Jump to content
  • entries
    275
  • comments
    3,435
  • views
    213,793

How To Avoid Frustration


bonesiii

802 views

blognotblog.png


From time to time, BZPower gets an influx of so many new members, and older members who are aware of major goings on move on to other things. Turnover, it's called. People in general also tend to make some common mistakes before they learn better -- but we can help them avoid such mistakes by telling them the lessons we and others have already learned.

We can also do it with humor.

Which brings me to the first point of this entry: to give a big shout-out to Turakii's very wise entry here. Everybody should read it and take it to heart, IMO. :)

I've been meaning to do another blog entry about personal taste and respecting others, for a while, but haven't found the time or energy to get around to it. And then Turakii went and said much of what I would have said, complete with hilarous metaphor! And now I've found the energy to say something else -- how to avoid needless frustration... but first, you should read that link.

*waits*






Okay, now I assume you've read it. If not, return to start and lose all your points. ;)

Now, I've got a big wall of text coming. If you don't like them, get out now. But please like them. :P lol It's something that has helped me immensely, and maybe it can help you. :) And sorry, no Turakii-style humor here. :P

I wanted to explain my comment in there about people disagreeing with their own opinions. I've noticed over the years that many people, myself included, have a strange habit of disagreeing with ourselves. By that I mean, we believe certain things with passion, and yet at other times, for whatever strange reasons, we act the exact opposite way, criticise others for doing the very things we do and claim to believe in, or even passionately believe something else that, if we had thought it through, blatantly contradicts another opinion we have.

In my fanfics, I describe this as people actually erecting walls in their mind. Parts of their mind might believe one thing, even fully, while others might believe another.

I have come to suspect that virtually all forms of frustration stem from this phenomenon.

It's true that we have desires, and things outside of us obviously can get in the way, sometimes on things that matter a lot more than entertainment. Like if someone's life is in danger, and you try to save them, but nothing you try works. Someone I know who works in the medical field had to go through that recently with a patient who died.

But why do we let frustration, misery, etc. take us over to such extremes as to do it with entertainment? Or even in more serious matters, frustration can boil over in us, tensing us up and ironically making us less able to accomplish what little is left for us to do towards our desired goal.

I've often pointed out to complainers that entertainment is about... being entertained (:P) -- and so there's really no need to get so worked up over things.

When I first started trying to combat complaint topic flame-closures back in the day by providing an objective voice, I met a lot of initial success as people more often than not saw that fact, and easily gave up their frustration, and were able to become happier people, despite still continuing to dislike what they do. The topics stopped getting closed all the time, flamewars were averted, and the deepening animosity between "sides" was healed, at least partly.

That has been my greatest joy on here, the ability to actually help people become happier, joyful people who were previously miserable, even if it's through a vehicle as trivial in the long run as toys.

But then I started to meet people who held to a curious belief, one that has continued to puzzle me to this day.

Some people didn't seem to want to be content. I know, if you've never encountered it, it's hard to believe, but it happens. (And just to make this clear, there shall be no naming of names here, and if you think I'm talking about you or you think you know who... Maybe, but believe me, it's not just one or two people. It's many, many. Please do not ask; such comments will be deleted or edited.)

But my best efforts to explain to them the things that had helped others move past their needless frustrations had the opposite effect on this type of people. It got them riled up, even more defensive than before I let loose my admittedly wordy posts (what can I say, I'm still who I am, and wordiness is part of who I am -- never mind that it's the very thing that helped turn around BZP's tendency for debates to always erupt into flamewars. This was a new problem, and the same solution doesn't seem to work).

Being by nature obsessively curious about people, this fascinates me. It was and is totally incomprehensible to me.

But more importantly, I empathize with it. I've been in that position myself -- and yes, failed to understand it even when I was the one doing it. It's been a long time since I've caught myself doing it, but I must be honest and admit that I used to do that all the time. And still more to the point, I want to try to help them, too, somehow, to be more content.

I'm still not sure I get it, but my running theory has been that it's not that they actually WANT to be frustrated, per se, but that they haven't yet realized they're acting like they do. Various religions and other beliefs that we can't get into, including my own, warn me that some people simply fall too far into some kinds of evil to be helped, but I generally assume that they're very rare, and they're the types that get banned right away... if we ever meet them on a site about a toy in the first place.

They seem genuinely upset that they are not being pleased, which strikes me as a cry for help, on some level even if it's only subconscious, for some way to break free of their misery or just frustration. And yet, they object to someone who (claims to, from their perspective) wants to politely suggest a way they might wanna consider to help them. They want to get free of their misery enough to post on a discussion forum, yet seem to have an objection to any discussion that might help them attain their desire, almost as if it was a moral, an absolute rule.

Usually, their responses to my attempts to help, I've noticed, have one thing in common if nothing else.

As unneeded as it seems given that my standard approach includes reminding them that everybody has the right to their own different opinions (or tastes), they tend to act as if I had said they shouldn't have posted their opinion, and they say things along the lines of "it's my opinion, I have the right to it" etc.

So, my theory has been that it's not that they don't want to be free of frustration, but simply that my style of talking, even when I directly and clearly state state that that's my goal, distracts them from that part. They see a big wall of text criticizing them -- it doesn't matter how or about what parts; they simply have a visceral reaction to the fact that someone is disagreeing with them. They don't like people disagreeing with them, so they reiterate their right to their opinion.

Clearly, my standard approach, the one I've practiced and learned well (yes, I'm using it here -- it's my blog :P), does not work on them.

Well, it still stems off flame usually, even from them, and I've noticed that though they're being defensive about it and misunderstanding, at least they usually come at me trumpeting the very ideas I was promoting, so it's better than if they disagreed with me. Often this alone is enough to eventually use shorter posts in addition to the initial method to help them see why they should avoid their more trollish comments (and, of course, if nothing else works, there's always the proto drop), but it's a long struggle full of misunderstandings, going around and around until finally they see the light. And this does not always work, and frankly, I don't have the time for it usually.

But every attempt I've made to try to figure out what methods do help them see how they can improve, and how to tell beforehand, and even honest attempts by them to try to explain where they're coming from, meets with tons of apparent contradictions from them that leaves just leaves me scratching my head even more than I was before.

For example, a typical Bionicle complaint, applicable to Hero Factory now, is that buildable figures like those lines have moved more towards simplicity. The tastes of such complainers often makes them like complex builds, so they're naturally displeased by the recent changes. Yet, when I use a complex post, including all the important points that answered issues they raised, using my point-by-point quote reply style, they complain about my style of approach for the very same reason typical fans like simple sets -- for being long and complex!

I've caught several complainers over the years actively arguing that complex builds should be done even though most fans don't like them, because it challenges them to learn. Without going into specifics of why I disagree with that, what puzzles me is that the very same individuals are often the ones complaining vehemently about my posts, accusing me of forcing them to read complex things. A self-contradiction. Others don't actively argue for it, but still say that they're fans of complexity, and yet object to complexity.

The biggest example is the common objection they raise that they have the right to post their opinions.

Never mind that it comes in face of me telling them that, yes, they have that right (that contradiction always makes me laugh a bit, I must admit :P) -- they also typically seem to be oblivious to the fact that their objection to me posting my opinion is a violation of the very principle they champion and claim for themselves.

Now, occasionally, I meet a complainer who's at least a little consistent on this point, and thinks everybody should ONLY post their own opinions on their own, never respond to anyone else's opinion and disagree with them. (To which the obvious answer is, what if someone disagrees with that rule as one of their opinions, and believes it's good to have discussion on a discussion forum? I think that paints a sad picture of humans as hopelessly unable to get along and disagree at the same time, going around in living terror of any human interaction... No thanks.)

The vast majority of them, though, were already quoting or citing others' points and explaining why they disagree before I even enter the picture, doing the same thing I did. I've noticed I'm almost always the scapegoat for their objection to someone quoting others, and other people who they disagree with seem to escape their condemnation simply due to using short posts. This is definately important -- but how to tell beforehand? The short posts also usually do nothing to stop developing flamewars, so it seems important to get the thorough posts out early. But more to the point, my methods or not, it's still a contradiction.

Please note, I'm not trying to say "I'm perfect so stop criticzing me." Obviously, that too would be a contradiction. :P I welcome constructive criticism always, at least when it's on-topic and is respectful, and I would hope that everybody would learn to do the same.

One big criticism they've leveled at me that I actually agree with is that I can slip into a condescending tone sometimes, often without realizing it.

I don't believe I intend to be condenscending, because I now believe for religious/worldview reasons that condescension is wrong (it is basically a contradiction of our very existence, IMO, but I can't explain why here, although this part of my beliefs stems from pure causality logic more so than my religion), and could if such topics were allowed here, logically prove it. But I used to be condescending to people a lot. Some of that poison is still in me, sadly. This is one case where I am still guilty from time to time of contradicting myself. (And of course I can just say "no offense" or whatnot... but then sometimes I get flak for that because anybody can just say that, doesn't mean they mean it! Oy!)

However, I tend to get this complaint, even when I go out of my way prove that I do not intend condescension, and admit off the bat that I used to have a big problem with that. Even when I do nothing condescending, and focus totally on helping them see things they may have missed, and explain something along the above lines why I believe condescension is wrong, or something like I mentioned in my comment on Turakii's blog entry, about how varying personal tastes and talents are proven to be a good thing for society as a whole, so condescension is nonsensical anyways.... even when I do that, most of these types of complainers predictably still don't believe me.

They appear to simply believe, for example, that all humans are doomed to seeing everybody else's tastes as inferior to their own, despite complete, sound logic that proves that to be false, simply because it's how people tend to start out, and they don't apparently think they can change. I've even had someone directly state that to me recently (again, no names). Someone has also even admitted, even as they accused me of being condescending, that they believed that of me before they even met me, because they believe everybody is, so essentially admitted they were only assuming it. Oy oy, yanno?

What effect does all this have on me?

It frustrates me.

But waaaaaaaaiiiiiiit a second, you're saying. "Bones, I thought you said you knew how to avoid frustration?! Talk about contradictions man!"

Well... you're absolutely right. :) I could say a lot that might sound like an excuse, about the science behind why this occurs, how strong emotions have a psychologically contagious aspect to them. And I will indulge that line of reasoning briefly.

If you know me much, you know the "Dog Whisperer" (Cesar Millan, Nat Geo... watch it, even if you aren't a dog person :P) is a big influence on my personal philosophy.

He talks in one of his books about recent scientific findings that emotional cues projected by one person, especially when they are "assertive"; strongly rooted and unyielding, are picked up by functions in others' brains, whether animal or human. Cesar calls this "energy", and it's been scientifically proven that in nature, including with humans, it's as real a part of emotions as the physical chemicals and the brain patterns themselves -- thus emotions themselves can be communicated, not just by words, tone of voice, and facial expression, but also by almost imperceptable body language and actions, almost like how a computer can send a code for color over the 'net to another computer which then runs that code.

Some people, like some dogs or any other kind of mammal, have negative emotions that are much more strongly rooted than in others. (He also says it's much, MUCH, harder for people to change than for dogs to.)

People like this are much less likely to respond quickly to new information that, if they applied intellectually and "programmed their subconscious", or "took it to heart" would give them a happier life. Even when they consciously try to learn these things, it can still be hard to change.

These types, Cesar says, can project a very real aura around themselves that physically changes reality around them wherever other living things are concerned -- can make the lights seem dimmer, little things that wouldn't normally annoy others suddenly seem like big problems, others' behaviors in everything change almost beyond their control, etc. Even Cesar himself, who is the calmest, most joyful person I've ever heard of alive today, is affected by these especially strong cases. He describes this downer as being similar to a drug-induced low (the opposite of a high) in that it takes a long time to recharge from it, a long time to come down from the "high" in terms of the powerful effect on your behavior, though patterns, etc. (or come up from the low).

This is because the emotional cues or energy of the sender cause the recipient to literally produce the chemicals of those emotions (hence the physical reality altering), so it can take a while for those chemicals to be filtered out of the bloodstream. This process is partly influenced by choices we can make, and beliefs we hold, but it's also largely autonomic, meaning it's subconscious, a body function more than what we typically think of as thought, although it does occur in the brain.

These things have many beneficial uses in biology, society, etc. (Ex: A pack of dogs or wolves can be silently alerted to a danger that one dog sees just by reading body language, and the whole pack instantly switches into the right emotional state to meet the threat.) but in this case they are misused, causing more harm than good.

I'm not surprised that even I can get frustrated by such deep-rooted negativity sometimes.

Incidently, this is also why flamewars and the like erupt when we get such posts. Novices at these sorts of things (including very wise elderly people, so don't think this inexperience is age-related or a crime or anything; translation: no offense if this is or was you :P) don't know how to handle such cases, and the emotion-cues from a combative, upset, defensive person make them, too, defensive, upset, and combative.

However, it doesn't have to be that way.

While sometimes it's impossible not to be infected a little by the negative cues, that doesn't mean we have to channel that negative energy back at the person.

I have to admit that, while I haven't intended to be condescending to anyone in a looong time, I do often post my honest reactions about some of the more outlandish things these types of complainers say, that no clear-thinking person would have said. This is clearly channelling that absorbed negative energy back at them, and while this might be fair, it does not usually solve problems or make things better even for me, much less them. All it does is reinforce their belief that everybody is stuck in the same rut they are anyways, which doesn't lend credibility, of course.

Now, my biggest dream in life can be summed up by a 'vision' I had as a kid, of me as a very old man, who everybody saw as someone who spread peace wherever they go.

People have often described Cesar as a person that can do that -- biggest reason I admire him. I ain't there yet, yanno? So what's he got I ain't, I must ask myself? (Aside from graying hair lol.)

Well, what is frustration? I've said often that people give themselves frustration by setting up unrealistic expectations.

For example, being disappointed when Bionicle's new years again and again don't fulfill the personal hopes they set up for what each new will be; so I don't do that. As such, I have never been frustrated by new things in Bionicle, not even the end of the sets, because I always assume it could end at any time.

So, then, why on earth do I keep being surprised by this type of complainer? Obviously, I must have unrealistic expectations.

I should expect that, statistically, I'm going to run into the occasional person who's emotionally stubborn (or call it what you will :P). I've known this for longer than I've been a member -- not that these are hopeless cases but that they're harder cases, people for whom it's going to be hard to choose to improve because the part of them they need to change is something that's become very deeply programmed into their subconscious by their choices over and over, or the like. Yet another part of me, the one that wants to give people the benefit of the doubt, has been acting like that means I should assume I'll never meet them. Nonsense.

So once again, I've found a mental wall in my brain -- and now that I've found it, I have broken it down.

(Another thing, BTW... the people I know who get that praise of spreading peace don't react in amazement at such things. Ever. I dunno why the condescension label doesn't get applied to other BZPers who give such honest reactions and does to me, but I do know that the wisest people I know -- Ninjo comes to mind -- NEVER did that. Maybe I should learn from them... Cesar laughs sometimes at the most nonsensical beliefs he encounters, he reacts honestly, but he isn't surprised often.)

Maybe this is a big step towards being able to better respond to these types of complainers. Time will tell of course, but at least, I've found another flaw in myself, so that's one more improvement. ^_^ And maybe one more way I can help others.

Many frustrations are caused by those walls inside us.

Perhaps this is the very thing that those with the most deeply rooted negative emotions need to hear -- that those internal contradictions are what we can watch for, and when we find them and eliminate them, that's one of the best ways we can avoid needless frustration. :)

Is it a coincidence that the most stubbornly frustrated people I meet are also the most contradictory? Perhaps not! Maybe that in and of itself is the explanation -- the contradictions are the cause of the frustration.

The typical Bionicle complainer (and you can apply this to just about any entertainment, including HF or other LEGO lines) makes mistakes that I've summed up in other blog entries, such as assuming everybody shares their tastes, or of assuming their tastes are better, or of making "LEGO should" arguments based on just their tastes, etc. While the complainers I'm talking about do sometimes do those things too, usually the only clear formal error they make is to fail to make it clear they don't intend any of those things -- and yet they are still just as upset if not more so. So maybe the real error is, in fact, an internal contradiction.

I have been well aware of the benefit of looking for contradictions, in our own and others' opinions, for a long time.

When it comes to worldviews (which, again, we can't get into here), one of the most effective ways to figure out which worldview is the truth is by looking (logically, BTW, this is done wrong often) at the various parts of it and comparing them to each other, seeing if they contradict or mesh. The truth is whatever is free of any internal contradiction. This can apply to many things, more than just issues such as worldviews. If you think about it, it seems obvious that the best ways of living must also be free of internal contradictions. So maybe a more effective approach here is simply to point those contradictions out.

For now, BTW, my theory is that the typical, root contradiction that such complainers need to see, is between their desire to be happy, and their desire to stick to all approaches they are already using.

Call it pride, call it stubbornness, call it legitimately standing up for the right to have your opinion, call it sheer confusion -- or call it a misplaced assumption that sticking to all opinions no matter what will somehow be what makes them happy -- though even they know it isn't working... Call it what you will, the desire to change nothing in the self is contradicting with the demand of LEGO that they change something -- or at least the strong desire for it even if it's not a "demand". But not everything in the self is personal taste -- some of it is learned, and it's possible to learn bad advice. Those opinions or approached CAN change, if we simply choose to. :)

How do I know it's bad advice? Simple -- it creates a contradiction, a wall between a part of the complainer's mind and another. Conflicting desires. :) Same as the mistake I made.

Conflicting desires are not a crime. They are not a sign that you're inhuman or evil -- and for someone to point them out does not mean they're insulting you either, especially if they're trying to help. Everybody does it. And no matter how many walls you break down, there are so many you'll find more, pretty much throughout your life, period. Yes. However, the more you break down, the less frustrated you'll get, the more confident and happy you'll be, and the more of your desires will find satisfaction. ^_^

So, my conclusion is that sometimes the real-world things that are denying the fulfillment of our desires -- the most frustrating things -- are not outside us at all, but are inside us. :)

And if you disagree at all, please keep in mind, no matter how logical my opinion might be (:P), it's still just my opinion. Feel free to disagree -- although I'd request you try to explain why, if so. :D

A loooot more I'd love to say, but it would distract from the point I wanted to make here, so some other time, perhaps. Also ooone more note: Of course, those outside frustrations are still real. But sometimes we also treat them as a scapegoat for some more contradictions, which make our response to those very real, solid walls of reality, worse than they need to be sometimes. (Especially when it comes to plastic toys. :P)

Thanks for indulging this ramble, and have a nice day. :)
  • Upvote 2

19 Comments


Recommended Comments

I've missed these blog entries. ^^

 

Though now my brain hurts. Probably because I was trying to pay attention to three things at once, this being one of them. I think I agree though...

Link to comment

Very nice post Bones, as always you say what I was thinking in a much better way than I could. :P

 

One thing I've been saying over the last couple years is how ridiculous it is about how many people complain about BIONICLE sets when with a little imagination you can use your collection to make the version YOU wanted. :P Back in summer 2008 when everyone hated the Mistika Toa, I pointed out that it would be a simple matter to take your collection to make the version THEY wanted. (I actually never managed to get one, but I made my own versions so I was fine. :P )

 

I also never got why people complained about complex/simple builds- There's not really anything complex/simple, you just follow the instructions until they reach the end. :P I've found that I enjoy building MOCs of titans much more than building Axalara T9.

 

Something a little more on-topic: It seems like a large number of members in them have a certain viewpoint that they want to hold on to. The problem I have is when they start saying that "LEGO should do this thing because I want it." I think a lot of it stems from that they are thinking in a personal way rather than a global one, but I have seen people on here that just like to complain. Who I don't have the time or energy to debate with. :P

 

I guess I look at BIONICLE a bit differently then most people do. But if people just looked at the potential that a set has, and not it's face value, I'd think they'd be a lot happier with it, and thus happier on here. :)

 

~LT

 

(BTW, I'm not citing anything specific here, just talking generally. :P )

Link to comment
I also never got why people complained about complex/simple builds- There's not really anything complex/simple, you just follow the instructions until they reach the end.

Well, that's my way of thinking too, but some of us seem to have more accurate vision than others (and not about blurry eyes, I mean psychologically). I know someone who almost always made some minor error in building Bionicle sets, such as using an arm for a leg or putting a limb on backwards. Never in a way that obviously messed up the poseability of the set, but to me it was easy to see, and to them, those subtle details in the instructions simply went unnoticed.

 

So, clearly it's hard to judge this -- it's one of those things where our very personal taste makes it impossible for us to understand what it's like for others, because our taste and talents can affect our judgement in ways we aren't even aware of. It would never have occured to me, before, that anyone would have difficulty with such visual details -- but then, I myself have trouble with little details in areas of taste and smell more than most people seem to and various other things. So it makes sense in retrospect. :)

 

Also, even if following instructions isn't a problem, you have to admit snap-togethers take less time (or don't take enough time, depending on your preference).

 

Personally, I enjoy a build I can spend at least a half-hour on, with tons of pieces layed around all around, a strong mental challenge, like a puzzle but far more varied. To people like me, a quick build might technically be a slight challenge that's not really much harder than a complex build percentagewise (meaning if you were to focus on part of a complex build that takes the same amount of time, it might not be noticeably harder to me), but it does take less time, and that makes it less satisfying.

 

To typical roleplayers, though, it's not just the difficulty problem, but also the time it takes. They want a quick snap-together, because they want to start roleplaying as soon as they can. Roleplaying is what they love -- it's where they channel their creativity, their love of complexity, even their brilliance -- with the feeling of pride (good kind; of "I built this guy, and now I'm bringing him to life!) that only buildable figures can give.

 

So easy or not, a long build can annoy them simply because it takes so much time; they see it as a distraction from the point of a buildable figure.

 

Something a little more on-topic: It seems like a large number of members in them have a certain viewpoint that they want to hold on to. The problem I have is when they start saying that "LEGO should do this thing because I want it."

Yeah. In my experience, the type of people that I'm talking about say that, or strongly imply it, a little over half the time, but they also tend to retract it fairly easily. Yet, they still often continue posting just as passionately and debating others on points as if they did think that -- another of those confusing contradictions, heh.

 

Yeah, it's definately true also that some people seem to simply enjoy complaining. The troublemakers that get banned, in my experience, tend to be the ones that take that to such an extreme that they no longer desire happiness in good ways at all, so their enjoying preying on others is what gives them their "happiness" (or so they claim, but I doubt it). The ones that don't get banned, I tend to hope, at least, aren't that far gone, and still want happiness in good ways but are conflicted.

 

And, thanks to everybody who replied. ^_^

Link to comment
Didn't have the patience to read the whole thing, but what I did read was excellent as always. It boggles my mind how some people seem so insistent on only enjoying a small number of things (Ex. people who only like Batman: The Animated Series and refuse to enjoy any other Batman cartoons), and that they refuse to ever venture out of their comfort zone and try to enjoy things that are rather different to their tastes. I myself have struggled with this in the past, although I am much better now at opening my eyes to other forms of entertainment and media. :)

Of course, I think you also would agree with me when I say that "having an open mind" doesn't mean we have to give universal praise to everything we ever watch, read, build, eat, etc. Because if everone did that, then no one would ever learn how to improve their products so that they can please more people and gain more fans. Generally, a product that fails very hard doesn't fail because people are just being especially picky about it - it fails because it simply isn't made well enough to be appealing to most average people. On the other hand, the most sucessful products are ones that have succeded both cost-wise and popularity-wise (ex: Bionicle,), and that is why they last longer than products that have neither advantage (ex: Galidor).

The catch is, while we don't have to love everything we experience, we have to go into entertainent with the viewpoint that I want to be entertained. People who start watch a movie with a predeterined viepoint that "I am going to hate this movie because it is inferior to something else I like" are only hurting themselves, after all, and so are people who go up to fans of the same product with the viewpoint that "these people are stupid and have not taste for liking something I don't. Because, really, even the most popular products aren't perfect, and thus you can't expect your likes to be perfect etiher. :P

Oh, and like I said in one of my previous replies to your blog, none of the above applies to entertainment that is morally and ethically contrary to your personal beliefs. You can't be forced to like something that is against your religion, belief system, philosphy etc, and if you have very strong convictions, you shouldn't necessarily let your tastes be opened up to something contrary to those convictions. :)

Edit: Might as well give you an approval image, now that I've made a new one that is smaller and isn't so bizarre. :P

blogapprove.png

One thing I've been saying over the last couple years is how ridiculous it is about how many people complain about BIONICLE sets when with a little imagination you can use your collection to make the version YOU wanted. :P


That's exactly what I do, and it's helped me to see the potential in sets I don't initially like. Tarix was an excellent example - when I first bought him, he wasn't satisfying to me at all, but a few modifications were all it took for him to become one of my favorite 2009 Bionicle sets. B)

~~END~~
Link to comment

One thing I've noticed is that people have openings and they have walls - places you can communicate with them, and places you can't. One thing I admire about Caesar is that he knows dogs, and he knows their openings. But if you don't talk to a dog with its language... things don't always turn out so well.

 

Which is why I think the wall of text tends to not work on a number of people. They are searching for help and contentment, but your form of communication is different from what they can recieve (though one can always change thier "reception" - it's good to be well versed in many "languages"); I hypothesize that this is equivalent to a person walking up to you and speaking in a barely understandable mix of English and another language, and you have to guess what they are saying. Depending on your stress level, you may try to patiently explain you don't understand, or you go with instinct - the person sounds harsh, their body language is harsh - they're obviously attacking me (never mind the fact that they come from a country where tone and body language are interpreted differently). It's like that scene in Mars Attacks! where a diplomat releases a dove to the Martians, who subsequently vaporize everyone because they interpreted the dove as hostile (well, that was their excuse, but let's pretend the Martians were truthful).

 

All of that to say - perhaps there is a way to find a person's language (and thus "openings") by examining their behavior. If not, then perhaps a little poking and prodding (metaphorically, of course) will find their openings. But if you could find a way to communicate with the majority of these people, then it might (assuming my hypothesis is correct) allow for less frustration.

 

Plus, that's a part of my own little theory - frustration (and thus, anger) always stems from not understanding something. This may be a ridiculous analogy, but I remember watching Survivor, already knowing the outcome (due to it being spoiled for me >:() and the episode did not progress logically (considering the outcome). In the end, a major plot twist solved all the problems, but I remember, in my confusion, a feeling very similar to anger - though not directed at anyone. I think that when anyone does not understand something, thier mind switches into frustration mode, which then leads to "anger, anger leads to hate, and hate... leads to suffering." This differs from the idea that frustration comes from wants - I didn't WANT that person to get voted off! But when I suspected they wouldn't, I felt frustrated.

 

Oh, and one more thing - a person's output language (how they talk to others) isn't always the same as their input language. For example, I love reading your really long posts, but I have difficulty typing anything much longer than this (and if I do, it's a lot of jumbled, disconnected ideas that seem connected to me :P for example, I don't think any paragraph in this post flowed into another). So a person may speak rudely - that doesn't mean they'll understand your intentions if you respond the same way. Fire can't be fought with fire, but it can be fought with water.

 

BTW: I don't have a flashy blog approval, but I hope this suffices for now:

 

/-------------------!.!-------------------\

/This blog has been approved by\

/-----------------Saiph-----------------\

/-----------------------------------------\

/-For demonstrating outstanding-\

/~~~~RHYME and REASON~~~~\

\-------------------!.!-------------------/

Link to comment
Of course, I think you also would agree with me when I say that "having an open mind" doesn't mean we have to give universal praise to everything we ever watch, read, build, eat, etc.

Right, I agree. There's nothing wrong with saying you don't like something, or trying to explain why in more detail, etc. Or pointing out what you see as more serious problems.

 

The issue is when we make, if you'll pardon the old cliche, mountains out of molehills. (Or anthills, heh.)

 

The catch is, while we don't have to love everything we experience, we have to go into entertainent with the viewpoint that I want to be entertained. People who start watch a movie with a predeterined viepoint that "I am going to hate this movie because it is inferior to something else I like" are only hurting themselves, after all

Right. And it might even be true that (for them) it's inferior to something else they like. But that doesn't mean we can't enjoy things for what they're worth. :)

 

Oh, and like I said in one of my previous replies to your blog, none of the above applies to entertainment that is morally and ethically contrary to your personal beliefs. You can't be forced to like something that is against your religion, belief system, philosphy etc, and if you have very strong convictions, you shouldn't necessarily let your tastes be opened up to something contrary to those convictions.

Right -- that would be yet another contradiction if someone did that, heh.

 

Woot, thanks for the approval. ^_^

 

One thing I've noticed is that people have openings and they have walls - places you can communicate with them, and places you can't. One thing I admire about Caesar is that he knows dogs, and he knows their openings. But if you don't talk to a dog with its language... things don't always turn out so well.

Well said. I think that's the biggest thing that confuses and fascinates me about people. We have so many different openings and walls and they're so radically different from others -- and yet many people act as if everybody should telepathically know where they are, as if it's obvious.

 

Reminds me of something a grammar instructor I had once said (this should not be construed as approval of all that grammar profs say :P) -- that a lot of times when we write ideas down to communicate to others, WE easily know what we meant, but sometimes we forget that others have almost none of that foundation that we take for granted, so often we fail to communicate clearly because we read words that we didn't even put down. We leave gaps in what we write, but we forget that others don't know what's supposed to be in those gaps.

 

Same applies to this.

 

 

 

Which is why I think the wall of text tends to not work on a number of people. They are searching for help and contentment, but your form of communication is different from what they can recieve (though one can always change thier "reception" - it's good to be well versed in many "languages")

Yeah, although that part in parentheses is, I think, what's been holding me back from fixing this. I keep hoping this particular type of complainer is going to open themselves up to that type, and they just don't, virtually ever.

 

All of that to say - perhaps there is a way to find a person's language (and thus "openings") by examining their behavior.

I do think there is. But it's especially hard on the internet, where I can't read their body language. I mean, on the one hand, the internet is far easier, because I can make sure I'm saying what I want to. But that's not reading the other person (except by trial and error). The only ways are in subtle ways they word things, what subjects they choose to post about, whether they use emoticons, stuff like that.

 

 

Plus, that's a part of my own little theory - frustration (and thus, anger) always stems from not understanding something. This may be a ridiculous analogy, but I remember watching Survivor, already knowing the outcome (due to it being spoiled for me mad.gif) and the episode did not progress logically (considering the outcome). In the end, a major plot twist solved all the problems, but I remember, in my confusion, a feeling very similar to anger - though not directed at anyone.

Fascinating. I don't recall ever having such an experience with Survivor, heh. Something similar with TV shows that the ads spoiled, although I don't remember it with major twists like that.

 

I thought of something earlier today along the lines of your openings and doors theory, about not understanding things. Another of the big seeming contradictions with many complainers is that they WANT to not understand some things (such as the secret behind some mysteries), and yet at other times with sets, their lack of understanding reasons behind LEGO's decisions makes them frustrated.

 

Yet, others seem to want to know all the secrets, loving all the reveals, and couldn't care a whit about the reasons behind what LEGO does with the sets, they just take what they can get, yanno?

 

So basically I'm speculating that maybe we all have two basic types of taste (although I'm sure there are other factors) -- one kind of taste about things we want to NOT understand (the not knowing gives us a sense of mystery), and another kind of taste about things we DO want to understand (these are the things that we get frustrated about, saying things like "I don't get it!" etc.).

 

(And then you have the people who like the thrill of not knowing something at first, but then also want the thrill of knowing it when that fades.)

 

So, I suppose if I'm right about this, I'm disagreeing that frustration/anger always stem from not understanding. I guess. Maybe in some things, for some people, it can come from understanding when you didn't want to. (Extremely alien to my way of thinking, but I've heard people all over the place say things like that about certain subjects. And not just inflammatory people, people who I admire in many other ways. Personally, I know that I -need- to understand everything possible, but perhaps that isn't everybody's path. :))

 

Oh, and one more thing - a person's output language (how they talk to others) isn't always the same as their input language.

That too gets confusing with compainers, heh.

 

For example, I love reading your really long posts, but I have difficulty typing anything much longer than this

Eh, that comment was pretty long. :P

 

And thanks for the approval. First text-based one I've ever gotten. :P Unfortunately I don't think it'll fit in the width limit in its current form... :shrugs: Don't worry about it...

 

Link to comment

Yeah, looks like I'm a follower today.

 

Approval-1.png

 

But hey, this blog deserves it. While painfully long, your extra words helped to better validate your points. I think it's pretty cool that you don't just say one witty statement and then walk out. It's good to have valid, understandable points to back up your main one. As for the state of things now, it'll blow over. It always does. :)

Link to comment

I really like this because it puts into words what I haven't really been able to. I believe I have recently arrived at a place where I have begun to finish confronting the ghosts of my childhood and adolescence, and have begun forgiving the ones who hurt me - whether they knew they were hurting me or not. It has done an amazing thing for my state of mind, and my family and friends (the friends I made within the past one-two years, when I was still in this struggle) have told me that I seem to have transformed into a much more peaceful person.

 

A lot of my frustration definitely stemmed from a sense of enormous injustice around me. I felt very oppressed and hopeless because of all I had gone through, and then thinking that I was not the only person this was happening to - it seemed pretty bleak. And I won't pretend that I have the occasional day when I wonder if it really is pointless to be trying to resolve all that conflict around me. But most days now, I simply think about the Tipping Point.

 

If you've read that book by Malcolm Gladwell, then you'll understand completely. If not, I'll summarize quickly. But you still should go read it!

 

The "tipping point," in his theory, is the psychological buildup in a person or a collective consciousness like a community or a country that, depending on the various stimuli and choices made, eventually result in a single major occurrence. Like a man who suddenly goes on a killing spree - he probably had been going through life with a constant building up of negativity due to the things people were doing around/to him and the way he was perceiving it, as well as the impact it had on his actions, which in turn feed the buildup, until it all finally tipped one way. Like a seesaw that is perfectly level but slowly being stacked with grains of sand on one end until it tips that way.

 

I don't believe I will ever attain perfection or complete inner peace, although I do think I will come very close if I start now. And I start by simply putting positive and rational thought into my actions, as many actions as I can muster. Sometimes I am thoughtless - I say something that offends somebody by accident - but I often realize that and commit to making up for it.

 

So those little things I do every day, along with the overall attitude and face I strive to carry at all times, will add up and build upon the sphere of positivity and goodness that I have just begun constructing. That’s what I hope, anyway. And I know that getting overly frustrated about things, even things very important to me, won’t help me very much.

 

Guess I’m basically saying here that if one keeps on like I do, eventually they will find it easier and easier to get over failures and frustrations and move on. I’d say that’s the gist of your blog entry – and what an entry it is. =)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I think that a lot of problems such as this would be avoided if people actually thought about why they were feeling as they did etc... However that level of thought does take some concentration which almost makes it redundant to an extent since people shouldn't be coming to BZP on a regular basis if they're not enjoying it. :shrugs:

 

I would say more, but I have a lot of homework that needs to be done and I've been reading these blog entries for too long already. :P

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
So, my theory has been that it's not that they don't want to be free of frustration, but simply that my style of talking, even when I directly and clearly state state that that's my goal, distracts them from that part. They see a big wall of text criticizing them -- it doesn't matter how or about what parts; they simply have a visceral reaction to the fact that someone is disagreeing with them. They don't like people disagreeing with them, so they reiterate their right to their opinion.

See, this stuck in my mind when I read this entry. I can hazard a guess as to what you intended it to mean, but when I read it, it looks like you're saying anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with you purely because they have some defect in their personality, as though its impossible for you to actually be wrong. Which strikes me as arrogant.

As you say later on, your style can be condescending, which is the issue I had in the [removed] (I know you didn't want examples mentioned, but its alright if the example is me, right? I've asked me thoroughly if I mind, and I'm sure I don't :P). The one member was stating his opinion then you come floating in on a cloud of knowledge like some divinely sent Stephen Fry going "Oh dear me no, you're quite wrong about that old chap". It felt really harsh that you were trying your best to prove to him that his opinion of the sets was inaccurate, when you can't judge opinion by inaccuracy

Link to comment

Zeddy -- I guess I can try. There's so much I brought up without any kind of outline in this one, even I'm not sure which points are important or aren't this time. :P

 

The most important point is that, I've concluded, often a big factor in people's frustration is contradictions in them, conflicting desires, etc. -- not necessarily outside problems as much as we often assume.

 

 

 

And very good points about the tipping point thing, TN. Sounds like an interesting book. And yes, I'd say you summed up my point pretty well. ^_^

 

Yeah, I've often thought that, speaking of contradictions, people make a typical mistake when they say things like "he seemed like a nice guy, and he just snapped out of nowhere." I think we all know that things can slowly build up in us, so it's not out of nowhere. I dunno really what can be done if you can tell someone else is coming close to snapping... but at least we can watch ourselves for that, and make sure we healthily get rid of that energy before it makes us snap and hurt others.:)

 

A big question is how. I'm not sure we can say much about that here; my religious beleif helps me, and frankly I'm not sure if anyone can cope without it, but anyways. I do, intellectually, think that everyone can deal with it regardless of what they believe about deeper things, because the human body is a machine with functions (this is where I'd add more if I could :P), which anyone can learn to handle right.

 

Cesar would say, I think, redirection. Personally, if I see a troublemaker on BZP, for instance, putting out a lot of negative energy, I try to channel that energy that I absorb from them away from negativity and towards a desire to help them out. Which gives me what I need to feel like doing whatever I need to do to help in that situation (as opposed to lazily just letting it go unwarned). Problem for me is, obviously, I've failed to totally redirect it many times.

 

 

Yeah, I agree, Adv. A lot of these sorts of things, misunderstandings, etc. are understandable simply because we don't always have time or energy to think things through well enough. But, on the other hand, we can also, IMO, learn to think better, faster. That's a big thing that I'm all about -- challenging people to use their brains more and more. :)

 

 

See, this stuck in my mind when I read this entry. I can hazard a guess as to what you intended it to mean, but when I read it, it looks like you're saying anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with you purely because they have some defect in their personality

Well, Stif, frankly, what else can I conclude, sometimes? As I said, often some complainers will post an opinion that seems to blatantly contradict itself, and no amount of attempts to clarify it on their part make it sound any more consistent.

 

Lemme put it this way. Are you implying that only I, bones, am capable of making mistakes? That the complainer couldn't possibly share the common human situation of having personality defects, to use your term? Am I the only one whose personality may be currently flawed? And the complainers I'm talking to are perfection incarnate?

 

The answer is simple. All of us can be wrong. Me. Complainers. Everybody. :)

 

So, when I see a complainer contradicting themselves, seemingly grasping at straws, left and right, am I not justified in thinking that there's a mistake they're making? :)

 

 

But lemme get the context here, separated out so it's clear:

 

So, my theory has been that it's not that they don't want to be free of frustration, but simply that my style of talking, even when I directly and clearly state state that that's my goal, distracts them from that part.

 

They see a big wall of text criticizing them -- it doesn't matter how or about what parts; they simply have a visceral reaction to the fact that someone is disagreeing with them.

 

They don't like people disagreeing with them, so they reiterate their right to their opinion.

Notice what I'm saying is not anything yea or nay about their opinion itself here. I'm just talking about a style of my reply that I like to use, but which obviously fails for a lot of people.

 

Doesn't mean I'm necessarily right in all the cases when I'm explaining why I think I am. I, of course, think I am (otherwise it wouldn't be my opinion :P), but we can all make mistakes. :)

 

 

as though its impossible for you to actually be wrong. Which strikes me as arrogant.

Well, people accuse me of that sort of thing all the time, but frankly, I reject it outright. I've admitted I'm wrong in all cases when anybody's been able to logically prove it, which is a lot more often than I'd like (I would prefer to always know the truth from the start... but either way, I win, because if I was wrong, then I can change my mind and know the real truth, which is what I want :)).

 

I've explained many times why I believe it's important to admit when we're wrong. And, I'm sure you realize that that's not what I mean, because this whole entry was about admitting something I think I was doing wrong, heh.

 

I mean, what am I supposed to do? Purposefully take wrong positions just so I can admit I'm wrong about stuff more often? :P Was I supposed to come into that topic pretending to think wrong things, so I could admit more mistakes for image purposes? Face it, I've been doing this for a while, and experience breeds less mistakes over time. Should I apologize for having experience at this? :P

 

Anyways, again, what I'm trying to say, I guess, is that I've seen many complainers take a similar approach to my replies, and the approach is another contradiction, so it just doesn't work. Admittedly, my style of reply didn't work for them, and that is a mistake on my part to begin with, but that doesn't mean my logic was unsound (or that theirs was for that matter).

 

So, after that unfortunate blunder is aside, something that often confuses me is that complainers will often say something similar to this -- they'll imply that I'm somehow arrogant because I supposedly think that I can't be wrong (even though the very posts they're attacking usually explicitly say that I CAN be wrong...) -- yet they will be using it, ironically, to imply that they can't be wrong. So, the accusation would seem to be yet another contradiction.

 

What I challenge everybody to admit is that "we can all be wrong." Not about pure personal taste, but about other kinds of opinions, including perhaps approaches TO personal taste. Like being obsessive in a self-harming way, etc. Once we can all agree on that, we can go from there and talk about the specific details. :)

 

And, so all this confusion aside, I do think most people, whether this kind of complainer or not, do agree that everybody can be wrong. So yeah. No real problem, but occasionally, it does sound as if a complainer is saying they can't be wrong. I do think that some people are acting that way, and might partially believe it without having thought it through.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that makes them arrogant per se -- your word, not mine :) -- as I don't think such labels help anyone improve. They just get typical people riled up even more (of course, you're okay here, 'cuz I don't get riled up :)), so even if it might technically be true, I don't like what it implies, that they're somehow evil for making an understandable human mistake that we all make. That kind of accusation just strikes me as self-righteous, so I wouldn't go there.

 

However, if a complainer is implying that they can't be wrong, and yet I can, then yes, we do have another contradiction, and perhaps it is still helpful to point it out to them so they can improve. :)

 

 

As you say later on, your style can be condescending, which is the issue I had in the [removed] (I know you didn't want examples mentioned, but its alright if the example is me, right? I've asked me thoroughly if I mind, and I'm sure I don't tongue.gif)

I'd really rather not. I'll let you use it as a vague example, but no actual reference to where it occured, please.

 

 

The one member was stating his opinion then you come floating in on a cloud of knowledge like some divinely sent Stephen Fry going

Well, this is why I didn't want examples given; if I'd left your mention of where this was, you're one step away from naming names other than yourself.

 

But let me just stop you right there -- I am a staff member, and that's a position of authority that all members agree to respect when they join our site. I was just doing my job. The person was trolling, and flaming, while claiming that he didn't believe what he was doing was flaming, because he clearly (and later this became clear, despite his denials, because he blatantly did it again later) didn't understand that different personal tastes weren't inferior -- just different.

 

As staff, my duty (and prerogative) was to warn him of his violations, correct him about whether it was flame (it was), and also to do my best to explain to him why what he did was a problem.

 

Along the way, yes, I made a style blunder, that I've brought up here. It probably would have been more helpful if I had simply focused on pointing out his contradictions, after correcting him about whether it was flame or trolling. (Although, in that case, many people were getting close to the line, so I do think posting a more general summing up the basics post was warranted in that case, but it should have been made more clear it wasn't directed just at him, yeah. Others said they found what I posted helpful; pretty much only you and the original member said otherwise.)

 

However, to act as if I was somehow wrong to inform him of things he wasn't aware of, that were risking him getting proto-zapped -- sorry, no. That's my job. My only other alternative would be to just proto-zap him outright, and except in extreme cases, that's not how we roll.

 

"Oh dear me no, you're quite wrong about that old chap"

Well, I can't argue with how it came across to people. :P

 

But I must admit, I'm still baffled how it could come across that way when throughout that post itself, I went out of my way to prove that that wasn't what I intended. :) (Because he had basically said as a challenge to anyone, before I even saw the topic, that anyone correcting him on his mistakes would be seen that way by him. So frankly I must wonder what choice I had.)

 

 

But whatever. Since this keeps happening, I can only conclude that you're right that it comes across that way. I must warn you that I also suspect that this accusation might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though. Just a suspicion, I'm not sure about it, and I'm sure it's not always true even if it sometimes is. I can see through such copouts; I don't bow to such tactics and games. Especially when the person I'm replying to was already quoting others and criticizing their points -- another of those strange contradictions; they do the very thing they criticize me for doing, so the criticism rings rather hollow, you know? Buuuut, that's not everyone, again. Only bringing it up since it was true in the case you are bringing up (but again, no names or locations please).

 

 

It felt really harsh that you were trying your best to prove to him that his opinion of the sets was inaccurate

Stig... Well, no, I guess I can't speak to this. I'm not sure what you meant. So I guess the following is all I can say...

 

A big point I made in that post was that he was apparently using an objective "LEGO should" or "this view is right and others are horrible" type of opinion (or "thought-opinion" as I sometimes call it to be clear). And that that should be separated from "My own preference to this set is X or Y" -- that kind can't really be wrong.

 

I made it very clear that his actual taste, not liking the set, can't be wrong. It's what it is. So... if you mean tastes can't be wrong, I don't see why you would bring it up, because I was the very person championing that fact in my post, and he was the one not getting that.

 

It's when he tried to use that to say "LEGO shouldn't do it" (still not clear if he actually meant that; he seemed to take it back but then seemed to keep arguing it), or more importantly "your tastes are stupid because they're not mine" (he stated that over and over, even after my warnings, and that's the real problem). Those were wrong or "inaccurate", yes. And they were causing him to try to start a flamewar. Which is where I come in. :)

 

when you can't judge opinion by inaccuracy

Again, what do you mean? Taste? Or thought-opinions? It might help you to read my old blog entry on this: Can Opinions Be Wrong?

 

I'm going to venture a guess that me talking about these two types of opinion comes across as "Oh dear me no, you're quite wrong about that old chap" to you, but the problem is, "opinion" is such a vague, catch-all word that it's too confusing. We can't have an intelligent discussion if we don't define our terms. That's not arrogant or high-and-mighty -- that's actuall humility. :) I'm just trying to explain best I know how what I mean, so that I am not misunderstood -- most flamewars are started by such misunderstandings, etc.

 

(BTW... are you insulting the British? :P)

 

If someone has the opinion that (to use an example I like) dogs aren't smart at all, that opinion is inaccurate, according to anyone who spends much time around typical dogs. There might be the occasional dog who is very slow in da head, and a person might have only met that kind of dog before, but to assume all dogs were like that would be Hasty Generalization Fallacy.

 

Once they meet smarter dogs, and witness the shockingly brilliant lengths some dogs go to to get what they want, most poeple will admit, yes, they were "inaccurate" about that opinion. :)

 

Those kinds of opinions are "thought opinions". They are opinions about the outside world. The person you're alluding to claimed directly that he thought other people's different preferences were inferior to his, and deserved harsh hatred and attack. That's an opinion about something outside the self, and that kind of opinion CAN be wrong.

 

And I proved why that was wrong -- nobody, not him, not you, has ever shown any flaw in my reasoning. (Because it's the truth. Scientifically proven, BTW; this isn't just my own feeling. I used to also think others' tastes were inferior to mine, but this logic proved ME wrong, and I believe once I've found the truth, it's important to stand up for it. :))

 

 

On the other hand, his strong dislike (or at least dislike) cannot be wrong, because that's personal taste, which is outside the realm of logic. (And this is, incidently, also why he was wrong to insult others' tastes.)

 

Think about it. If tastes cannot be wrong -- and they can't -- then doesn't that alone disprove his point that others' tastes were wrong? All I did was defend everybody's tastes as being equal.

 

I compare it to racism. Like taste, skin color and other "racial" features come from genetics, and aren't a result of anything done wrong by someone. If I hear someone claiming that some is inferior just because of their skin color, am I not right to defend all skin colors as being equal? Taste discrimination is almost as bad as racism, IMO, although it's easier to "hide" taste differences in many situations to the results aren't as unavoidable.

 

 

On the other, other hand, arguably everybody would prefer to be as content as possible. And that's a big point I'm making here. Their personal tastes might make them dislike something, but I sense that all humans also have a desire not to let such things overwhelm them with misery.

 

If I'm wrong about that, then okay. I don't know for sure. It's just what I believe based on all the experiences I've had. If I'm right though, then extreme negative reactions are wrong -- not because they aren't taste-related per se, but because it is an internal contradiction between conflicting desires in the person. :) In other words, it's advice intended to -- hopefully -- help them be happier. ^_^

Link to comment
Well, Stif, frankly, what else can I conclude, sometimes? As I said, often some complainers will post an opinion that seems to blatantly contradict itself, and no amount of attempts to clarify it on their part make it sound any more consistent.

And on those occasions I have no problems with your posts. In the Kinetic Poll for example

 

Lemme put it this way. Are you implying that only I, bones, am capable of making mistakes? That the complainer couldn't possibly share the common human situation of having personality defects, to use your term? Am I the only one whose personality may be currently flawed? And the complainers I'm talking to are perfection incarnate?

No, see, you're taking the opposite extreme. I'm not saying that because you shouldn't instantly assume the complainer has some defect that makes them wrong you

should
assume that they are perfect and you are wrong. I just think you should take a neutral stance if you're going to be totally logical

 

I'm just talking about a style of my reply that I like to use, but which obviously fails for a lot of people.

 

But let me just stop you right there -- I am a staff member, and that's a position of authority that all members agree to respect when they join our site. I was just doing my job. The person was trolling, and flaming, while claiming that he didn't believe what he was doing was flaming, because he clearly (and later this became clear, despite his denials, because he blatantly did it again later) didn't understand that different personal tastes weren't inferior -- just different.

 

As staff, my duty (and prerogative) was to warn him of his violations, correct him about whether it was flame (it was), and also to do my best to explain to him why what he did was a problem.

[...]

However, to act as if I was somehow wrong to inform him of things he wasn't aware of, that were risking him getting proto-zapped -- sorry, no. That's my job. My only other alternative would be to just proto-zap him outright, and except in extreme cases, that's not how we roll.

Ah, but that wasn't what I had a problem with, because he was and I felt you were right on that part. I'm not saying your position was totally indefensible, I just felt you could have separated the way you were dealing with his flaming and the way you were dealing with his opinions, because to me i looked like you were doing what you now accuse him of doing; treating his opinions as inferior and wrong somehow

 

I must warn you that I also suspect that this accusation might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though.

But what would be the point of putting up a psychological shield? This brings up my original point again. Why do you assume I've put up a block in my head? Why is it that because I disagree with you on some points I've instantly got something that puts me at a handicap to you? Why are we not equal?

 

It's when he tried to use that to say "LEGO shouldn't do it" (still not clear if he actually meant that; he seemed to take it back but then seemed to keep arguing it), or more importantly "your tastes are stupid because they're not mine" (he stated that over and over, even after my warnings, and that's the real problem). Those were wrong or "inaccurate", yes. And they were causing him to try to start a flamewar. Which is where I come in. :)

But "Lego shouldn't do this" is an opinion. It's what he thinks they should/shouldn't do. It's not the generalisation kind of opinion you bring up with the dog example

 

(BTW... are you insulting the British? :P)

No, actually, I am British. To insult them/us would come neatly under the contradiction arguments you're mentioning here :P

But have you ever seen Stephen Fry? He acts exactly like he's the Don in a post-Victorian boarding school or university. It's awesome! I'm pretty sure he has actually used the term "Oh dear me no, you're quite wrong about that old chap" in at least one episode of QI :D

Link to comment
I'm not saying that because you shouldn't instantly assume the complainer has some defect that makes them wrong you should assume that they are perfect and you are wrong.

I lost you on that sentence, Stig. Maybe it's just that it's "past my bedtime" right now, but there's so many double and triple and quadruple negatives in it even the english major lost track. :P And I don't know what you mean by opposite extreme. I didn't think I was taking any extremes?

 

 

 

 

I just think you should take a neutral stance if you're going to be totally logical

What do you mean by neutral? And, "totally logical"? Are you saying logic is all that matters in life? It is logic that tells me that's false -- that the ultimate point of life is emotion, and that all of us are better off if we can find those ways of living that enable us to be content, not frustrated. :) That's this logician's opinion.

 

I'm just throwing food for thought at you. :shrugs: Many of the people who object to my posts apparently object BECAUSE I'm being logical, while others aren't, so much. And, am I not allowed the same right as everybody else to say what my personal tastes are? We can all only really speak for ourselves, whether we do a good job of also being objective or not. :)

 

 

I agree that I've been misusing emotion still, somewhat, though, as I said.

 

 

Ah, but that wasn't what I had a problem with, because he was and I felt you were right on that part.

Okay, glad that part got cleared up. I read his response to me, though, as having a problem with that part. Anyways... This is you, not him, so moving on...

 

 

 

I'm not saying your position was totally indefensible, I just felt you could have separated the way you were dealing with his flaming and the way you were dealing with his opinions, because to me i looked like you were doing what you now accuse him of doing; treating his opinions as inferior and wrong somehow

Again, I can't really answer this without knowing what you mean by "inferior." If someone has the opinions that "my opinions are automatically better than everybody else's" -- then yes, I think that opinion is inferior to my opinion. :P But not for anything automatic or extreme, as far as I know -- because it's what makes sense.

 

And really, aren't you essentially doing the same thing here? You, apparently disagree with me about an opinion of mine, so you personally think your opinion is superior to mine, do you not? :P

 

But all of this is moot if you mean personal taste.

 

 

 

But what would be the point of putting up a psychological shield?

Good question, but take any entry level course on psychology (which I have, although I'm by no means a certified psychologist, just a writer who studies people as my air to breathe :)), and you'll learn that people do it. People are complex; there can be any number of reasons, the simplest of which is simple personal pride, misapplied. Emotions getting heated in the thick of a rapid debate often does it; I see that often here; the emotions can impair judgement, much like alchohol or another drug.

 

Often on here and elsewhere, I see people stubbornly defend a point, throwing up all manner of straw-graspey psychological sheilds, but later when they've had a chance to calm down, they admit that they were wrong about it, and just didn't want to admit it. I've been as guilty of that as the next guy, too, although recognizing that has helped me improve. :)

 

It might not make sense, but human beings often do things that don't make sense. :)

 

 

 

This brings up my original point again. Why do you assume I've put up a block in my head?

Ahah, gotcha. ;) I must confess to you that I just put you through a difficult test. Unfortunately, you failed to say what I hoped you'd say, although you did say what I expected you to say. :)

 

Go back and re-read what I said, and you'll see I assumed nothing, but instead brought it up as a possibility that I'm aware MIGHT be the case, knowing what I know about human psychology. :) And more importantly, that I wasn't talking about just you, if you notice the context. I wanted to see if you would catch that, of if you'd instead have a visceral reaction that caused you to have only a superficial reading of it.

 

Important parts of what I said:

 

I must warn you that I also suspect that this accusation might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though. Just a suspicion, I'm not sure about it, and I'm sure it's not always true even if it sometimes is.

Keywords are suspect and might.

 

Oh, and... just for the heck of it, because I love taking myself out of context... wheeeeee! :P

 

I warn you that this accusation be psychological true points for stubborness, I'm sure about it, and I'm sure it's always true.

 

Why is it that because I disagree with you on some points I've instantly got something that puts me at a handicap to you? Why are we not equal?

We are. I brought it up purely as an experiment to see if you'd read the words that were there, or read instead something else that you assumed I meant, even though I clearly didn't.

 

I'm afraid, you said exactly what I programmed you to say, Stig. :) I did this partly to psychologically knock you off your feet and notice how easy it is to misunderstand someone, and partly to show one of my methods I often use to subtly program the other person's responses for them. And more importantly, because I -do- suspect that it is the case with many people (but not necessarily you), because after a lot of study of them, no other conclusion seems logical to me.

 

However, there was a third option of how you could have replied, and it would have been far, far worse, so overall, I'd say you passed the test. :) Maybe not with flying colors, but that's okay.

 

There are several planted thoughts I just put in your mind with the above -- points I've now attempted to program you to say in response to me. Go ahead and make them -- one of them will be a good point. I hope you bring it up. :)

 

Anyways, to answer your question, I assume nothing. :) Might help to understand where I'm coming from by reading my "Possibilities Attitude" entry -- I don't have time right now to get the link; it's findable. Basically, whenever someone says something to me that doesn't immediately make sense, the first thing I try to do is imagine all possibilities as to why -- 1) I'm wrong, for X reason, 2) I'm wrong for Y reason, etc. 3) They're wrong for X reason, etc. 4) Both of us are partly wrong, partly right, for whatever reasons, 5) Etc. Etc. (:P), 6) Their point might be a copout, since that IS something human beings do, 7) other possibilities.

 

I assume none of them. But if I think it's a strong enough possibility that it might be important to find, if it's true, then I often do bring up several of those options. To ask which is the case, or to challenge them to look in the mirror and honestly ask themselves whether it MIGHT be the case. I've had people challenge me on such things, and while they're not always true, they have been true often enough, that I am grateful that some people had the guts to call me on them, sometimes very bluntly.

 

Yet, some people often demonstrate an apparent incapability to understand that about me; they might read a post where I ask them which of several possibilities is, in their judgement, what's going on, after they've fairly considered my points -- but instead of answering the question, they'll often apparently miss it entirely, simply latch onto one possibility that gives them the strongest negative emotional reaction and act as if I had actually assumed it to be the case.

 

Which I find fascinating, and frankly kinda sad... But whatever. It's again one of those style mismatch things, and I remain baffled as to how to tell who those questions will work for and who they won't... :shrugs:

 

So... yeah, again, just food for thought. But I must throw your question back at you... ? I pointed out a possibility that might be the case. If it's not, then why did you get emotional about it enough to not read the clear words I said, and simply calmly say "well, if it helps, I don't think it's true of me, although it might be of some others" or "I don't think it's usually true of people", etc.?

 

And you could probably finish the sentence of what I'm tempted to add to that, of what it "frankly, makes me wonder..." :P But I don't wanna go there. Look, Stig, you're a reasonable guy, and you're raising valid points. All I'm saying is, at least as far as my blog goes, where I have the freedom to be as wordy as I feel is right, for me personally, to try to explain where I'm coming from... as far as that goes, I still think I have to stand by just about everything in my blog entry.

 

I'm NOT saying that I'm perfect at it, or that everybody who disagrees with me is automatically wrong. I AM saying that I'm often very clumsy at these kinds of things, and that's a problem I need to improve with. Yes. I'm wrong as much as the next guy, at least throughout my life so far. :P And yeah... I guess I dunno what else to say, man.

 

 

Anyways... yes, we are equal. At least, equal in value, and equal in total intelligence. However, not everybody is equal in all areas. I could elaborate on this, if you want, but I'd rather not right now; out of time. Basically, my whole intelligence allocation theory, which I've posted on a blog entry before.

 

 

But "Lego shouldn't do this" is an opinion. It's what he thinks they should/shouldn't do. It's not the generalisation kind of opinion you bring up with the dog example

Again, what do you mean by opinion? Personal taste? Or opinions about things that are more objective?

 

What LEGO should do falls into the category of objective opinions, which CAN be wrong. Read the blog entry I linked you to; it explains this. :) In short, it's because "should" is a moral or logical issue, and LEGO can't make decisions based on what just one fan wants. They have to try to appeal to the majority, at least with most things. :)

 

So yes, opinions that "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" CAN be wrong. They aren't always wrong (although the reasoning used to support it is invalid; still, the conclusion could sometimes be true), but the problem is that the argument is a logical fallacy, which means it's an unreliable line of reasoning that should be avoided. :) Put another way -- if LEGO should do something, it's for other reasons beyond just what one guy feels.

 

However, if by "LEGO should do this", someone is really -- but clumsily -- trying to convey what they would simply prefer, and they don't literally think LEGO should actually do it, then in that case their actual underlying opinion (I like this or don't like this) can't be wrong. I've encountered that blunder rarely -- basically a case of poor word choice.

 

And I didn't bring that example up because it's a generalization. I brought it up because it's just one of many examples of the kinds of opinions that do NOT fall under personal taste, so CAN be wrong. :) I could say "My opinion is that my cat Hunter is a lot smarter than my cat Buddy" from experience. Someone else who doesn't know my cats could say "Buddy is smarter than Hunter". But they wouldn't really know what they're talking about. :P (Trust me, Buddy's not the brightest bulb on the proverbial Christmas tree... but we love him anyways. Hunter is a she BTW.... aaanyways....)

 

That's an example that's not a generalization. It's still a "thought-opinion" -- a belief about the outside world. But personal tastes are opinions that are about our own personal worlds that exist only inside our heads -- that's why it's okay for those to be subjective. :)

 

No, actually, I am British.

Okay, cool. :) Just checking. :P

 

But have you ever seen Stephen Fry?

Never heard of him, no.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
I lost you on that sentence, Stig. Maybe it's just that it's "past my bedtime" right now, but there's so many double and triple and quadruple negatives in it even the english major lost track. :P And I don't know what you mean by opposite extreme. I didn't think I was taking any extremes?

One moment you seem to be taking the opinion that people you debate with have this psychological block, and when I advise you not to you immediately jump to the complete opposite, that I'm suggesting you are the one who has some problems and everyone else is perfect. You leap from one pole to the other

 

What do you mean by neutral? And, "totally logical"? Are you saying logic is all that matters in life? It is logic that tells me that's false -- that the ultimate point of life is emotion, and that all of us are better off if we can find those ways of living that enable us to be content, not frustrated. :) That's this logician's opinion.

Your the one who claims to take the logical route, not me. And if you're letting yourself be subconsciously moved by personal judgements then you're not being logical or neutral like you claim

 

And, am I not allowed the same right as everybody else to say what my personal tastes are?

Not if you're going to claim objectivity while doing so

 

And really, aren't you essentially doing the same thing here? You, apparently disagree with me about an opinion of mine, so you personally think your opinion is superior to mine, do you not?

No, actually, because its not your opinions I'm in disagreement with. It's mainly your style and attitude if you look at the gist of my posts. Like this, for example:

I'm afraid, you said exactly what I programmed you to say, Stig.

Now, either you're like Sherlock Holmes and genuinely can't see how that could be construed as condescending and patronising, or you're actually trying to be provocative which is kind of at odds with everything else you say.

 

Ahah, gotcha. ;) I must confess to you that I just put you through a difficult test. Unfortunately, you failed to say what I hoped you'd say, although you did say what I expected you to say. :)

 

Go back and re-read what I said, and you'll see I assumed nothing, but instead brought it up as a possibility that I'm aware MIGHT be the case, knowing what I know about human psychology. :) And more importantly, that I wasn't talking about just you, if you notice the context. I wanted to see if you would catch that, of if you'd instead have a visceral reaction that caused you to have only a superficial reading of it.

No, sorry, but you're just creating a smokescreen of psychology and language here. Allow me to take you through my chain of thought.

I must warn you that I also suspect [the definition of suspect is: have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof. So here you are saying you assume the block exists the block exists] that this accusation [the use of the word 'this' after a quote of mine grammatically denotes that I am the specific target of this sentence] might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though. Just a suspicion, I'm not sure about it, and I'm sure it's not always true even if it sometimes is [this statement just reinforces the earlier implication of no proof, which is what suspicion is anyway. It is not a cancellation of the assumption of existence].

Whether that's what you 'programmed' me to see or not, the simple fact is you are implying I have this psychological shield ;)

 

So yes, opinions that "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" CAN be wrong. They aren't always wrong (although the reasoning used to support it is invalid; still, the conclusion could sometimes be true), but the problem is that the argument is a logical fallacy, which means it's an unreliable line of reasoning that should be avoided. :) Put another way -- if LEGO should do something, it's for other reasons beyond just what one guy feels.

 

However, if by "LEGO should do this", someone is really -- but clumsily -- trying to convey what they would simply prefer, and they don't literally think LEGO should actually do it, then in that case their actual underlying opinion (I like this or don't like this) can't be wrong. I've encountered that blunder rarely -- basically a case of poor word choice.

I'm afraid I don't see how your first example "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" is an example of an opinion that is wrong. Why is it a logical fallacy? I just don't see the difference between "I like Tahu because I like red" and "I don't like what Lego is doing here because I don't like these sets". You wouldn't say the first was wrong, or illogical, so why is the second?

 

Never heard of him, no.

Audible gasp! He's quite the national treasure over here. Melchett in Blackadder, host of comedy knowledge quiz QI, narrator in the recent Hitchhiker's Guide film, supporter of Twitter. We do love him so!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Stig, maybe you should pause and re-read my last post before I reply to this one? From the start of your reply, it seems like you aren't getting what I'm saying. So I'm not sure it would be wise for me to continue adding words before you understand the words I've already clearly put down.

 

(In short, I'm not "jumping from pole to pole" as you put it. As I said, I'm just aware of all the possibilities. :) I thought I made that crystal clear?)

 

I'd like to see your reply to this, alone, before I attempt to reply to the rest of what you said, okay?

Link to comment

*gives self permission to double... comment...*

 

Alright, Stig, I guess I'm going to go ahead and add my reply now. Before I start, lemme say that I do appreciate what you're trying to do here. You are raising issues that do need cleared up, and you're bluntly calling me out for what you think are mistakes. So please understand that I'm glad you're doing that, Stig. :)

 

Most importantly, you have hinted at some very important questions -- "What is condescension?" "What is humility?" or "What is equal?" That's what I'd like to focus on here.

 

That said, I gotta call you out on some things, too. :P

 

And, I wanna make it clear that I've thought over how to reply to your, and rethought it, and rethought it, all weekend. I've debated where to start and which styles of reply to use and changed my mind a couple of times... this is what I ended up deciding to do. Hopefully it's helpful.

 

Please note! This post is designed to be understood as a whole. Please, please read through the whole thing first, before you judge. Please read it with context in mind, or you will misunderstand me. Then you can re-read and reply in whatever style you want, I just wanna make sure you aren't posting reactions to the beginning parts without having read the end. Most of these parts are just as important at the rest -- hence why I had such trouble deciding what to start with...

 

 

Firstly, we have to clear up the whole logic, opinion, taste, and emotion thing, since it seems your confusion is revolving around those issues.

 

To begin with, I have to point out what seems like a contradiction in your latest post. You object to "assuming things" (or what you believed was that), and yet you basically admitted that you're assuming things yourself, even assuming that I meant something when I directly told you I didn't.

 

You brush aside my asking you to go back and re-read what I originally said about the shield thing and such as "just a smokescreen." How do you know? Are you telepathic? You're the one who's assuming things. That's not wise. ;)

 

And earlier in your post, you said "You're the one who claims to take the logical route." When in fact I never made such a claim -- you did.

 

I'll reply to these two points in a moment.

 

But what I want you to realize is, it's not fair to simply brush aside what someone has said by assuming they didn't really mean it. That's one step away from accusing them of lying. Style or opinion, that's clearly not helpful in having a civil discussion. If I cannot honestly tell you what I think because you have apparent trust problems (with a staff member, might I remind you... :)), then how can we have a discussion?

 

It seems that you're the one who has a problem with assuming.

 

Now, in the rest of this post, I'm going to ask that you pay attention to the context I'm giving, and the whole word choices in the sentence, not just zero in on one word, okay? Otherwise, this will all just be a big waste of time. Everything I'm saying is honest. None of it is a smokescreen or a lie. Dishonesty doesn't work.

 

 

 

Now. You said that this is about style. For the moment, I'll play along with that idea.

 

If there are such things as posting/writing styles, there are also such things as reading styles.

 

Regardless of what my style is or is not, you revealed that you apparently use a type of reading style that goes light on giving the benefit of the doubt and paying attention to wording and context, and goes heavy on picking up the most emotionally connotated word and obsessing over that word. Exaggerating it, even.

 

That's a mistake on the reader's part.

 

If a writer's wording and context are crystal clear, but the reader doesn't care about accurate understanding and context -- if the reader is reading what they want to hear instead of what the author actually meant -- then there's really nothing a writer can do to fix that (except hopefully what I'm about to do ;)).

 

Now in the next part I want to explain what I meant by the psychological shield part, going back over the context of it. I wanna make it clear off the bat that you are forgiven for any mistakes you might have made that I'm summing up here -- I'm doing that only to explain how I think that particular misunderstanding happened, so we're good now, and to clarify what I meant. :) So, don't take any of this personally, please.

 

You brought up, in the spirit of playing Devil's Advocate for the types of complainers I mentioned in this blog entry (or that's how I read what you said, anyways), that many of them probably see my style as portraying myself as some kind of "God's gift to humanity" if you will, floating in a cloud as if I thought I was better than them, and attacking them to tear them down or something.

 

Which gets into the questions of "what is equal" and such I brought up -- I'll get to that in a bit. My response to that was, maybe there's some subconscious truth to it; I used to be guilty of that because I made the mistake I now devote much of my time to fighting -- the idea that who I am must be better than everybody else's simply because it works for me. But that is not my intent now. Instead it's when I see people making common mistake that, through my experience on here, I know the best solution to, I know that my knowledge is useless unless I'm helping others to learn it too. :)

 

However, while considering those possibilities, I warned you that I am also aware of another possibility, that the people who often accuse me of this (again, notice I wasn't talking about you -- I didn't read YOU, Stig, as accusing me of it when I first brought this possibility up) don't ACTUALLY think I see myself as high and mighty or whatever. Holier than thou etc. Someone like that doesn't go out of their way to work hard to give people helpful advice as I do, and I respect the intelligence of the people in question, so I know that if they are thinking, they're likely to realize that's not my intent.

 

However, when someone has argued for or against something vehemently, psychologically this creates an almost instinctual, deep-seated stubbornness to defend that point, no matter what else happens in the discussion that comes -- even if the discussion is totally civil sometimes. We all know that we do this sometimes; we've all seen people do this in real life, or on TV, etc.

 

And so, often when people have emotionally "staked their reputation" on sticking to their guns on whatever they happened to say before, without really having any idea whether it's right or not... when people do this, they often throw out wild accusations against others (often using "inverse accusation syndrome", heh), trying to make it sound like the other person's opinion is silly. Usually, deep down they know the other person is right, but what they fear most is not being wrong, but they fear others seeing their emotional reactions while admitting they are wrong.

 

These accusations and arguments that not even the person making them really believes are what I call psychological shields.

 

Basically, when someone is both using thought (in speech or typing, etc.) and strong emotions, and then when someone else points out a contradictory thought, the counterpoint works successfully through the thought part of their brain.

 

But, because the person had attached such strong emotions to the original thought, this learning of the more accurate opinion doesn't produce the natural positive emotional reaction of happiness at now being able to be more right.

 

Instead, it converts the strong emotions into shame, dissappointment in self, fear of looking embarrased in social situations, etc.

 

The person fears these emotions more than intellectually knowing they were wrong. But since they DO think they're wrong in this case, they can't stem these emotions off with confidence. Confidence is an inherently calm emotion.

 

So they, instead, channel that emotion into anger towards the person in question. Anger is an effective block of embarrassment and other such emotions. It's even an effective disguise of those emotions to novice debaters. It's also a lousy way to have a civil conversation. Fortunately, to experienced debaters like me, we can see through that trick, and see the embarrasment behind the anger, which can tell us that the person does realize they're wrong.

 

However.

 

Knowing that for sure in the text-only realms of communication like a forum is virtually impossible. We can be be pretty sure if we see a person making a mistake over and over from the same triggers, but most of the time, all I can say is "suspect it might", as I did in that post.

 

So, I said:

 

Since this keeps happening, I can only conclude that you're right that it comes across that way. I must warn you that I also suspect that this accusation might also be a psychological shield against hearing my true points for stubborness or pride's sake, though. Just a suspicion, I'm not sure about it, and I'm sure it's not always true even if it sometimes is. I can see through such copouts; I don't bow to such tactics and games. Especially when the person I'm replying to was already quoting others and criticizing their points -- another of those strange contradictions; they do the very thing they criticize me for doing, so the criticism rings rather hollow, you know? Buuuut, that's not everyone, again. Only bringing it up since it was true in the case you are bringing up (but again, no names or locations please).

 

Read the whole context. I was talking about mainly the person in the case you referenced (which, as you know, was not you), and comparing that type of reaction to others who often exhibit the same pattern.

 

My point is, if someone else is quoting someone else, and giving reasons they disagree (emotionally loaded or not), and then I do the same... and then they object to me... I'm not going to fall for that ploy. If I stopped talking to them to avoid coming across as condescending, then a stubborn person gets what they want, and truth is not served. I don't fall for such tactics. And regardless of whether they actually meant it to be a psychological shield, if I stopped moderating a debate just because a flamer or troller wants me to, I'd basically be rewarding them for their flaming or trolling.

 

Again, not once in any of this was I talking to you. At the time, it had not occured to me that you also might agree with those who make that accusation towards me (shield or not), so obviously I couldn't have been accusing you of having a psychological shield.

 

But then when you responded to me, you did something that surprised me.

 

You acted as if you thought I was talking to you. This surprised me because that's not how the subject came up; it was about an example of a complainer who went overboard (not you), and I thought you and I were talking about that type of complainer... not you and I talking about each other.

 

But then, when you got upset, apparently, about that and acted as if I was talking about you, then yes, it honestly made me wonder if it WAS true of you. Usually when someone does that, inexplicably denying an accusation that nobody made or would have even thought to make, it's because deep down there is some truth to the accusation -- it's actually the conscience doing the accusing, not the other person. And this psychological principle is pretty common knowledge -- the other person is very likely to now wonder.

 

Sorta of like how the Mentalist, fictional yes, but based on some real psychological principles, will find hidden objects by watching a person's reactions to their motions. If he moves slightly on direction, and the person looks relieved, he knows that's the wrong way, but if he moves slightly another way, and the person looks worried, he know's they're probably hiding something that way. But when someone isn't hiding anything at all, there is no unusual emotional reaction no matter which way he goes.

 

What you did struck me that way, honestly. I moved slightly in the direction, said "I suspect it might" be the case that someone else, not you, did X, you had a surprisingly strong reaction against it. Honestly, yes, that made me wonder if you weren't trying to hide something you deep down realized might have been true of you.

 

Also note, "assume" actually means the opposite of "suspect it might".

 

"Assume" means you actually believe something is true, without having any evidence. You choose to believe it without any grounds, or without sufficient grounds -- but the point is you believe it.

 

(Although, it is sometimes used in other ways, like the one example I used in this post in which logicians "assume" (in the technical sense of the word in logic) as a presupposition that taste is outside the realm of logic. This doesn't mean that there's no reason to think it; in fact it's scientifically proven for all the reasons I'm giving in this post, but that it's a universal truth in logic.)

 

"Suspect" means you might believe it, or you might not, but you are strongly leaning that way, at least, because of evidence. It has a popular technical use of "the suspect is on the run", etc. in which case the police officers chasing the suspect very well might believe or even know for sure that the suspect is guilty but guilt is not legally considered proven. In plain English, suspect usually doesn't mean you believe it, just that you are leaning that way.

 

"Suspect it might", on the other hand, which is the word choice I used, means that you're merely aware that it's one possibility. You might be leaning more that way, but you're not strongly leaning that way -- and you definately aren't assuming it.

 

But what you did, as you illustrated with your bolded insertions, was take the word "suspect" and see it as assume -- you even quoted a dictionary definition of the word that does NOT mean assume (have an idea of or an impression of does not mean you necessarily believe it), and then ignore or even pooh-pooh the context.

 

That's not a good reading style. Can you see that?

 

Now, I'm glad, Stig, you brought it up. Bad reading style or not, it does help me see how I may be coming across in the very opposite way I intended. Which, I think, is what you're trying to do, yeah?

 

 

So aaaaaaaaanyways.

 

All of this is unneccessary. :) Good news, there is. :)

 

Whether it's you, or someone else, these are trivial issues.

 

It might be defensible that one a fictional character in the Mentalist has committed a crime, they're naturally going to be interested in hiding it. But when it comes to small mistakes, we should all be willing to easily admit when we're wrong. :) And it definately helps to remain calm when expressing thought-opinions to begin with (although there's usually no harm in getting excited about positive taste-opinions :)), so that if it turns out you were wrong, you are open to changing your mind. ^_^

 

 

 

 

Moving on. "The logical route."

 

 

This is the wrong way to look at things. Your wording implies that logic is "one route", and illogic (that is, bad thinking) is "another route", or that emotion and logic are opposed to each other, etc. It makes it sound like "if you're going to choose the logical route, you feel free, and then I would expect you to act like a Vulcan (XD), but as for me, I pick a different route." Er, no.

 

Logic and emotion are not meant to be opposites. They are meant to be a unison; to work hand in hand.

 

In both thought, and feeling, there are healthy approaches, and unhealthy approaches.

 

Fallacious logic (or thought) is simply unhealthy thinking. Logic is the study of reliable and unreliable ways of thinking. Unreliable ways of thinking get a person into trouble -- not every time, but often. Reliable ways of thinking make for a smooth, harmonious way of life, solving problems, etc.

 

In the same way, emotion can be treated healthily and unhealthily. Emotions are meant to be "body allocation macros", if you will, that adapt the body in various ways to help it handle certain natural threats (by natural, I mean as in nature). For example, fear is supposed to switch the body into a mode that helps the person survive a predator or the like.

 

Those emotions, negative or positive, are not inherently bad. They can simply be misused in unhealthy ways. Since emotions are supposed to help the person survive and thrive, by affecting behavior with the goal of preserving the ability of the body to experience mostly positive emotions, when we use emotions OR logic in ways that cause consequences that produce negative emotions, we defeat the point.

 

Also, conscious logic is just one part of thought. The subconscious can be "programmed" to be more logical, as the conscious thinks more logically (with less fallacies), giving us a learned (and somewhat instinctual too) subconscious logic that we often call "intuition" or "gut feeling." This is not emotion, per se, but a subconscious fusion of logic and emotion. Subconsciously, a person well-trained in both logic and emotion will be able to rapidly analyze things, and produce results not of direct conscious thoughts, per se, but in simplified emotions.

 

This is extremely effective; while the consciousness is limited to slow, linear thought-after-thought thinking, the subconscious can process in a parallel way, and much faster.

 

"I've got a bad feeling about this" (lol Star Wars) is the short way of saying "my brain has subconsciously use parallel processing to logically analyze tons of sensory inputs that my consciousness hasn't yet had time to notice about this situation I'm in and my surroundings, and has reached a conclusion which it is feeding me in the simplified form of emotion... and then my conscious is taking that emotion and logically analyzing this simplified form -- 1) My intuition is usually pretty accurate, 2) I've got a bad feeling now, 3) therefore it's likely that the bad feeling is ABOUT THIS."

 

All of that is a complex interaction between logic and emotion that cannot be fairly called "the logical route." However, the only truly reliable way to find truth is to use total (sound and valid) logic -- research, analysis, etc. Logic itself is "clear thinking" in the consciousness.

 

 

Personal taste, on the other hand, producing "I like this" or "I don't like this" statements in the consciousness. These statements are considered to be outside the realm of logic, by logicians. They are assumed outright to be true statements -- while it's technically possible for someone to lie about their personal tastes, logicians do not consider it to be something that logic can address. This is why statements of individual taste and arguments about other things should not be mixed.

 

 

No, actually, because its not your opinions I'm in disagreement with. It's mainly your style and attitude if you look at the gist of my posts. Like this, for example:

 

I'm afraid, you said exactly what I programmed you to say, Stig.

 

Now, either you're like Sherlock Holmes and genuinely can't see how that could be construed as condescending and patronising, or you're actually trying to be provocative which is kind of at odds with everything else you say.

 

 

First of all, if someone has the opinion that their style is good and you disagree, you are disagreeing with an opinion. :P But that's just a nitpick.

 

You raise an important issue, Stig, which is summed up as "Can you see how that would come across as condescending?"

 

The answer is yes and no.

 

I'm all about understanding, and yes, I do understand how it can be construed as condescending. But probably not in the way you thought. I know how it happens, yes. I think it's basically a reading style thing, possibly mixed in with some strange ideas about what people are or whatnot.

 

But if you're asking, "Can you understand how it would come across as condescening to anyone who's thinking about it healthily?" then frankly, no, I can't think of a healthy thinking explanation for why it come across that way.

 

To anyone who thinks that me telling them I predicted what they'd say, even programmed them to -- to anyone who thinks that is condescending -- whether that is actually you, or whether you're just playing Devil's advocate for them -- to such people, I must ask.

 

Do you think humans are totally unpredictable? Do you think that humans don't learn certain programmable responses from the societies they live in? Do you think cliches don't exist? Do you think that if someone who studies people gives them certain inputs, they will not be able to know what outputs are likely, and plan ahead?

 

If you know anything about chess, for example, you know that experienced chess players will play out multiple possibilities for how the game will go, often many moves into the future. "If I move here, they're likely to move there," etc. What I do is no different, except that the only way anybody loses is if we misunderstand each other or start attacking each other, etc. We're both looking for truth (hopefully :P), and so if either of us is proven wrong, it doesn't mean we lose in a chess sense; we actually win by becoming able to change our minds and thus become more right. :)

 

As far as whether such a statement could actually BE condescension on my part... it's the exact opposite. I don't tell people that I am programming what they're saying to any extent until I judge them worthy. I told you this, Stig, because I saw that you were responsible enough that you could handle it.

 

And beyond this, when I tell someone that they have been being predictable, by that very act, I give them the power to be unpredictable. For whatever it's worth to you, in what I quoted above, you didn't do most of the things I predicted in response -- you went above and beyond and thought for yourself, bringing up what I think is the most important issue directly, which I did not program you to do. You did that on your own.

 

So for those two reasons alone, telling people that I'm affecting their responses is a sign of respect. The opposite of condescension. :)

 

Also, another big reason I do this is simply to split up subjects into multiple posts. I could go on for days about most things, covering all angles of a subject and conclusively proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that I'm right about it, but that would take forever and who'd want to read it except a few people? My posts are long enough as it is.

 

So instead, I say the most important things to say, but I also program the other person to bring up other points I wanted to respond to, so I can reply to those points in a separate post instead of just one single post. :) So it's partly just for presentation's sake. And when I do that, if I think the person is mature enough to handle it, I let them know that I planned that response beforehand, so they understand that it's not like I'm just coming up with this stuff on the fly; I knew why I was right from the start. (Otherwise, the point of splitting up the argument into multiple posts is defeated, if they don't realize I had thought it all out beforehand.)

 

Now, I can definately see why this would be surprising, or even shocking, to a typical person who probably hasn't realized this is possible. My response to that is, first, watch the Mentalist for some clues as to how. :P Fiction, yes, but that show does a really good job of showing this principle in action. It works in real life -- it's not just pure fiction. A person who pays a lot of attention and has enough knowledge about people can -- and usually does without even consciously intending to -- have a large amount of control over their behavior.

 

But if all I cared about was controlling people for the sake of condescension or whatever, why would I reveal that I'm doing it? By doing so, I give you guys the power to do this too, or at least to start to learn how. It's like a chess player telling another chess player the advice to think ahead. It's not in the advice-giver's selfish interests to give that advice -- it can only be altruistic (or just downright foolish in some cases, perhaps XD).

 

 

 

Now, I wanted to touch on the question of what exactly IS condescension? And what is "equal" when we say everybody's equal? What is humility?

 

I definately think that a lot of people have some very strange (wrong) ideas about those questions. They usually haven't thought these ideas through; they just sort of emotionally 'feel' them when faced with something that they don't understand, so it's understandable. But nowadays, we do have a pretty good idea of what the right view of that is.

 

In essence, equal value is all about OVERALL POTENTIAL, from the beginning of your existence, to at least one other human being.

 

In other words, Bob might have the potential, due to his inborn talents, to help society in X way, but not be naturally very good at Y way. But Joe might not be very good at X.

 

Some people assume, sillily, that this means Joe is of lesser worth.

 

And, if Joe meets Bob when X is the subject at hand or in action, etc. -- Joe might feel intimidated or jealous of seeing Bob doing so much better than Joe himself at X.

 

But both responses are wrong.

 

X might be valuable to society or to another person, but it's not the only thing that's valuable. Y, Z, A, J, M, whatever... various talents help society meet various different threats. If someone's good at quick thinking, but not much depth (which is what most people tend to be, compared to me), they will be better able to adapt to obvious problems faster. They might see someone like me, in their element, and think less of me because I simply won't be able to do as well as them, naturally, in that area. As a simple example, a soldier in a gunfight will do better if they have that talent set, while I would end up dead.

 

But while I'm not able to think quickly, I do tend to think more thoroughly, and so I can meet other types of threats to society or to others. I can spot problems that are invisible to others, and solve them before they become big problems. To continue the war example, a soldier might not do well in a gunfight, but might be able to see that their unit is heading into a trap, etc.

 

And I think even in the case of mental handicaps, equal value is still there. Often the mentally handicapped are much happier people, ironically, than the so-called mentally healthy, and we can learn to improve from them. Potential is not something that any mere human can accurately judge, because no matter how many factors we have included in our judgements in the past, we can never know for sure that another factor isn't working behind the scenes, unbeknownst to us.

 

So, this is why everybody has equal value.

 

(And again, remember that our genetic talents and weaknesses are what our personal tastes stem from. This is why tastes can be subjective.)

 

However, being equal in overall potential doesn't mean that everybody ends up performing equally in all areas.

 

Some people seem to think that "I'm equal" means "I am perfect in every way, and if you try to give me advice as to how to improve, you must be evil", heh. These types of people are very hard to get along with; I know a lot of them. They KNOW they're not perfect, and they'll say so... and they certainly know everybody else isn't perfect because they do not hesitate to give out free advice to others.

 

But if anyone dares to give them advice when they're in the wrong mood, watch out. "They can dish it out, but they can't take it", as the saying goes. This is unwise.

 

If Bob is good at X, that doesn't mean Joe has to hate X. He will naturally dislike it, but he can come to realize that while he should focus on his specialty, Y, it's also wise to at least have rudimentary skill in X. Because, what if Joe ever finds his or someone else's life at stake, or even something else important but not life or death, and Joe could have learned enough about X to save a life, or something else? If Joe's life depends on him being at least open to the important of X, and not acting like "Y is better than X", then it would be wiser for him to learn from Bob instead of being jealous of him or insulted by Bob's talent, etc.

 

(Of course, Bob might actually insult Joe; this is quite common too. But even then, it's not fair for Joe to hate Bob's talent itself, but only the "sin" of insulting Joe's overall worth.)

 

In other words, each different personal taste (and talents) are equal. :)

 

Condescension can come in different forms, but the most basic is viewing someone else's specialty (talents, tastes, and weaknesses) as inferior to our own.

 

Also, performance in various aspects of life can improve with choices, practice, application of the brain properly, etc. Two people might be "equal", and also have the exact same genetic talents and tastes, but one of them might be more experienced. That does not make the less experienced one inferior.

 

And just to be clear, if hypothetically someone claims that after having lived out a full life, they fulfilled their own potential better than someone else, so that somehow makes them superior, I disagree with that too. People do this in small ways and big ways all the time "IIIII worked hard today, what did YOU do? So you can't talk." etc. (which is basically a type of selfish pride). I believe EVERYBODY is equal, no matter their age, no matter their accomplishments, etc.

 

However, it's also true that people's performances and accomplishes themselves are not necessarily equal. If I do better than another person in a sports game, that means I am better than them.... in the limited instance of that one game, in the past. :P It cannot possibly, IMO, speak to personal worth... and it's often deceptive to assume it means they're even better at the sports game itself, heh.

 

I'm not into sports, but for example, I often cream my little brother at video games the first time, because I am very good at thinking of the best strategies on my own... but he's a brilliantly fast learner. So I can almost never continue to beat him. He gets gradually better, learning from my tactics like the Borg (:P), until he's doing all my tactics so much better than me, he creams ME every time, and I basically can't beat him no matter what I try. (Obviously, long records of sports accomplishment or the like ARE more reliable ways to judge who's superior AT THAT THING, though.)

 

The problem comes when people act like either their overall worth is more just because they're good at something, or like someone else is evil for being better at something, etc.

 

Also, what is humility?

 

People often think that humility means you basically lie to people about your skills. And yet honesty is also praised. Confused, most people conclude that humility is all about claiming you're not very skilled, even though you might be... and even to some extent not even trying to improve, so that you don't look prideful. Or not using those skills when others can see you, so you don't look like you're showing off, etc.

 

I think that's wrong.

 

NOTE, BTW, that by skills I mean learned or natural abilities to use our brains to do things. This includes talents, yes, but we can also learn skills that are actually in our areas of weakness, committing them to muscle memory or subconscious in other ways, so ironically we can sometimes actually be better at something that we're genetically NOT inclined towards than a novice who IS inclined towards it. So, by skills I mean anything we're good at, whether from just learning or just talents or both.

 

From early childhood, I have believed that we can all do pretty much anything, if we choose to put our minds to it and learn how, even if we don't naturally have the talent to do so (and although we probably will never do it as good as someone who has talent for it and is also experienced). I know that many people choose not to believe that, but I think that choice is a big part of why many people feel low self esteem and the like.

 

I think humility is all about believing that our TASTES and TALENTS are equal to others' different talents and tastes. About believing us all to be of equal worth -- meaning that EVERYBODY else deserves our kindness, forgiveness if necessary, any help we can give them, etc.

 

Humility doesn't mean you pretend you aren't good at what you're good at. It means you treat others as overall equal. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, now moving on...

 

 

I'm afraid I don't see how your first example "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" is an example of an opinion that is wrong. Why is it a logical fallacy? I just don't see the difference between "I like Tahu because I like red" and "I don't like what Lego is doing here because I don't like these sets". You wouldn't say the first was wrong, or illogical, so why is the second?

I'm not sure if you realized it, but you made a subtle semantics error here.

 

You equated "LEGO should do what I desire" with "I don't LIKE what LEGO has done", even though in plain English, I had made it clear I don't think the two types of opinion are the same.

 

English is a muddlesome language, and either saying could be interpreted in the way it sounds like you are. But. In plain English, "LEGO should" is not at all the same thing as "I would like it if LEGO did" or "I wish LEGO would." I am trying to speak plain old normal English here, and in normal English, "should" means "should", not "I would like it if." :)

 

Example.

 

I love brown sets.

 

When LEGO moved away from brown sets... okay, well, I liked the replacement colors too... but not as much as brown. So, I disliked the move.

 

But I agreed with the decision. I understand that LEGO should move away from brown. Believing that LEGO should do something and liking the decision are two very different things, at least in plain English. :)

 

 

 

So?

 

So, if you mean "I don't like the move" when you said "LEGO should..." in your first sentence here... Then I agree with you.

 

But, can you see why, at face value, the words you used in these two sentences seem odd?

I'm afraid I don't see how your first example "LEGO should do this just because I personally want it" is an example of an opinion that is wrong. Why is it a logical fallacy?

 

If you had given no context (or if I was using a reading style that brushed context aside, which I bet you wouldn't appreciate), then I'd think this was a strange question indeed, especially after I'd linked to a blog entry that explained it.

 

But from your context, it appears you don't actually mean "LEGO should" opinions. So you're not talking about what I was talking about.

 

 

So.

 

Forget what you meant for a second, okay?

 

I want you to do this just so you can understand what I meant. When I talk about "LEGO should" opinions, I am NOT talking about likes and dislikes. I'm talking about the "thought-opinion" side of "opinion." You might not personally use the word opinion in that way, but you really should understand that in plain English, "opinion" includes thought-opinions that can be wrong all the time, and that often includes LEGO should opinions.

 

 

You get that? So, the fallacy I was talking about (not what you were talking about) was when some complainers actually try to make a business proposal type complaint, giving LEGO the advice that they actually should make the sets in the ways that would please that fan. Why that is a fallacy should hopefully be obvious by now -- it mixes something that's outside the realm of logic with things that are inside... that just doesn't work.

 

Now. You can go back to what you meant now.

 

I would just like to point out that even liking a policy or move can be separated from the liking of the actual set itself. How? It's simple. Love others. :)

 

Because I love others, even though I personally dislike the nonbrown sets compared to brown sets, and even though on a selfish "me-only" level, I do wish LEGO hadn't done it... I understand that more fans like brown. And when lots of kids are happy, that pleases me too, because I do want toys to make kids happy. :) So, in that sense, I can like the change, even though I don't like it. See what I mean?

 

And, when I have an attitude of love towards others like that, ironically I too am happier, so that attitude is the right thing to do. It can even benefit the self -- which is why I define selfishness as ironically more harmful to the self than selfLESSness.

 

And that's a big thing I think many of our more upset complainers would do well to understand.

 

Many of them don't actually argue what LEGO should or shouldn't do, but they still have a strong negative reaction to LEGO's actions sometimes. When, if they could realize that these actions are making more people, overall, happier, they could both intellectually believe it's the right course of action AND emotionally be content with it. :)

 

It's true that, to continue my example, I would always like it better if LEGO continued to make brown sets as a treat to us. All this taste stuff is subjective anyways, so if LEGO did give us minority brown fans more treats, as long as it wasn't too much to financially ruin the company, it's not an evil action. Just not quite as good, overall, as pleasing the majority. Both are good, one is more good than the other, if you will. So, I would personally love brown sets more than I enjoy knowing that the majority is happier.

 

Still, when LEGO does make the decision to do what I dislike, this can help me avoid the self-harming depths of toy despair that some people exhibit. The attitude can make me more mentally healthy, in other words, by choice, even in the face of something that is personally not good for me.

 

 

And, of course, it's worth noting that tastes can change with age and other things, so if we give things we don't like chances, sometimes they can actually grow on us. But anyways. Yes, even though something could grow on someone, and even though they could like the policy itself, if they say "I don't like this toy", there's nothing wrong with that.

 

Now -- keeping in mind what you apparently meant -- to your last question, I'm not sure I would say the second example you gave is "illogical." Perhaps less healthy in a purely emotional sense. But again, your second example was an "I like" statement, which is outside the realm of logic. So "illogical" or "logical" are words that just don't apply to it.

 

 

Finally, just advice. When someone brings up multiple possibilities as I did with the whole psychological shield misunderstanding, next time try to just calmly answer which possibility you think is true, instead of getting defensive, okay? I brought that up as one possibility, and made it crystal clear I wasn't accusing anyone for sure of it. The normal response to that would be to look in the mirror and ask yourself if there might be some truth to it, or look at others fairly and ask whether it might be true of some of them (like the complainer in question who shall not be named here)... and then calmly say "well, maybe I was doing that a bit" or "No, I don't think I was doing that" or "Yeah, I guess I agree that that guy was doing that" or "I don't think he was" etc.

 

A'ight? :) Alright, now hopefully all of this will help you and/or others in some way. ^_^

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Guest
Add a comment...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...