EPT1+1 = -3 ? - Page 3
| Blogs > thedeadhaji |
|
Ender985
Spain910 Posts
| ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
sure everyone saids that it is when people are looking at them, but in there mind do people really want to be told an inconvenient truth over a lie? perhaps honesty is only a good traight when your telling someone something good | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:37 Forikorder wrote: is honesty and forthrightedness a good traight though? sure everyone saids that it is when people are looking at them, but in there mind do people really want to be told an inconvenient truth over a lie? perhaps honesty is only a good traight when your telling someone something good Oh, so your doctor shouldn't tell you he's just diagnosed you with cancer, because it might upset you? Sorry, I disagree. If people can't stand hearing the truth about themselves, they should maybe reconsider their behavior. You can be blunt without being cruel, I think THAT is the distinction people are looking for here. If you're shooting for being cruel, your motive isn't honest, and it damages the integrity of being blunt and honest otherwise. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:42 JingleHell wrote: Oh, so your doctor shouldn't tell you he's just diagnosed you with cancer, because it might upset you? Sorry, I disagree. If people can't stand hearing the truth about themselves, they should maybe reconsider their behavior. You can be blunt without being cruel, I think THAT is the distinction people are looking for here. If you're shooting for being cruel, your motive isn't honest, and it damages the integrity of being blunt and honest otherwise. of course he should tell me, thats his job i asked him to find out whats wrong with me and i disagree, it is impossible to be honest all the time without being cruel, and if your only honest when you wont be cruel then thats exactly what i said, only be honest when you have something nice to say | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
On April 19 2012 04:28 JingleHell wrote: Ah, but the sans-limb only experiences would only compensate for the lack of all-limbs experiences. No, they would be totally different experiences. The way one is treated, the way one overcomes small challenges in a world built for fully-limbed human beings would contribute to an identity that is impossible to replicate for the fully-limbed. Compensation implies a value judgement, that an amputee's experiences are somehow less valuable than an ordinary human being's. If I were to make the value judgement tho (but I wouldn't want to), I would consider that the amputee's experience of life is less common than the fully-limbed individual, and isn't it a trend in our culture to value things which are less common? It's kind of strange that the stereotype of people who 'don't mince words' and 'tell it straight' is that they don't want emotions to get in the way of communication. From my perspective it looks like people who comment impulsively the first thing they think of are the ones giving the emotional response, rather than the intellectual. Except that it's selfish, because they only regard their own emotional reaction to the matter. Whereas a tactful person is able to intellectually read the emotions of the other person and word their message in a way that it will be interpreted properly by someone with those emotions. Maybe this is a tangent, but it makes me think of those who tote about how the greatest geniuses are those who can simplify things so that anyone can understand. Yet when you simplify something, so much meaning is lost and so many mistakes are made, as in your quick and emotional responses. They always said Douglas Adams had that ability to explain things to anyone, and I like Douglas Adams a lot, but he only conveyed the basics, gave you a starting point or a basic respect for a topic. No one came to understand rocket science or evolution just by reading Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:46 Forikorder wrote: of course he should tell me, thats his job i asked him to find out whats wrong with me and i disagree, it is impossible to be honest all the time without being cruel, and if your only honest when you wont be cruel then thats exactly what i said, only be honest when you have something nice to say No, cruelty requires malicious intent. If I start ripping into someone overweight to try and make them feel bad, that's cruel. If they ask if they look like they've gained weight, and I say yes, they know they aren't crazy, it is visible, and if they want to maintain the way they look, they need to lose a couple of pounds. Huge difference. | ||
|
See.Blue
United States2673 Posts
| ||
|
LastWish
2013 Posts
If you tell only the truth then for example not many people will share with you because they'll feel you can't keep it for yourself. If you are 100% honest you may be perceived as arrogant. Best way of living is between the truth and the lie. From my experience if you throw in a lie from time to time, your friendship will actually be better. Not only because you tell message "don't take me 100% serious", but also you reveal a surprising side of yourself. However you should learn how to lie in a good way - your lies should mostly be either pranks or sweet lies. | ||
|
Chimpalimp
United States1135 Posts
In a school environment, I never mean to offend anyone when I am picking out an error in their math, a logic gap, or a grammar flaw, but rather I see it as me helping them. After I noticed that people began to be offended if you continue to be critical over time, I started making small adjustments to allow my nature to be more palpable. I am rarely offended when someone corrects my work, but I realized that others weren't as open about it as me. So each time I felt that I was a bit critical, I would throw in a couple of compliments to make them feel as if I wasn't trying to bash them, but rather just help them. I refuse to change my analytical nature, as I feel that it is a core aspect of my personality, but I am willing to at least make it easier to tolerate. | ||
|
buldermar
Denmark102 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote: Could two personal traits, both positive when in isolation, combine to become a negative behavior? In most trait theories, traits are not thought of as being positive or negative. That konnotation belongs solely to the attributes we ascribe the traits based on how the society functions. On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote: I am, according to friends, unusually honest and forthright. But put a different way, I am simply <em>blunt</em>. In most trait theories, traits are meassured by means of autoreports. What traits your friend ascribe to you does not neccessarily correspond to what you would score in a personality test such as the Big Five. A person who is honest and forthright is not per definition also blunt. One can be honest and forthright whilst being refined and careful in his pick of words and ways of explaining. This is impossible by definition for one who is blunt. On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote: Because I have the propensity to rapidly uptake someone as a good friend, and because I speak my mind (even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend), believing in its (supposedly) inherent virtues, the two traits combined can spur me to behave in a way which irritates, offends, or even embarrasses <em>John</em> You're stating that what irritates, offends or even embarrasses John is the disposition of your traits. This is a backwards argument that can easily by countered by merely pointing to the fact that it is in just as real of a sense the disposition of the traits of John that accounts for his behaviour (his reaction to yours from your perspective, but in that case your very behaviour is also a reaction to his behaviour based on his traits from his perspective, right?). For your logic to be true, this would have to be the case for every person. However, your logic is based on the example of just this one person. On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote: As a result of having this particular combination of <em>positive</em> traits, I spawn a propensity to offend. Again, you're concluding (wrongfully imo) that this one combination of your traits triggers a specific behaviour in someone else no matter who that person is. What is your reasoning behind this? On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote: <p>I can imagine that there are many other combinations of traits that can result in negative consequences. What is the proper response to these possibilities?</p><p>The only lesson I've been given, is to understand and acknowledge who we are, and to <em>think ahead</em>, considering the consequences of our words and actions before they are acted upon. </p> I can imagine that many people presuppose the existence of latent traits of which many combinations can result in what could be perceived as negative consequences. Why do you presuppose the existence of latent traits, and what good does this assumption do you? To me, traits are merely connotations we ascribe to behaviour (i.e. meta-behaviour). A psychological explanation to a physical phenomenon that sometimes seems difficult to account for. However, no trait can be physically observed. What we can observe is behaviour, not the traits themselves. No behaviour can disprove the existence of triats. Therefore, traits are tautological. However, on that same token, no observation of behaviour can empirically prove the existence of traits either in any sense different from our a priori assumption of their existence. By being blunt, consideration of consequences of words and actions is irrelevant for the decision of whether or not to speak them. Therefore, thinking ahead is not something conducive to being ascribed the trait "bluntness" by others. Hence, what you really need to consider is if you believe being persistently blunt leads to an optimal decision more often than simply always try to take into consideration the consequences of what you say and do. Or stretching this even further: it is up to you to decide in what way you wish to behaive. For the most part, nobody is forcing you, and stating that you behaived in a certain way that you find counterproductive because of traits seems to be a humunculus argument - backwards and thus unproductive. Instead, i myself simply try to always grasp my the set of options i posses in its entirety to the best of my ability and simply pick the option i find most adequate. I'll apologize for spelling errors in advance, I don't want to currently spend time correcting what I've written. EDIT: Being deliberate does not preclude honesty or forthright. One can be truthful and forthright about something in an intelligent way. If you honestly do not want to hurt other people, being truthful and forthright should, by your own definition, take this into account. For instance, I considered if I should include my wish of not hurting you in my response for it to be honest and forthright (as defined by myself), and, as you can see, ended up doing so right now by simply examplifying my personal perspective on the matter (namely this). | ||
|
CrazyF1r3f0x
United States2120 Posts
| ||
|
Sablar
Sweden880 Posts
And of course straightforward/blunt isn't exactly the same thing, but the same behaviour can be labelled with either name depending on the situation. Maybe someone got hurt? Then it was probably considered blunt. If someone appreciated the honesty then it was probably straightforward. It's very much a matter of the recipient and the outcome. Like being nuts or being eccentric (in the latter the crazy part actually generated money or so). As for traits, I don't see it as positive traits colliding, but more like 1 type of behaviour being appropriate in one situation but not in another. What to do about it? On one hand I think "who gives a shit if everyone likes me", and on the other it can be kind of awkward. and lead to some bad consequences. I'm thinking that I want to be straightforward in a good way which of course is a huge balancing act, but I suppose it could be done if observant enough about who you are talking to. | ||
|
DuckS
United States845 Posts
On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote:I am, according to friends, unusually honest and forthright. But put a different way, I am simply blunt From the way you described it, not very blunt! I'm sorry, but I had to. | ||
|
stanik
Canada213 Posts
1a + 1b = -3c is valid | ||
|
GloryOfAiur
United States127 Posts
| ||
|
Tschis
Brazil1511 Posts
Keep up the good work, it can be hard sometimes. Loyalty & Honor | ||
|
mothergoose729
United States666 Posts
If there is a lesson to learn here, it is be more mindful of how you might effect other people who aren't yet used to you. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
"I'm honest and treat people I've barely known like lifelong friends, and this sometimes leads to offense. What are your thoughts on this?" With respect to the actual content of the post, you have to determine what your goals are. What exactly do you want out these "friendships" you are starting? Do you want people to approve of or like you, or do you want them to hook you up with good jobs, or do you want to have fun with them? If you can't clearly define what you want then it's impossible to give you advice on how to succeed. In general though, the more you want authentic and deep friendships the more you should be authentic and the more you want something from someone the more you should focus on them feeling good things. | ||
|
cz
United States3249 Posts
On April 19 2012 06:37 Forikorder wrote: is honesty and forthrightedness a good traight though? sure everyone saids that it is when people are looking at them, but in there mind do people really want to be told an inconvenient truth over a lie? perhaps honesty is only a good traight when your telling someone something good Daut44, an old poster here (think he went by BigBalls), used to say that when marking mathematical proofs he'd look for words like "certainly" and "obviously" and "definitely" because that's usually where the writer is trying to pass an assumption as true without evidence. I noticed that in the OP, with "honesty is certainly a positive trait." That premise needs to be supported. | ||
|
Chef
10810 Posts
<3 Daut. | ||
| ||
