|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
1+1 = 2. A positive number plus a positive number is a greater, positive number. This seems indisputable in mathematics [1]. But is this the case with people and our characteristics? Could two personal traits, both positive when in isolation, combine to become a negative behavior? I think it's possible, and perhaps even common. Here is a personal example. I am, according to friends, unusually honest and forthright. But put a different way, I am simply blunt. It's a product of my upbringing, both my family and my friends I had and still have. Taken alone, honesty is a trait that is certainly accepted as positive. I am also, by my own measure, fairly social. I am quick to accept people I just met as friends, and interact with them as if I've known them for some time. Again, friendliness and trust are widely accepted as positive values in our society. But what happens when these two values are combined and used together? Some of the effects can, as I've found, in fact be quite negative to the recipient. Here's John , a fellow I've "befriended" just a few months ago [2]. 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 John. If I were more judious in my forthrightness, or more careful in my trustfulness, then this effect would not occur. The blunt truths would only be directed at the closest of confidantes. As a result of having this particular combination of positive traits, I spawn a propensity to offend. 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? The only lesson I've been given, is to understand and acknowledge who we are, and to think ahead, considering the consequences of our words and actions before they are acted upon.
[1] Though I suppose that this could perhaps not be the case in higher mathematics?[2] A pseudonym, of course.
Crossposted from my main blog
  
|
Here's John , a fellow I've "befriended" just a few months ago [2]. 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 John.
I identified myself sooo much from this '-'
I think what is happening here is the wrong analogy. You are using maths, when what you have to use is Physics. Two Positives or Two Negatives repel each other, but a positive and a negative are attracted.
In the same sense, a good characteristic(sociability/friendliness) and a bad characteristic(lack of honesty) fit well together. Sure the honesty part can come, but then the "friendliness" bit wouldn't be all that true, would it?
Also your last sentence is golden.
|
Truth hurts, its a sad truth. Usually its good to censor yourself early on so that you don't say anything mean. I'm not truthful to your extent in front of new friends, but my humor, though most find me fairly funny and a fun guy to talk to, can get out of hand slightly. I've had time where I use terms that I didn't know were offensive, such as Plus Sized (in regards to women, Not just, "Bitches in dove commercials" - a girl who is a close friend of mine) or using different wording that people may not like / having an opinion that is less popular, but I keep it because I will not betray myself for almost anyone. Really its all about guaging what the other person can take.
|
In my experience, I have found that there is certainly a place for being blunt. Many of my friends and family appreciate me exactly for that reason. If I don't agree with something, I tell them. They don't have to worry about me mincing my words or misleading them.
Being blunt often looks like being tactless. In my experience, tactlessness is more often than not determined by the other person. Knowing wether you are being one or the other is a matter of understanding the other person. In my experience, it's better to err on the side of caution, and aim for being agreeable when you don't know how the other person will respond.
As far as 1 + 1, if we're talking about the Real number 1, then 1 + 1 is always 2. If 1 isn't a number, but rather an element in a set, all hell breaks loose, and there's no telling what's going to happen.
|
Heh, that sounds like me most of the time. Although I tend to just call myself an asshole, because that's usually how it comes out.
The question, however, is whether being blunt is ACTUALLY a negative trait, or if the negative effect is a result of an unaccounted variable in other people, be it "thin skin", a self-deprecating desire to avoid offense, or some effect of societal conditioning.
In other words, is your directness actually a negative, or is the negative outcome a result of a negative you aren't accounting for in the other people involved? After all, their personality is part of the equation too.
|
|
|
You're either horrendous at reading, or a rather pitiful troll.
|
On April 19 2012 01:56 JingleHell wrote:You're either horrendous at reading, or a rather pitiful troll.
There was a footnote?
edit: I mean, I know it wasn't the profoundest of comments. TDJ I beg your forgiveness 
|
He never said he doubts, he was just making it clear that if there's some screwy circumstance involving bizarre high level math that he doesn't understand, it's not relevant to his point.
Or that was my read. But I guess from that perspective, it was just worded poorly. See my above post where I mention that I'm actually just an asshole.
|
Ok, big man, you win. Really showed me.
|
1. Regarding 1+1, of course your statement is always true of 1 and 1 as real numbers (members of the real number line). However, there are some sets (for instance the integers mod 2), where it will be not true. Technicality, but as long as you were referring to them as real integers, your statement should always be true.
2. If anything, the effect you've described here shows us only that numerical (and even boolean) values describe social traits quite poorly, which shouldn't be at all surprising. Instead of looking for positives within ourselves, then, sometimes the best course of action is to look for positives in the context of the social situation you find yourself in, and go with those. This doesn't mean being a social chameleon (though some people choose this route anyway), it just means letting certain parts of yourself be more or less inhibited depending on where you are.
|
On topic, I find that very difficult. I've spent a lot of my life not saying things in public, which mostly just makes being in social situations awkward and I find I have nothing to say. Recently I've decided that the best course is just to speak my mind (politeness must be cultivated of course) and if the person is offended we probably weren't cut out to be friends.
There is an art in speaking truth in a way that is not blunt, however. I would give tips but I'm not very good at it.
|
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.
|
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.
|
Never, ever make a mathematical statement, however benign, on the internet. You'll soon have a hundred people who think they know better and will come to try to help the masses or correct the last one who tried, and suddenly, nobody will care about the bulk of what you wrote.
I think the problem here does not lie with your virtues. A quality in a context might be a handicap in another, and here your problem might just be a lack of tact, or of understanding of your new friend (after all, if you've known him for only a month, it's pretty normal that you are not able to predict all his reactions).
|
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?"
|
Sometimes the truth hurts T.T
|
There's a running math joke that 1+1=3 for exceptionally large values of 1, which exploits "rounding" numbers...
For example, you round 1.3 down to 1, and you round 2.6 up to 3. So while 1.3 + 1.3 = 2.6, if you round each of those three values separately, it appears that you're rounding a value of 1 plus a value of 1 to obtain a value of 3. It's obviously silly though.
And then there's other mathematical systems like binary... 1+1=10
But anyways... I definitely agree with the idea that sometimes you need to consider social norms and feelings before bluntly stating the truth. I feel that Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory epitomizes the problem here: He's as straightforward as possible, and simply doesn't understand when he oversteps a boundary, or when withholding a comment is in the party's best interest. (Granted, you're surely more social than Sheldon, but he's often forced into social situations anyway.) Sometimes, it's vital to tell the truth. In other cases, telling white lies or just nodding and smiling is the best idea. There are often shades of gray when engaging in social circles.
|
Try and equalize any negativity by saying something positive afterwards. If you've offended John by being honest, either come up with a lie or another truth to counter the first statement.
|
On April 19 2012 02:25 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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? =)
|
Just learn to apologize. It's easy, and it saves a lot of trouble. If you did something you regret in hindsight, just go to John and tell him "hey man, I'm sorry for whatever it was I dit the other day. Hope you understand" and this is it. If John is a girl then you should probably add some candy/chocolate on top, if you really screwed up.
|
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
|
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.
|
On April 19 2012 06:42 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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
|
On April 19 2012 04:28 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 04:12 Chef wrote: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.
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.
|
On April 19 2012 06:46 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 06:42 JingleHell wrote: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. 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.
|
So you recognize the problem but refuse to act on it? What's the problem, if you can't act to change your behavior around him for whatever reason and he doesn't like it, sounds like you just aren't cut out to be good friends?
|
In my opinion simple rule to follow in general is that the best is in the middle.
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.
|
I am a fairly direct person who generally never avoids the opportunity to be analytical. As such, I tend to be blunt regarding people's mistakes and over generalizations. I did not recognize my behavior as being overly critical until I was in high school and one of my friends decided to be honest enough with my to tell me that I am of such a manner. At first, I just shrugged it off and thought it wasn't significant, but rather just my innate nature. Over time I realized that while I may refuse to change my analytical nature, I can at least think ahead and tone myself down such as not to offend others.
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.
|
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).
|
The value of a personality trait is subjective; where as math is not--not to mention 1+1 is a simple operation, where as attributes of personality are more complicated, Honestly, at best it's a rough comparison.
|
I can very much relate to both traits being described.
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.
|
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.
|
1 + 1 = -3 can make mathematical sense in your case when you realize that you're talking about variables
1a + 1b = -3c is valid
|
What an obvious thread, that is how society works. Couples are usually opposites of each other in personality for the most part. If you are dating someone extremely similar to you in personality, chances are its not going to go long-term. If you are married, get ready for a divorce. If you are confident of a relationship then you are not as alike as you wish to be, or you're one of the infinitesimal exceptions.
|
I'd just like to say that I felt like you were describing me.
Keep up the good work, it can be hard sometimes.
Loyalty & Honor
|
As I grow older I find myself choosing my words more carefully and spending more time measuring the impact of what I say. I haven't got to the point that I can tell someone what they want to hear if I don't think its true, but I have come to believe it is often better to hold your tongue than to blurt out something you may regret. Someone who is naturally gregarious may be naive. Someone who always speaks their mind might actually be internally selfish. You can put a positive and negative spin on a lot of things, including the positive traits you attributed to yourself in this blog.
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.
|
Since you seem to be working on your writing, I'll give you some criticism. Part of good writing is that it is clear and concise: overly metaphorical and wordy sentences drag on and confuse and/or bore readers. If you can reduce your thought to a sentence, do so. Your readers will thank you.
"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.
|
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.
|
The week after Daut won about a million dollars in some poker tournament, he got on op tl-west and was looking for games. We played on R-point and I did what at the time was my well practiced gosu ensnare hydra build. The game lasted around 30 minutes and was one of the most magical moments of my life.
<3 Daut.
|
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
|
EDIT: embarrasingly, this mostly a reiteration of what is said directly before/above me... yikes/sorry! still:
mathematics is built around a framework we invented/discovered to create a sense of objective we can grasp onto... 1+1 will always be 2 (disregarding convoluted/silly loopholes, just talking simple, traditional, straightforward mathematics). arguably this framework is an invention and so is our "rule" that positives add to positives. still, within the framework (invented or not), it remains that, a rule.
i do not think any adjective descriptive of human traits/personality can be considered within an objective framework, at least not simply so. as you began to imply, words when it comes to subjective human experience, are just that: words. honesty does not imply how forward or reserved you are with that honesty, nor is either condemnable (i dont think). persistence is positive, stubborn is negative, but they are essentially the same trait.
that being said, i do think its true that in a more general and less technical sense that what we consider our and each others strengths can very easily become or seem to become flaws in the context of other areas usually considered strengths as well... a loosely logical analogy of two people who are skilled in different ways butting heads comes to mind; its not precise, certainly, but i think the idea is at its heart.
|
If any1 is offended by your personality, by the way you act or by the believes that are hidden deep inside your ego - you could't do possibly anything more stupid than trying to be friengs with some1 who just can't get along with your way of living
you see, live is just too short and have too much crazy events waiting just for you to boost you up or bring you down.
when you live your life with satisfaction, is there really any good purpose for taking so many others feelings into consideration? i sure don't think so
and after all. if others are irritated or embarressed - why on earth would you like to spend your short time here, helping them to get out of their intelectual sewage?!
|
On April 19 2012 01:40 thedeadhaji wrote:<p>1+1 = 2. A positive number plus a positive number is a greater, positive number. This seems indisputable in mathematics [1]. But is this the case with people and our characteristics? Could two personal traits, both positive when in isolation, combine to become a negative behavior? I think it's possible, and perhaps even common. Here is a personal example. </p><p>I am, according to friends, unusually honest and forthright. But put a different way, I am simply <em>blunt</em>. It's a product of my upbringing, both my family and my friends I had and still have. Taken alone, honesty is a trait that is certainly accepted as positive. </p><p>I am also, by my own measure, fairly social. I am quick to accept people I just met as friends, and interact with them as if I've known them for some time. Again, friendliness and trust are widely accepted as positive values in our society. </p><p>But what happens when these two values are combined and used together? Some of the effects can, as I've found, in fact be quite negative to the recipient. </p><p>Here's <em>John</em> , a fellow I've "befriended" just a few months ago [2]. 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>. </p><p>If I were more judious in my forthrightness, or more careful in my trustfulness, then this effect would not occur. The blunt truths would only be directed at the closest of <a href="http://blog.hkmurakami.com/post/19575059194">confidantes</a>. As a result of having this particular combination of <em>positive</em> traits, I spawn a propensity to offend. </p><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> <p><hr>[1] Though I suppose that this could perhaps not be the case in higher mathematics?</p><p>[2] A pseudonym, of course. </p> Crossposted from my main blog
I think you mix up honesty and lack of tact or diplomacy. Speaking your mind without thinking what your words are going to do has nothing to do with honesty, and is really not a quality. I have and I have had many good friends who have been like that and I always considered it as a really serious flaw.
I have a friend who always answer the "right" thing and everybody praise his "honesty". I think he just lacks tact and doesn't consider the fact that sometimes, you don't have to answer like a machine and can take other people's feeling into account. That's not dishonesty, that's not hypocrisy, that's the basis of sociality.
You can be very honest and master the art of saying the right thing or finding the right formula, or just not saying what you shouldn't say. You can be very dishonest and just throw hurtful stuff you randomely think at the face of people.
If for example, your friend just played a concert, and you didn't like it, it's not a lie not to tell him you thought it was outrageously crap. In fact, saying it, even if it's what you thought, would just mean being a dick. There are countless way to avoid being both rude of a hypocrite.
The analogy with math is a bit doubtful.
Oh, also... The doctor saying his patient he has cancer is a really bad analogy. When you own the truth to someone about something he should really know, of course you should have the courage to say it. That's not speaking out your mind, and you do it in his interest. Your friend, on the other hand, maybe shouldn't know that you thought his concert was crap, to go back to my analogy.
My two cents
|
>>> What is the proper response to these possibilities?
If you want to make friends with someone, you should be keeping in mind what they like and what will make them feel welcomed and comfortable. If you're doing something that embarrasses someone and you still want to be friends with them, then consider not doing that. It's not rocket science.
Edit: You might want to ask yourself why John was embarrassed or hurt, whether it was necessary to embarrass or hurt him, whether you were looking out for him when you said whatever you said, whether you might owe him an explanation, whether you should do something different next time... these are things that John's friend would think about! You seem a bit mystified as to what's tripping you up --- I say this because the "two rights make a wrong" explanation is completely hokey --- so if you haven't already, try to see it from his perspective before you congratulate yourself on how honest and friendly you are.
|
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
|
On April 19 2012 21:12 niteReloaded wrote:
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
Well not really. Demonstration:
- Hey what are you thinking about?
- I was just thinking that you are ugly, you can't dress for shit and you have yellow teeth.
A: - Oh, thanks for your honesty, I appreciate your courage to not withholding yourself.
B: - You really are an unsensitive son of a bitch.
Of course it's easy to go into the "not afraid to offend = real man", even if it's completely dumb.
|
On April 19 2012 21:12 niteReloaded wrote:
Withholding yourself because someone may get offended is a cowardly move, even tho most of us do it.
A mature person with no insecurities will appreciate you for speaking your mind.
I wish everyone just said it like it is, but of course I'm the first guy who will not do it in all circumstances.
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things. Speaking ones mind with no thought of consequence is not very mature either.
|
Don't entirely understand the mathematical analogy. I guess the point is similar to the economic case of goods that don't have free disposal so that when you have 1 good you're happy, and when you have another good you're happy, but when you have both, they form a doomsday toxic catastrophe and everybody dies.
|
On April 19 2012 10:07 GloryOfAiur wrote:
Couples are usually opposites of each other in personality for the most part. If you are dating someone extremely similar to you in personality, chances are its not going to go long-term.
This is almost entirely wrong, both empirically and theoretically - the one exception being high scores on neurosticism. In this case it's not so much due to dissimilar personalities - at least theoretically - as due to neurosticism simply being counterproductive to close and longlasting relationship by how it's defined and meassured empirically.
What's the logic behind your reasoning?
|
On April 19 2012 11:41 cz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
From what I know, honesty is usually not conceptualized as a trait in most trait theories, but rather a behavioral outcome.
Honesty and positive are etymologically linked, and while this might not intentionally have been taken into account, I don't see a reason to be especially skeptical about this premise.
Honesty refers to being truthful. In sentential logic, a truth function would consist of two sentential variables encompassing a logical functor and give the binary outcome 1 (truth) or 0 (false). Thus, truth equals 1, which is mathematically positive by being "a number greater than 0".
Positive could mean "stated definitely", in which case truth applies.
It could mean "fully assured in opion", and while this opinion could be globally false, from the internal perspectiv it's truth.
It could mean "characterized by constructiveness or influence for the better". This is perhaps the definition you're most skeptical about? Where truth corresponds to enlightenment, wisdom or insight, the corresponding attributes could be clarity of perception, reason and knowledge. Since all of these are positive for optimization of utility and decisionmaking, they are constructive by definition for a situational outcome. "better" resembles "that which is prefered over that which would have occured under other circumstances, namely lack of truth.
Example:
In the game of starcraft, having full vision of the map would be positive for optimization of utility (what you got) and decisionmaking (what you will do with it), and is thus constructive (leading to the better) to the outcome of the game, regardless of whether you want to win or lose it.
I do, however, believe that there are many reasons to be skeptical about the paradigm of traits altogether, as it seems to have counterproductive implications for, for instance, optimization of utility and decisionmaking - namely because traits (or the intrapersonal belief in the existence of latent traits) seems to limit the amount of behavioral outcomes one perceives in a given situation by being deterministic in nature.
|
On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today).
You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism).
You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent.
Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
|
On April 20 2012 00:51 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today). You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism). You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent. Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
You read my post under the assumption that I see intelligence as a genetic predisposition or something.
I should have stated my definition of intelligence first.
"An intelligent human being has a high IQ."
This sentence makes no sense because IQ doesn't represent anything but how good they are at writing IQ tests.
A person's IQ determined by an IQ test doesn't tell us anything about their 'social IQ'. It doesn't really tell us anything about their intelligence EXCEPT for the ability to write tests with the common questions that an IQ test would give. Even if those tests were to try to analyse social IQ somehow it wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense right?
So yeah the whole intelligence or multiple intelligence's thing is "mostly nebulous surface phenomena" as you would put it.
You can't measure social IQ, plus why would you want to? Would someone with a high social IQ have more successful relationships?
But this mean intelligence doesn't have any meaning at all, and shouldn't exist. Intelligence is a word that we mainly use to describe understanding, or the manifestation of elevated mental activity. When the intelligence of a human being is being determined by his peers, it's merely the display of his abilities that is judged, not his intelligence.
I think intelligence is developed, and intrinsic. Intelligence is the level of understand that one has in a certain field (social, math, plumbing, sex, hair-cutting..etc). This level of understanding (intelligence) can never be truly determined. In society we can only be empirically compared with that of another. The empirical comparison is the examination of the ABILITY demonstrated in that field, and as such is an improper projection of what is truly going on.
So back to that post about Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
Keep in mind...we're posting on a thread saying 1+1 = -3.... which tried to tie personality traits to mathematics.....
I was merely trying to interpret the fact that if something like honesty as a positive trait could be compared to intelligence as a positive trait. In displaying the ability (or getting along with John) his honesty turned negative.
If this were to be true then we could also include social intelligence as a positive trait, or more simply empathy = good, no empathy = bad. Social ability is meant by the success (or illusion) of maintaining friends, meet new people, relationships, easy to get a long with..."Social butterfly" to coin a phrase.
TLDR
I don't think that the people you see who are the life of the party, have lots of friends, or are exceptionally witty, able to carry on interesting conversations (High Social Ability), have any correlation with the amount of understanding or empathy that the individual feels (Social Intelligence).
|
Korea (South)17174 Posts
your example has nothing to do with '2 positives sometimes ='ing a negative'
it's just you being unable to identify someone's insecurities and not being more cautious with your words lol
you can't just blanket always being honest, open, and forthright about how you think and feel into one big 'positive trait' either
|
On April 20 2012 00:51 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 12:43 Zedders wrote:
Trying to make sense of human emotion through mathematics is a flawed premise entirely.
The 'positive' sense of a personality trait is nothing but an opinion really. Where as the mathematical sense of positive cannot be disputed, (ie. it is clearly defined)
Although it's an interesting observation it does not always hold true.
Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
(My own definition)
Your social intelligence is entirely based on how well you pick up on other people's emotions. This is not to be confused with 'introversion' or 'extroversion' in people as it has nothing to do with personality, but rather to do with how much social information is perceived by an individual.
Your social ability is not always proportional to your social intelligence. For example, those with very little social intelligence (autism) may find it difficult to be successful socially (maintain friends, meet new people, relationships, etc).
Yet somehow those with too much social intelligence find it very difficult to be around people, as they are too in sync with the emotions of those around them. This stunts their social ability and deters them from being honest, and open.
In your case, the line "...even acknowledging the fact that some remarks are critical and could offend"...
This shows honesty trumping empathy. If the 'recipient', as you put it, finds this favorable (your honesty), then this will be a positive trait.
If the recipient finds your honesty offending, they do not like the lack of empathy expressed towards them and this will be a negative trait.
The spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait.
Social intelligence and social ability seems to be mostly nebulous surface phenomena. All the recent brainreseach I know of points to neuroplasticity and neglects existence of multiple types of underlying forms of intelligence aside from differences in learned skills. The whole concept of multiple intelligences seems to be leftovers from Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences (which he, btw, opposes today). You're also stating that people with autism have very little social intelligence. Autism is a behavioral defined disorder, and while this sometimes does mean impairment of neural development (and thus intelligence), one can also get the diagnosis "autism" while scoring high on tests of intelligence. In this case, very little social intelligence resembles only very little social abilities, as defined by what is socially expected of the society you inhabit. Since abilities are unevenly distributed, the correlation between social abilities and intelligence is low. In fact, in many countries IQ tests are given people whom are being diagnosed with autism to account for the fact that the diagnosis itself correlates very well to intelligence, as defined by score in IQ tests (high IQ scores lowers odds of being diagnosed with autism). You're stating that some people with very high social intelligence find it difficult to be around people. If that's the case, your definition of social intelligence seems to be inconsistent. Finally you state that the spectrum of human personality is too vast to be put on a positive/negative as there are too many variables which decide whether it is a good or bad trait. I would argue quite the opposite: there are simply no or few variables which decide whether a trait is good or bad, because being good or bad merely reflects perceptions of the situational and behavioral outcome.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
You read my post under the assumption that I see intelligence as a genetic predisposition or something.
No, I do not. What makes you draw this conclusion?
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
"An intelligent human being has a high IQ."
This sentence makes no sense because IQ doesn't represent anything but how good they are at writing IQ tests.
I never wrote this - you're misquoting me, quoting your own interpretation of what I wrote, instead of actually quoting what I wrote. This type of argumentation is called straw man, and is an informal fallacy based on misinterpretation of an opponent's position.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
A person's IQ determined by an IQ test doesn't tell us anything about their 'social IQ'. It doesn't really tell us anything about their intelligence EXCEPT for the ability to write tests with the common questions that an IQ test would give. Even if those tests were to try to analyse social IQ somehow it wouldn't really make a whole lot of sense right?
A person's IQ is 'exactly' what's meassured in an IQ test, because that's how IQ is manifested. However, whether there is a discrepancy between that an intelligence is a different discussion.
IQ tests does tell us a variety of things. For instance, study shows that IQ tests is a better meassure of how well a person will be doing his/her job than job interviews. This, however, is widely ignored, partly because of the misconception that IQ tests doesn't allow for any kind of predictions aside from how well that person will complete similar IQ tests.
However, i will say that the only certainly of a meassured IQ is that the person made a specific score in a specific test, as is the case with most other types of test, if not all.
As for your distinction of social IQ and IQ in general - I find this more conceptual than practical and empirical. I don't think any internal distinction of IQ's can be made aside from unevenly distributed abilities, which I consider to be due to other parameters - such as amount of time a person has been spending on the task.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
Would someone with a high social IQ have more successful relationships?
My point is that social IQ is an endomorphism of IQ. Someone with a high social IQ has a high IQ because IQ is holistically defined. Someone with a high intelligence (to avoid the IQ-intelligence debate) is better than someone with a lower intelligence at everything, all other parameters equal, because this is what high intelligence does for you - it allows you to hold more things in your mind simutanously, and alter all of their interrelationships.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
But this mean intelligence doesn't have any meaning at all, and shouldn't exist. Intelligence is a word that we mainly use to describe understanding, or the manifestation of elevated mental activity. When the intelligence of a human being is being determined by his peers, it's merely the display of his abilities that is judged, not his intelligence.
Insofar that intelligence is neccessarily manifested phenomenally, I agree with this. However, I disagree that it makes the term useless altogether, and that it means intelligence can't be ontological.
If I am talking to someone, and that person is capable of understanding my productions or thoughts whilst I'm incapable of understanding his, I'd argue that he's more intelligent than me by definition. In that sense, I guess there is a link between intelligence and mental activity, but mental activity itself can't fully account for intelligence. Everything is manifested in cognition and perception, and to that extent, an element of judging is required for the term intelligence to have meaning, but it doesn't neccessarily mean that intelligence has no meaning aside from individual judgements.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
I think intelligence is developed, and intrinsic. Intelligence is the level of understand that one has in a certain field (social, math, plumbing, sex, hair-cutting..etc). This level of understanding (intelligence) can never be truly determined. In society we can only be empirically compared with that of another.
I should have stated my definition of intelligence first.
I disagree that genetic predispositions can be excluded entirely from the equation, but agree that, for the most part, intelligence is developed intrinsically.
I disagree with the level-of-understanding definition, tho, as this will always be a function of time spent on an arbitrary field. If that was the case, my juggling-intelligence would be minimal when I might in fact be able to learn juggling faster than 99% of all people, and after 1 month of practice, maybe would be better than 99.99% of all people. On that same token, someone who is currently better than 99% of all people might improve slower than 99% of all people and just have this ability developed due to time spend. If intelligence is defined this way, no distinction of intelligence and abilities can be made, and as such, I oppose this definition. This is also why you can't test intelligence by testing ablities. For instance, how well you write a language is an exceptionally poor estimate of your intelligence, because if you grew up in a country talking that language you're so much more likely to write it well than someone who never tried it before. The tricky part, then, is how well IQ tests reflect that which does not reflect an uneven distribution of abilities, i.e. that which determines the speed by which you learn and understand in general.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
The empirical comparison is the examination of the ABILITY demonstrated in that field, and as such is an improper projection of what is truly going on.
Yes, to the extent that you're actually examination an ability of a certain field, but this is not what IQ tests seeks to do - and in my opinion not what it does, at least for the most part. As long as one is examining an ability of a certain field, it neccessarily will be an inaccurate projection of actual intelligence. This is why people have no business connection the academia bureaucracy with intelligence, or money with intelligence for that matter.
On April 20 2012 05:21 Zedders wrote:
So back to that post about Social Intelligence vs Social Ability
Keep in mind...we're posting on a thread saying 1+1 = -3.... which tried to tie personality traits to mathematics.....
I was merely trying to interpret the fact that if something like honesty as a positive trait could be compared to intelligence as a positive trait. In displaying the ability (or getting along with John) his honesty turned negative.
If this were to be true then we could also include social intelligence as a positive trait, or more simply empathy = good, no empathy = bad. Social ability is meant by the success (or illusion) of maintaining friends, meet new people, relationships, easy to get a long with..."Social butterfly" to coin a phrase.
That's a good point, I think. However, I don't think the 1+1=-3 metaphor is justified. Hence, I didn't find the analogy all that interesting compared to some of the other content you and OP presented. I'm sorry if I went too much into details about something you find irrelevant to the overall message of your post, which I, in turn, did find interesting.
|
I just checked your ban history and if you have a propensity to offend, you would've been banned multiple times in TL by now. Clearly you know what posts are civil and acceptable. What's so different about your social life apart from TL?
|
"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." - Shakespeare
They way I think about it now is that there isn't really much you can do about other people's preferences and such but as long as you can express yourself clearly then there usually isn't an issue. Its simple but it's actually not quite so easy. You have to be able to express the meaning behind your words and actions and make it so the other person truly understands what you trying to do or where you are coming from so that you both have the same intellectual understanding of the situation.
If you can do this then people shouldn't, in my opinion, take offense to what you have to say, blunt or otherwise.
Just my opinion though.
|
On April 21 2012 04:34 polgas wrote:
I just checked your ban history and if you have a propensity to offend, you would've been banned multiple times in TL by now. Clearly you know what posts are civil and acceptable. What's so different about your social life apart from TL?
From my experience, aside from a very limited set of strict rules, bannings on TL happens ad hoc. Being civil and acceptable by ones own standards, respecting other peoples opinions, extrapolating well on your own and submitting to the written rules does not guarantee that you remain unbanned. In fact, very little emphasis seems to be put on freedom of speech or the degree of internal logical consistency in your statements relative to the emphasis put on the degree of similarity between your opinion and that of a mod, or that mods opinion of you in general. This is well examplified by the fact that almost any type of arguing with a mod justifies a ban - regardless of the content of the arguments. To this extent, your analogy is justified.
However, being an organization that makes money from traffic, emphasis is also put on how much traffic a respective person generates. Having made over 20k posts means not only that you're likely to make more, but that when you do so, people tend to read and respect what you write. Hence, there is a degree of correlation between the amount of posts one has made, and the likelyhood of getting banned.
Furthermore, being blunt means being more persuasive on avarage. Being perceived as intelligent also leads to a higher degree of persuasion on avarage. This, in conjunction with the fact that mods can ban ad hoc, makes mods fall victim to persuasion frequently.
|
On April 21 2012 16:51 Flyingsnow wrote:
They way I think about it now is that there isn't really much you can do about other people's preferences and such but as long as you can express yourself clearly then there usually isn't an issue. Its simple but it's actually not quite so easy. You have to be able to express the meaning behind your words and actions and make it so the other person truly understands what you trying to do or where you are coming from so that you both have the same intellectual understanding of the situation.
If you can do this then people shouldn't, in my opinion, take offense to what you have to say, blunt or otherwise.
Just my opinion though.
I really liked how you phrased this. On that same token, being blunt also entails sincere questioning. For instance, if I become aware that my opinion on a subject differs from that of another person, rather than being blunt about my own opinion, I could ask questions the answer to which I currently expect to lead to the highest level of enlightenment. If the answer is unaccounted for, I'd have to review my perspective by integrating it. If not, elaboration of my own perspective is at least now shown to be sincere, and thus potentially more productive. Either case seems to lead to a mutually greater gain intellectually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
