It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I understand that we all judge people/situations according to our own standards, based on our own experiences... BUT that doesn't mean we're wrong.
In the example of the good marriage vs bad marriage, for example, I would say that if hubby/wifey occasionally neglects to take out the trash, it could be attributed to "forgetting" or being too busy with something else, etc.
But if it happens every day, then it becomes a pattern, hence calling it laziness or whatever. But which came first? Is it laziness because the marriage isn't going well... or is the marriage not going well because of the laziness?
If one employee arrives on time every day and does the job adequately well, that does deserve some credit. Is it better or worse than another employee that may actually perform the job better, but is constantly late or calling in sick or is otherwise unreliable?
Exactly where is the line drawn between occasional and excessive neglect? If he doesn't do it, intentionally or not, 5 times, is that grounds for an argument? What about 6 times? A "heated discussion"? At what point does the fact that the quarrel is over moving a bag from one plastic container to another one 30 feet away seep in?
The consequences of the different options make taking it out (even for the annoyed partner) almost infinitely better to just take the trash out.
In order for a company to fire someone, then, there:
1) needs to be a problem and
2) that problem needs to be solved in part or whole by firing the person in question
The employee could intervene at either step. One intervention for both steps is working correctly, as expected. An intervention for step #2 is to avoid being associated with what your company has learned to call a problem. You emit (for lack of a more awesome and meaningful word) various stimuli that employees have been trained to detect, and some of those are problematic stimuli.
If we could figure that out, we'd put divorce lawyers out of business!
Of course, if that's the greatest value I see in a spouse, it seems I'd be doing him a favor.
Another intervention by the employee could be to recognize one's shortcomings and over-compensate another way, thus remaining an asset to the company.
But I guess that would require the cooperation and appreciation of the employer, which may or may not be forthcoming...
originally posted by: zackli
Certain aspects of the "stimulus" are more salient than others, and it is these that they base the judgment on. Whether the judgments of those salient stimuli are accurate is another question altogether...
It would seem that social bias is something of a pit-fall that is basically unavoidable but that most people probably assume won't play an unreasonable factor in their day to day lives.
From what I experience and observe in life so far, this is absolutely true. People will eventually influence others to react to them as they expect. Maybe not at first, but as a relationship develops in time, people who truly sees their self as lovable will be loved, and those who truly believe they are not will not be.
I kind of think there is a sort of competition between peoples views at times, in which the perceptions battle out, to see who will convince the other, who will adapt to the expected schema of the other. Like the person with low self esteem, and the other who has high esteem for them?
I think the person who's biased will decide the number of times a thing needs to happen in order to make a judgement by themselves and there is no real way of determining such a thing.
originally posted by: zackli
I often find anything that evokes positive emotions in others is probably not true. I could go on and on describing the biases that led me to this conclusion, but one of three things would happen that makes me not want to:
1) you would use the classic debate stopper "everyone is free to their own opinion" or "let's agree to disagree" - the equivalent of stating that everyone is free to be stupid.
2) you would actually accept the argument, become depressed, and wish I hadn't explained it (not likely).
3) You would try to convince me using any number of "compelling" arguments that you are right and I'm not.
If a person has low self-esteem and they defer to someone with high self-esteem, they are still operating according to their own schema. It's not conformity to another's schema that someone with low self-esteem wants, it's conformity to their own. Everyone wants it. It's one of the most pervasive biases (confirmation bias).
I might say we each have the right to their opinion, (without that meaning each has the right to be stupid. Only that in subjects that are "soft science" such as this, there is room for various and differing ideas. No stupidity is necessary, there is no right and wrong)
and then, continue to form my hypothesis and arguments, for the sake of constructing my own opinion and vision, and giving you an opportunity to do the same with yours.
That is repeating exactly what I said
Although - you seem to be mixing together two very different things - philosophical theories on "how things work" (in which there is no right or wrong, it is a creative art of mind)
and Conception of ones self worth and esteem.
When I had responded the first time I was thinking of people like my husband, who just is always sure everyone loves him, and doesn't notice when they don't!
originally posted by: zackli
One of the cornerstones of stupidity is a lack of critical thought, and an opinion is where you stopped thinking critically.
I'm glad you are giving me an opportunity to exercise a physical capability I have no choice but to use anyway. Choosing not to use it is, in itself, a choice that I would have to make, and I don't know how I would make that choice.
Thank you for the inevitability.
There is no separating a person's self from the way in which they interpret events in the world. It is an integral part of how they interpret meaning. A young earth creationist and an evolutionary biologist both have fundamentally different selves, and both have a correspondingly different system of meaning.