EPTAbout People (How to-) [Part 1] - Page 2
| Blogs > Torte de Lini |
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
| ||
|
FinnGamer
Germany2426 Posts
Kant has a really interesting view about selfish or selfless deed, he says that all the selfish deeds are immoral ( which is a bit too harsh anyway [With Kant there are so few things moral, like not killing yourself when you are in really big pain)]. Sadly, people don't really understand how proper criticism works and I think the Internet is one of the reasons why. 99% of the people that make such comments would never say it to the people IRL, but everybody knows that. Looking forward to Part 2 | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
I think those who make those internet comments or criticisms they would never say in real life don't realize how much time they're wasting. What they are saying is hurtful and bothersome, but in the end, they will never be respected or their viewpoint will eventually never be valid because of their poor approach. I wrote this because of an issue I was having with some peers and I also felt that personalities on the internet and in StarCraft also were receiving a lot of flack without proper criticisms to balance it out. I felt terrible for them because they do a lot, yet... no matter what they do, they will always be heinously criticized and the satisfied won't be as outspoken as the haters. Thanks for your encouragements. | ||
|
SnetteL
Belgium473 Posts
On July 25 2011 05:42 RHCPgergo wrote:I see a difference between the two - doing something for recognition/acceptance and just being a good guy. But I have doubts that selflessness exists at all. I think it's just another name for high empathy and understanding. I picture the most selfless creature as an ant, for example. This way, the word 'selflessness' does not hold any value, it just describes a characteristic. This is a difference between our fundamental viewpoints on life. Not only do i believe true selflessness exists i'd say it is one of the things why i would speak separate of animals and humans. That's why your argument about the ant doesn't hold any value for me, personally. I can't prove my point ofcourse, at some crossroads in life you just have to believe and wether some of us made those decisions consciously and some of us haven't, i think they are reflected in our choices and thus our deeds. Culture in itself is a form of hope and belief, something only humans have developed. Culture is about becoming more human. It's a rebellion against the pointlessness of life. I added the last part for people who think believing in something without evidence is stupid, i think it points out that we as a human are forced to believe in something at some point, if you don't you might as well kill yourself. Being a "good guy" means that you do things because you don't want to see yourself as a bad person. You have an inner motive to to help others or do selfless deeds. You would feel bad about yourself otherwise so you comply and do it. This way, it becomes a selfish act: you don't have to tell anyone about it at all. I'm trying to explain the same concept that is mentioned in the sitcom (Friends) that is linked in the OP. If you do the act just because it makes you feel bad it would be. But that will never be the case, because if you would truly only care about yourself you would never feel bad when neglecting to do something selflessness. I'm not going to claim people are that selfless all the time, we try shut off and look away from a lot of things (look at all the poor people in the world you and i could be helping and we just give away some money to charity to make us feel better). I just believe that people, even being helping in that way, show that true selflessness is a part of us. I think, it's again, just a difference in point of view between you and me. Where i see evidence, you see a lack. | ||
|
SnetteL
Belgium473 Posts
On July 25 2011 05:39 Torte de Lini wrote: How did you find out about it? Out of interest? Friend? I appreciate your words of support. How would you describe the relationship you have with your friends? Interest i guess. I would describe my relationship with my best friends/girlfriend as the complete opposite of facebook. That pretty much sums it up. I also practically only have best friends and my gf. I'm not rude to people, but i won't feign interest neither. I appreciate your words of support. Like this stuff. You shouldn't say this when you don't appreciate my words. It would make for very poor, superficial, shallow communication which my sole purpose in life is trying to avoid. edit: i'm not implying you don't btw  | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 06:33 SnetteL wrote: Interest i guess. I would describe my relationship with my best friends/girlfriend as the complete opposite of facebook. That pretty much sums it up. I also practically only have best friends and my gf. I'm not rude to people, but i won't feign interest neither. Like this stuff. You shouldn't say this when you don't appreciate my words. It would make for very poor, superficial, shallow communication which my sole purpose in life is trying to avoid. edit: i'm not implying you don't btw I always appreciate someone's input. It's not a forced feeling, but the next part of my how-to section. If you check out my blog entries, I get very little comments, so when someone does speak out, I appreciate it even if it is with malice intent or a self-centered one. It tells me that the person felt so strongly about his stance that he needed to tell me. Such effort is appreciated, even if the result hurts me. | ||
|
RHCPgergo
Hungary345 Posts
On July 25 2011 06:03 Torte de Lini wrote: I don't see why an act can't be both beneficial for you and the receiver. As I said before, one doesn't entirely affect the other if their dimensions (mental to physical) are completely separated. Yes, it's beneficial for both, but that doesn't make it a slefless act. @SnetteL I need some time to think about what you wrote. I'm trying to understand your point of view, but so far I didn't manage. I will reread it later. (Can you maybe suggest a piece of literature that could explain tihs viewpoint? I might take the time to read it.) This part is really interesting: Culture in itself is a form of hope and belief, something only humans have developed. Culture is about becoming more human. It's a rebellion against the pointlessness of life. I added the last part for people who think believing in something without evidence is stupid, i think it points out that we as a human are forced to believe in something at some point, if you don't you might as well kill yourself. I would normally call culture a huge pile of customs, be that how we dress or how we think about the world, what is allowed and what is socially unacceptable. I would think that you are putting humanity on a pedestal too high. (Let's stick to the topic of being selfish/selfless though, debates on philosophy can easily be derailed or sink into a puddle of banalitites.) | ||
|
RHCPgergo
Hungary345 Posts
Also, I like how you show your appreciation for almost every poster. Is that the legacy of Mr. Carnegie?  Remember, it has to be honest to make it work! | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 07:39 RHCPgergo wrote: Btw I also listened to one of the audiobooks done by Dale Carnegie, about "winning friends" and influencing people. I liked it a lot, includes some very useful advice. Is this blog series circled around his "teachings"? Also, I like how you show your appreciation for almost every poster. Is that the legacy of Mr. Carnegie? Remember, it has to be honest to make it work!Yes, more or less. It's based on what I can recall and just personal experience. My appreciation actually stems from the age-old question of "why". Why did someone do this or say that. This helps dissipate misinterpretations or misunderstandings. I have a huge problem of taking things too seriously or overreacting (despite me doing this method for 7 years about). Upon asking why, you are engaged in thinking what the person intended to say, why he intended, what his gains or losses were and thus your reaction should act accordingly. People are not inherently evil or manipulative, but rather truthful with their intentions. So when someone actually posts, it tells me they actually took the time to express content or justified discontent. Even with some generic replies where the person may or may not have read the whole entry, it shows that they enjoy another aspect of me well enough to say something. If it was to increase their post count or something trivial, it doesn't affect the overall feeling I get when reading it (hence two benefits not affecting one another). The effort, no matter how little or large is still exerted for my reaction. To show them I've reacted is the least I can do. Hope that clarifies it. Dale Carnegie for me is the tape you mentioned. Influencing people and making friends. I enjoy your inquisitiveness :3! | ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
Dunno why people are complaining about the OP not fitting into every situation though. As long as he's providing a decent amount of solvency with the guidelines he's still winning at this thing called "being a respectful/respectable person". And also, bluntness is all refreshing and stuff, but 'respecting a person enough not to lie to them' doesn't condone sticking many sticks up your ass and calling it a day. Appreciation of someone else's values and taking people in stride, feelings and all is part of respecting a person's moral status. Y'know, Scanlonian contractualism and all that janx... | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 08:39 ymir233 wrote: lol I like this. Nice general guidelines to be COGNIZANT of instead of instinctive choice selections. Dunno why people are complaining about the OP not fitting into every situation though. As long as he's providing a decent amount of solvency with the guidelines he's still winning at this thing called "being a respectful/respectable person". And also, bluntness is all refreshing and stuff, but 'respecting a person enough not to lie to them' doesn't condone sticking many sticks up your ass and calling it a day. Appreciation of someone else's values and taking people in stride, feelings and all is part of respecting a person's moral status. Y'know, Scanlonian contractualism and all that janx... I'm afraid I don't understand your second part. Are you suggesting I be selectively appreciative? I'm not disagreeing because I understand that by being selective it shows an even deeper form of true appreciation and understanding. But on the flipside, it creates a bias I find unfair. There are positive aspects to the even worse comments because they show a contrast between those who are supportive such as yourself and they also portray a characteristic of the person, so it is informational. The content is something I might disagree or, in the end, completely ignore. But the exterior factors that surround the comment are good nonetheless, no? | ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
| ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 08:44 ymir233 wrote: No the second part was still based on the comments. Meant the third part :B My math is atrocious, sorry! | ||
|
xxSK8rGUy277xx
300 Posts
On July 25 2011 04:13 Torte de Lini wrote: Essentially, anything that demoralizes someone without justification is terrible criticism. You need to ensure you cover these three key features" Make sure you criticize the person's acts or work and not the person themselves.This would seem obvious, but many people go straight for the throat and make personal attacks onto the person rather than their work or something about them you don't like. Saying "You're a terrible host and you're not even useful in the conversation" is pointless and hurtful. What does he know what to do to make himself better? Nothing, he just knows that he disappointed you. You are important, you are the reason he is doing this and you are the very people he seeks to please and entertain. Help him help you. Im sorry for messaging you and telling you I 1 starred your blog the other day. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack because I do usually enjoy your writing. Expecting more thought provoking blogs from you soon. + Show Spoiler + 5starrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrz | ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
On July 25 2011 08:46 Torte de Lini wrote: Meant the third part :B My math is atrocious, sorry! No it's my fault for mistyping the reply, since I think I knew which paragraph it was you meant o____O I think the third part was also based on them... You had your point about how to (sort of) avoid conflict/give constructive criticism/not be a jackass. But many of the comments at the OP was in a sense backlash in saying that "honesty is THE top priority-virtue". That may be true, but I was just back-backlashing by saying that it doesn't give a person a reason to be forcefully negative/rough during criticism, nor does being blunt'/having a stick up your ass make the honesty 'better' in some sense. Respecting a person's "moral status" includes what they may feel in the short-term range, not just "do they know everything that I'm feeling right now". Slamming a person down by being honest does not respect a person's moral status and does the whole 'unjustified wrong action' thing by contractualism. tl;dr: So I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded like a strange disagreement. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 09:06 xxSK8rGUy277xx wrote: Im sorry for messaging you and telling you I 1 starred your blog the other day. I hope you didn't take it as a personal attack because I do usually enjoy your writing. Expecting more thought provoking blogs from you soon. + Show Spoiler + 5starrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrz Don't be silly, stars are unimportant :B! Besides, I know you were just playfully teasing~ Thanks a lot! | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 09:09 ymir233 wrote: No it's my fault for mistyping the reply, since I think I knew which paragraph it was you meant o____O I think the third part was also based on them... You had your point about how to (sort of) avoid conflict/give constructive criticism/not be a jackass. But many of the comments at the OP was in a sense backlash in saying that "honesty is THE top priority-virtue". That may be true, but I was just back-backlashing by saying that it doesn't give a person a reason to be forcefully negative/rough during criticism, nor does being blunt'/having a stick up your ass make the honesty 'better' in some sense. Respecting a person's "moral status" includes what they may feel in the short-term range, not just "do they know everything that I'm feeling right now". Slamming a person down by being honest does not respect a person's moral status and does the whole 'unjustified wrong action' thing by contractualism. tl;dr: So I was agreeing with you. Sorry if it sounded like a strange disagreement. Bah, no worries (though I made the mistake). Can you quote which parts you're mentioning ;D! I'm intrigued by what you are saying | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
I like the idea, I'm just not sure you convey your reason for this blog particularly well. I honestly feel like you need to reread what you wrote and clarify exactly what you are setting out to do, upfront. You acknowlege this when your wrote "I feel I am blurring my point" and then wrote another paragraph which essentially says, "people appreciate positive quality feedback." This is a somewhat minor issue as anyone who reads your blogs kows that you like to meander. You've said this yourself. More importantly, I would posit that people who take the time to read this blog are more than likely to take the time to think about their respones. Put simply, the choir hears you loud and clear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, we all need reminding. This links with my first point, the reasoning behind this blog is a little obscure. It always good to read your stuff. Personally I enjoy your musings about life in general more, but each to their own. Will read part 2  | ||
|
TheBeau
England15 Posts
You can argue your criticism is perfectly valid, which it may be and is usually true, but the fact you are not 'on their level' is what, I think, will cause people to explode. Unfortunately, there's not much you can do here, even the best criticism can be ignored. My point here is that you can accept criticism from a friend, but not listen to it because you think yourself better than them. Whilst you may not accept nor listen to a stranger who you believe yourself better than. Personally, I believe that people (on the internet) are much more likely to listen to criticism from people who are significantly more skilled than them or at least at the same level, regardless of quality or positivity. I also couldn't help but notice the HoN/DotA references whilst reading. My problem with criticism in those type of games where there are things which you cannot explain and go far beyond things like "harassment" or just "positioning", vague terms which don't really contribute to improving (I imagine you would agree here, not trying to call you out on an example). However it is supposedly unfair to criticise someone by saying, "You just don't get it" even though it may be completely true (There are times when it is not of course!). For example, in Football (soccer) I can't really say "you're kicking it wrong" nor can I explain how I'm able to be better (I'm not it's just an example  ), it's just a feeling I get that has come naturally and with experience. This feeling is probably what has given rise to the quite amusing term "gamesense", though people would have you believe it's some sort of in-game telepathy.Personally, I think it's really difficult to write a 'guide' on criticism because of how different people are and how they won't react as you might expect, so props to you. Following the guidelines you've set out will undoubtedly result in less rage but there always those who react differently. I enjoyed reading nonetheless and I hope you continue. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 25 2011 10:23 Probulous wrote: Right... I like the idea, I'm just not sure you convey your reason for this blog particularly well. I honestly feel like you need to reread what you wrote and clarify exactly what you are setting out to do, upfront. You acknowlege this when your wrote "I feel I am blurring my point" and then wrote another paragraph which essentially says, "people appreciate positive quality feedback." This is a somewhat minor issue as anyone who reads your blogs kows that you like to meander. You've said this yourself. More importantly, I would posit that people who take the time to read this blog are more than likely to take the time to think about their respones. Put simply, the choir hears you loud and clear. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, we all need reminding. This links with my first point, the reasoning behind this blog is a little obscure. It always good to read your stuff. Personally I enjoy your musings about life in general more, but each to their own. Will read part 2 I knew I should have opened my blog with an italicized off-topic reasoning for why I am doing this... The reasoning is barely important I feel. If you mean my overall goal: "Overall, I feel this predicament is similar to commentators (feel free to correct me, I'm not quite confident with this comparison). While commentators themselves may be terrible, many of the things they say are generally accepted or respected enough to be criticized or counter-argued (I'm hoping you and I are the same way right now). There are exceptions to this and it isn't rejecting the idea that there aren't better commentators out there (Hearing commentating from iNcontrol and Idra given that they are familiar with the scene and experienced it personally), but rather considering that not all information should be flushed or viewed less as a guide purely because there is a stigma or viewpoint that the writer is "socially awkward" (in quotations because it isn't an affirmation)." It was both a tool for myself to do something productive when I was brooding or angry at something or someone (usually leading me to be self-destructive) and a way of feeling useful and distracting myself while also hoping I helped or enlightened some people [and if I didn't, I sincerely am glad you already know this]. My ultimate goal is written in the blog: "But I feel I am capable of reminding those who read this entry of the basic aspects of people we should take into account for: their need to improve and their need to feel needed. In other words, people seek to improve themselves or improve a part of their life and they also seek to be appreciated, needed or have a place in a group whether in the workplace, with family or with friends." | ||
| ||
