“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. — Terrapin Station
If your friends are highly judgmental, if they have "critic" personalities, if they tend to be hypocritical about that, if they can't take criticism themselves, and if you're uncomfortable with this, I'd simply look for new friends. — Terrapin Station
. There are people out there who are not normally (negatively) judgmental. I don't like hanging out with people who are chronically negatively judgmental myself. I wouldn't have offline friends like that. I gravitate to people who are mellow, positive-minded, tolerant of difference, who like experiencing a bunch of different things and appreciating it all for what it is. — Terrapin Station
That's one of the things that frustrates me about message boards like this--they tend to be full of "critic" personalities, where that personality is often accompanied by arrogance, too, plus a lot of hypocrisy of course. And sometimes I let myself get drawn into that negativity, which I don't like, but it's difficult to not sink into it when you're surrounded by personalities like that. But for the boards I'm talking about, it's my only outlet for discussing those topics. — Terrapin Station
The one thing that I do agree with your friends on, though, is the idea that not everyone is equally qualified to judge various things, but what sort of friend is going to get into a long discussion with you about something where they believe that you're not qualified to make judgments about it? — Terrapin Station
No, that is not it. They are not overly critical or judgemental. It is just something we all do as humans and IMO we should talk about it so that we can better develop ourselves. The problem is that I AM COMFORTABLE with it, THEY ARE NOT. — intrapersona
If you select only the people you resonate with to tell you about your personality... — intrapersona
Wait, but it sounded like you were complaining about how your friends are. You're talking about their faults, their hypocrisy, you're saying that you called them out on something, etc. I wouldn't say that's being comfortable with how they behave (in the respects you're discussing, at least). — Terrapin Station
I wouldn't want friends to "tell me about my personality" unless it were a specific issue, such as "I'm trying to get work in such and such social milieu and I'm having no luck--any ideas?" And likewise, I wouldn't "tell them about their personalities." — Terrapin Station
That is exactly what that person thought too and despite everything I have already written on the flaw in that thinking you haven't provided any argumentation for it. — intrapersona
Why would you need argumentation for it? It's a matter of what people desire, what they prefer. — Terrapin Station
This all goes to show that life is just a living nightmare. — Bitter Crank
So if you want to agree with this friend of mine in that they have a "reasonable" method of dealing with people's thoughts/opinions — intrapersona
I wouldn't want friends to "tell me about my personality" unless it were a specific issue, such as "I'm trying to get work in such and such social milieu and I'm having no luck--any ideas?" And likewise, I wouldn't "tell them about their personalities." — Terrapin Station
Both friends said on different occasions that they only want to hear opinions about themselves from people they regard as "worthy", whose opinions they "respect". — intrapersona
What is up with this? What could be the cause of it? — intrapersona
What is up with this? What could be the cause of it? — intrapersona
Usually people aren't comfortable with in-depth analysis or critique of their character traits and personality unless they feel particularly safe, comfortable and relaxed, trust the other person to not misuse (or misplace) the information, — zookeeper
people for whom that sort of thing comes easily probably have a way above average likelihood of being somewhere on the autism spectrum. — zookeeper
I read your piece. I wanted to state that before I gave my simple answer; PRIDE. — Lower Case NUMBERS
I think there has to be something like a minimum overlap. It seems to me that you are framing this more like a one/zero or yes/no situation, as if we will only listen to clones of ourselves and therefore never get any useful feedback but only an echo chamber. Instead I think we filter out those who reject our basic assumptions or values. This isn't necessarily unwise. To question basic assumptions and values is pretty much what I understand to be a spiritual crisis. Admittedly such a crisis can lead to a breakthrough as well as disaster. Still, when we feel attacked we usually double down. Reason becomes secondary to preserving "face," again not necessarily unwise. We favor those who appear strong.
On the other hand, if we are quite sure of these basic assumptions and values, then we'll probably only have contempt or pity for those who do not share them, if not hatred. I've seen political arguments on Facebook that got nowhere. Both sides just end up angry that the fools on the other side refuse to see reason. — R-13
It's just a preference I have. Different people can have different preferences. — Terrapin Station
Honesty is overrated. Lying is a social act that greases social interaction.
How are you doing?
Great! (even though my cat just died) — Benkei
Isn't this the age old problem known commonly as ''bias''? — TheMadFool
Why? — intrapersona
Yeah, and ego. — intrapersona
And is that preference of yours reasonable? — intrapersona
In small instances you are right, as soon as you go beyond what is considered "white" in "white lies" then honesty is paramount, not only to self development as seen in this thread but also in terms of how lies may negatively affect others. — intrapersona
What my point is though is that by listening to opinions of those who have differing positions on basic assumptions and life values, we can come to a more holistic understand of ourselves. To do otherwise is to filter out dynamic possibilities of perspective and only have, as you say, "little clones of ourselves" to listen to and reciprocate what we feel to be true.
People who can't do this end up becoming offended, end up feeling "attacked" and end up doubling down and trying to preserve "face". If one is without ego then this does not arise because one is either self-assured in some manner or knows that it really isn't that important and truth is not relative to one individual. — intrapersona
What do you mean, why? What sort of answer are you looking for? Do you want an explanation from the angle of developmental psychology about how most people end up that way, or possible evolutionary benefits those traits might provide which could explain their prevalence, or just a description of exactly what in their brain or thought processes causes it?
Of course, if it's any of the above then I can't help since sadly I'm not a scientist in any of those fields. — zookeeper
I wonder what evolutionary advantage a big ego has? It's a turn-off (unsure) and yet is widely prevalent in the gene pool. — TheMadFool
It's all about context. A general rule like this is just a theoretical exercise that can't hold in real life.
Say you're in a political race and your opponent tells lies to win votes. You're convinced your plans are better for everyone but no matter how often you tell the truth, people believe the lies because they want the lies to be true. Should you not lie and stick to the principle of truth, or lie and clear it up later or lie and leave it at that and get on with the job? I don't think that's a clear cut case.
Or you're a doctor and you discover an epidemic of a dangerous disease in a large city. You haven't been able to pinpoint ground zero and how its vectoring. When asked by a reporter "is there an epidemic?", should you lie to avoid panic causing many people to leave the city (and thereby cause a spread outside the city) or do people deserve the truth? I'm not sure what to do there either. — Benkei
Yes, I agree. For me this really a central issue. Hegel had this phrase that I always come back to: "tarry with the negative." We evolve through collisions with others. At the same time, we have to maintain a certain level of self-esteem so that we don't crash and burn. This is why, in my view, we have to shut out radical threats to our world-view completely. (Spinoza was demonized, for instance, despite his "saintly" life.) It would be too much, too soon. This establishes the necessity of time for growth. But life is short. So it's plausible that some world-views or realizations are closed off for an individual by that individual's starting position in the game. (Digression: I think there's more than one good way to think and live, which is a position that developed in time and not the one I started with. From this perspective, lots of thinkers are chained by the almost unconscious assumption that there's just one path and that it's our job to find and then advertise this single worthy path.) — R-13
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.