dumbass you are.
Again, not referring to you specifically Haji, but in general it's been my experience with people who use cliches like 'I don't sugar coat things.'
|
On April 19 2012 02:33 Chef wrote:
people who use cliches like 'I don't sugar coat things.'
I think this is usually code for "I didn't even listen to what you said."
|
On April 19 2012 02:35 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:33 Chef wrote:
people who use cliches like 'I don't sugar coat things.' I think this is usually code for "I didn't even listen to what you said."
Haha, that's so true in my experience as well.
|
I don't know you but I find a lot of people use honesty or directness as an excuse after an offensive remark. Truth is most people don't offend others because "they are too honest for their own good" or anything like that. They do it either because they didn't bother to think about how their comment will be received, don't care or worse trying to hurt the other person on purpose.
On a slightly different note, there are situations where you _chose_ to offend because it's the only way to get a point across. But that's not an example of two positive traits turning into a negative. Just a tough situation where there's no way to please everyone.
|
On April 19 2012 02:32 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:On April 19 2012 02:10 aebriol wrote:1+1 = 3 is true for higher values of 1. Your idea seems more like 1+1 = 0, as in, they nullify each other actually  On topic: honesty is valued, rudeness is not. I think you need to understand the difference There's a truth behind the idea of "if I have nothing nice to say I would rather say nothing at all". It's called tact. That sounds like you're calling an opinion a truth. Tact isn't something everybody desires. In fact, it offends me when people try to avoid offending me, therefore, when dealing with me (as tact is based on reception and perception, thus making it subjective), the only way to show tact is to not try too hard to play nice. Also, saying nothing isn't always showing tact. For example, if someone asks "Isn't this the most beautiful baby you've ever seen?", the appropriate response to show tact is to lie like a rug. Saying nothing is a blatant tell that you're thinking "Did she get pregnant at Chernobyl?" The statement "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing" doesn't indicate that 'having something to say" should "always be 100% true and exactly what you feel". I think you are dumb to draw that conclusion. We friends now? Blunt and rude but truthful Tact changes depending on the situation. You might say a really crude joke to friends you've known for a while where you know that it's accepted, you'd be a moron to say that same joke at a political campaign speech or in your average job interview. Tact in the sense I used it means " a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense ". It's not 'being PC no matter the situation or stfu up if you have nothing nice to say you mean 100%". It's the ability to get along with others, without offending them - specifically referring to what you choose to say.
Nope, not friends, but also not offended. However, you said something that makes you sound pretty stupid. What conclusion did I draw? I specifically said the OPPOSITE of the meaning you tried to infer from what I said. I clearly said that sometimes lying is the "polite" response. In fact, you call me dumb for drawing a conclusion I clearly never came to, making leaps of "logic" that would defy credulity in a bad kung fu movie, and then proceed to come to the EXACT conclusion I actually came to.
And if you take the actual definition of tact, it's pretty obvious that it's contraindicated when dealing with someone like me who hates minced words.
|
With you icon choice i never thought of you as friendly some other things but not friendly.
|
Hm, I don't think what you described is a case of two positive traits becoming negative when combined just on their own. From the example it sounds like you're faster to trust and start treating people as friends (and on that basis begin offering blunt, honest advice) whereas those people don't yet see you as a close friend and are put off by the way you treat them.
It basically comes down to both parties having different expectations. You expect your friend to take to you as easily as you take to him, but he expects to spend more time/get to know you better before being open to blunt advice without being offended.
So it's not necessarily that honesty + friendliness = look like a jerk, it's more like honesty + friendliness - (I don't know what to call this quality, the closest one I can think of would be patience or being considerate) = look like a jerk.
|
Why attach quantitative values like "1" to qualitative things like "honest"? You could rationalize whatever you wanted to in this way.
|
An interesting point, and I quite like the comparison you start with, with the objectivity of maths vs the subjectivity of personality traits. I think perhaps an element you might consider in this "equation" is balance and proportionality of these traits. Being forthright and honest is usually good, but perhaps these need to balanced, and perhaps in your case these are skewed towards being a bit heavy handed. A good read though, thanks.
|
On April 19 2012 02:11 wwJd)El_Mojjo wrote:
Actually...
1+1=2 is not really proven yet. At least not completely. The proof is currently based upon a few assumption in arithmetics (as far as I know). I think for example Bertrand Russell tried to complete this proof (but didn't succeed entirely).
People might sometimes think that they have proven something, but they have simply used the accepted system for mathematics to prove the system itself. In this way you can prove almost anything you want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_number
Check out the construction of natural numbers and the definition of addition through successors. I'm fairly certain that 1+1=2 has been proven for numbers defined that way.
Sure you could say you can define numbers differently, or claim that "1" and "2" are entities which exist regardless of whatever definition we use for them or whatever else you can imagine.
But everyone else in the world uses these numbers in a way that conforms with the standard constructions.
|
On April 19 2012 02:43 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:32 aebriol wrote:On April 19 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:On April 19 2012 02:10 aebriol wrote:1+1 = 3 is true for higher values of 1. Your idea seems more like 1+1 = 0, as in, they nullify each other actually On topic: honesty is valued, rudeness is not. I think you need to understand the difference There's a truth behind the idea of "if I have nothing nice to say I would rather say nothing at all". It's called tact. That sounds like you're calling an opinion a truth. Tact isn't something everybody desires. In fact, it offends me when people try to avoid offending me, therefore, when dealing with me (as tact is based on reception and perception, thus making it subjective), the only way to show tact is to not try too hard to play nice. Also, saying nothing isn't always showing tact. For example, if someone asks "Isn't this the most beautiful baby you've ever seen?", the appropriate response to show tact is to lie like a rug. Saying nothing is a blatant tell that you're thinking "Did she get pregnant at Chernobyl?" The statement "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing" doesn't indicate that 'having something to say" should "always be 100% true and exactly what you feel". I think you are dumb to draw that conclusion. We friends now? Blunt and rude but truthful Tact changes depending on the situation. You might say a really crude joke to friends you've known for a while where you know that it's accepted, you'd be a moron to say that same joke at a political campaign speech or in your average job interview. Tact in the sense I used it means " a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense ". It's not 'being PC no matter the situation or stfu up if you have nothing nice to say you mean 100%". It's the ability to get along with others, without offending them - specifically referring to what you choose to say. Nope, not friends, but also not offended. However, you said something that makes you sound pretty stupid. What conclusion did I draw? I specifically said the OPPOSITE of the meaning you tried to infer from what I said. I clearly said that sometimes lying is the "polite" response. In fact, you call me dumb for drawing a conclusion I clearly never came to, making leaps of "logic" that would defy credulity in a bad kung fu movie, and then proceed to come to the EXACT conclusion I actually came to. And if you take the actual definition of tact, it's pretty obvious that it's contraindicated when dealing with someone like me who hates minced words.
And now, take a step back and look at our conversation I call you dumb, you call me dumb, whereas I could have asked you for a clarification - instead of calling you dumb, and you could have tried to reread what I wrote, and understood it clearly - instead you chose to call me dumb as well, because, after all - that's the level we've descended to.
My original point was:
Being honest, and being bluntly rude, are two different sides of the same coin - stating truthfully what you believe, and the difference is mostly based on context, which requires you being tactful to correctly decipher, and react accordingly.
If you don't know people well, it's pretty much always easier to err on the side of caution: instead of telling the joke about how the mother knew her daughter was no longer a virgin, you might tell a different one that's as funny (or more likely, funnier), but more likely to be received well in mixed company. Most of the time at least.
Tactful is actually dependent on the situation. It's not contradicted when it comes to dealing with you. Being tactful when interacting with you would be to clearly and bluntly state the truth, not sugarcoat anything, just tell it straight up.
But did I add anything to that by saying you were dumb? Obviously not. And you felt like responding in kind. Does this add to the conversation at all? Just as obviously, it does not. It's just distracting noise. It would have been better if I didn't call you dumb, you didn't call me dumb, and we just discussed the actual topic.
In other words: since it wasn't nice, or on topic, it would have been better to just avoid saying it at all - it was completely useless And in another situation, with other people, they might feel insulted which would further distract from the topic.
ps: I didn't infer that you said lying wasn't polite in certain scenarios. What I was objecting to was you inferring that I had stated that 'if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all' was meant to imply that if you couldn't truthfully say something nice, you should shut up. Being truthful or STFU wasn't in the statement at all. And I could have clearly and much more easily communicated this without throwing in an insult - which didn't add anything to the discussion, but just got it further off topic.
|
It's a matter of what you perceive as positive behaviour vs. what the person you talk to thinks about what he/she receives from your behaviour. That can be very complex, because every person's experiences since they were born are different, and thus everyone interprets everything someone else does/says differently. I think it's more a question of compatibility to other's traits than of compatibility between your traits. Or basically the question is: Do you speak the same "language"? (so - although i think that the mathematical approach is useless here - your pluses may not be everyone's pluses)
If you are very direct and i'm not very good at interpreting your behaviour, than you would probably make a bad impression. So you have to consider the ability of the receiving person to interpret your behaviour. It's as if this is my second language and i try to bring a point across to you whose native language this is, and we both have a different understanding of certain words and i have limited vocabulary. (It's funny because it's true i guess =) )
|
On April 19 2012 03:46 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 02:43 JingleHell wrote:On April 19 2012 02:32 aebriol wrote:On April 19 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:On April 19 2012 02:10 aebriol wrote:1+1 = 3 is true for higher values of 1. Your idea seems more like 1+1 = 0, as in, they nullify each other actually On topic: honesty is valued, rudeness is not. I think you need to understand the difference There's a truth behind the idea of "if I have nothing nice to say I would rather say nothing at all". It's called tact. That sounds like you're calling an opinion a truth. Tact isn't something everybody desires. In fact, it offends me when people try to avoid offending me, therefore, when dealing with me (as tact is based on reception and perception, thus making it subjective), the only way to show tact is to not try too hard to play nice. Also, saying nothing isn't always showing tact. For example, if someone asks "Isn't this the most beautiful baby you've ever seen?", the appropriate response to show tact is to lie like a rug. Saying nothing is a blatant tell that you're thinking "Did she get pregnant at Chernobyl?" The statement "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing" doesn't indicate that 'having something to say" should "always be 100% true and exactly what you feel". I think you are dumb to draw that conclusion. We friends now? Blunt and rude but truthful Tact changes depending on the situation. You might say a really crude joke to friends you've known for a while where you know that it's accepted, you'd be a moron to say that same joke at a political campaign speech or in your average job interview. Tact in the sense I used it means " a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense ". It's not 'being PC no matter the situation or stfu up if you have nothing nice to say you mean 100%". It's the ability to get along with others, without offending them - specifically referring to what you choose to say. Nope, not friends, but also not offended. However, you said something that makes you sound pretty stupid. What conclusion did I draw? I specifically said the OPPOSITE of the meaning you tried to infer from what I said. I clearly said that sometimes lying is the "polite" response. In fact, you call me dumb for drawing a conclusion I clearly never came to, making leaps of "logic" that would defy credulity in a bad kung fu movie, and then proceed to come to the EXACT conclusion I actually came to. And if you take the actual definition of tact, it's pretty obvious that it's contraindicated when dealing with someone like me who hates minced words. And now, take a step back and look at our conversation I call you dumb, you call me dumb, whereas I could have asked you for a clarification - instead of calling you dumb, and you could have tried to reread what I wrote, and understood it clearly - instead you chose to call me dumb as well, because, after all - that's the level we've descended to. My original point was:Being honest, and being bluntly rude, are two different sides of the same coin - stating truthfully what you believe, and the difference is mostly based on context, which requires you being tactful to correctly decipher, and react accordingly. If you don't know people well, it's pretty much always easier to err on the side of caution: instead of telling the joke about how the mother knew her daughter was no longer a virgin, you might tell a different one that's as funny (or more likely, funnier), but more likely to be received well in mixed company. Most of the time at least. Tactful is actually dependent on the situation. It's not contradicted when it comes to dealing with you. Being tactful when interacting with you would be to clearly and bluntly state the truth, not sugarcoat anything, just tell it straight up. But did I add anything to that by saying you were dumb? Obviously not. And you felt like responding in kind. Does this add to the conversation at all? Just as obviously, it does not. It's just distracting noise. It would have been better if I didn't call you dumb, you didn't call me dumb, and we just discussed the actual topic. In other words: since it wasn't nice, or on topic, it would have been better to just avoid saying it at all - it was completely useless And in another situation, with other people, they might feel insulted which would further distract from the topic. ps: I didn't infer that you said lying wasn't polite in certain scenarios. What I was objecting to was you inferring that I had stated that 'if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all' was meant to imply that if you couldn't truthfully say something nice, you should shut up. Being truthful or STFU wasn't in the statement at all. And I could have clearly and much more easily communicated this without throwing in an insult - which didn't add anything to the discussion, but just got it further off topic.
Can you stop changing what we said long enough to read it again, because the conversation followed a pretty logical path until you decided to modify the English language.
|
On April 19 2012 03:20 Gescom wrote:
Why attach quantitative values like "1" to qualitative things like "honest"? You could rationalize whatever you wanted to in this way.
this is the answer to the question.
|
This thread is like TL was in a terrible car crash and all its idea are mangled. But it's really cute so i'll mangle it more. It's more like 1+1+1= thedeadhaji. Maybe we are the sum of our parts.
|
On April 19 2012 03:55 mewo wrote:
This thread is like TL was in a terrible car crash and all its idea are mangled. But it's really cute so i'll mangle it more. It's more like 1+1+1= thedeadhaji. Maybe we are the sum of our parts.
Hmmm, I don't like that, though, because if we're the sum of our parts, that dehumanizes amputees and people who undergo various surgeries. After all, if you have less parts remaining, you have a smaller sum, and a smaller sum makes for less person. Thus, dehumanization.
|
Nice blogpost, I recognize myself in it a bit and it's a good lesson to learn.
As for all the discussion above me..... lol derailz
|
On April 19 2012 04:02 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 03:55 mewo wrote:
This thread is like TL was in a terrible car crash and all its idea are mangled. But it's really cute so i'll mangle it more. It's more like 1+1+1= thedeadhaji. Maybe we are the sum of our parts. Hmmm, I don't like that, though, because if we're the sum of our parts, that dehumanizes amputees and people who undergo various surgeries. After all, if you have less parts remaining, you have a smaller sum, and a smaller sum makes for less person. Thus, dehumanization.
Why are the parts necessarily physical? The experience of life without a limb could be considered a part of what makes you who you are.
You see things too simply 
|
On April 19 2012 04:12 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:02 JingleHell wrote:On April 19 2012 03:55 mewo wrote:
This thread is like TL was in a terrible car crash and all its idea are mangled. But it's really cute so i'll mangle it more. It's more like 1+1+1= thedeadhaji. Maybe we are the sum of our parts. Hmmm, I don't like that, though, because if we're the sum of our parts, that dehumanizes amputees and people who undergo various surgeries. After all, if you have less parts remaining, you have a smaller sum, and a smaller sum makes for less person. Thus, dehumanization. Why are the parts necessarily physical? The experience of life without a limb could be considered a part of what makes you who you are. You see things too simply
Ah, but the sans-limb only experiences would only compensate for the lack of all-limbs experiences.
|
As Gescom mentioned, quantifying something qualitative in your manner is too simple. Your mistake is assuming truth is always seen as something positive when we know, and you acknowledge, it isn't. I imagine it would be curvilinear: too much truth has a negative effect (as you mentioned, too blunt) as does not enough. Along these lines, the relationship is actually spurious and may be moderated by a person's knowledge of social situations (when is it appropriate to tell a white lie, when is it appropriate to be especially blunt).
Shouldn't you be too busy doing graduate work to be blogging Haji? =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
