This is a thought problem. I go round and round in circles about this, and the only depressing conclusion I end up spiraling around to is that people don't give a fuck about each other.
Here's what I don't get.
This exists online or offline, by the way. There's this person. Let's call them person A. Person A acts in a completely clueless manner.
An onlooker is watching them. Let's call onlooker Person B. You're normally this onlooker, defining the abovementioned behavior as completely clueless.
You know this because you're a bit more sumberged than the other person in the subset of society in question. Where things simply -aren't- done that way. It doesn't make sense (to you, anyhow.) Because you've internalised the 'rules.' Sometimes you can laugh at Person A's behavior, because it's so radically ignorant in a harmless sort of way. Many times, this is often an opportunity to bitch, and whinge and complain to Person C - a third party, who is probably just as submerged into the society subset as Person B, that person A is not behaving in the correct, expected manner.
Presumably this has some useful evolutionary roots - person B and C become more of an in-group, by value of labeling and leaving person A in an out-group.
What boggles me is that many people, and I count myself within them, go no further than this.
Why is it that we do not bother to extend a hand to person A and teach them this correct, expected manner? Even if we do not want to call them out nicely, we could comment or remark on it, or find out why they are doing that.
My first reaction is that I couldn't give a damn about person A. This is on an emotional level of not caring. They're them, I'm me, whatever. They are not within my circle of things I care about, yeah, big effing deal. Automatic blinders come down. A sort of defence mechanism.
If I push a little within the subconscious, sometimes, a fear of rejection lurks. Whatever we say is probably not going to be welcomed by person A because they must have their own internal web of reasons for why they behave in a certain manner. I may not like it, certainly. I may think that this societal subset doesn't like it - assuming I'm even correct about my judgement of the societal subset. But person A will probably not like the commentary, and may push back defensively, or argue, or become violent, or or or... and basically, person A will refuse to change. Which then begs the question why even bother to say anything because you cannot change another person externally anyhow, only they themselves can decide to change?
The third level, and this is an intellectual sort of Zen-y/secular Taoist argument, if not exactly Buddhist, shaken and stirred with a side of jadedness and cynicism. I don't really -want- to care about their behavior. My self-image is not contingent on how other people act in my presence. I do not see myself as one of the mainstream "brainwashers" who inculcate others to live in a "proper" zombie-like zomboid fashion. I do not wish to judge others, because I find the instinctual urge to judge others selfish and closeminded, leading to xenophobia, elitism and a whole brand of nasty negative behaviours. Live and let live. All power to them how they wish to behave, everyone is different. Insofar as it doesn't hurt or harm me or other people (their right to misbehave ends where someone else right to live life begins.)
The last qualifier leads to a lot of fun arguments on the semantics and definition of hurt/harm, of course.
I'm also convinced many others don't think as deeply and pretty much leave it at the first or at most, second level of "not giving a darnness about Person A."
It makes me wonder why we even put up with each other sometimes.
Qualifier: Teaching children is somehow okay. Scaffolding understanding is okay. They are somehow fresher and more innocent and more receptive... they may not be blank slates, but there is more open receptivity and appreciation.
People, as in adults, though. *shudders* Brain not malleable enough.
5 comments:
Qualifier the second: I have been Person A. I have been Person B. I have even been Person C at other times.
As person B telling person A how to improve on their noob behaviour (in coh recently), it is apparently completely unwanted. Person A doesn't want to talk to you, or play with you anymore. They don't want to be in a team where their behaviour shows. They prefer to hide somewhere and solo, so they can play the way they like.
So the next philosophical question would be:
Is it the right thing to do to at least speak up about the behaviour, even if you know it is unwanted and flushing effort down the toilet bowl?
Too often, it seems to me that we take the easy way out (Singaporeans especially) and say, eh, eff it, nothing's gonna change, *flops down, rolls over, gives up*
On the other hand, you stand to lose big as well as win big if you say something. They may take the advice receptively, in which case, win-win improvement, everyone happy. They may reject the advice AND you, lose-lose, nobody happy.
Or the favored way of the majority, play it safe, say nothing, continue on the rocky road, one person blissful (and ignorant), the others grumpy (or apathetic).
When is it right to gamble and speak up, and when is it right to shrug and say nothing?
I think it is like the question of, when do you clean the house? It depends on each person's dirt tolerance limit.
For example, my advisor's "perfection tolerance limit" is very low. Make a grammar error or term error -- e.g. if someone says "the average", he will go "the average of WHAT?" and give a mini-lecture about precision in language.
The part about precision in language for technical presentations is absolutely right. But the tolerance of everyone is different. I'll think "average...probably of X, fine". But if the person drew a line and never even said anything, I like ask "what term are you presenting?"
There is also a different standard if you are just a member/audience, and if you are leadership.
If you are a member, you don't need to speak up, unless you want to. As a leader, you are expected to speak up for people of the team who may not dare/want to speak up but nevertheless they are impacted.
Again, using my advisor as an example, sometimes during a presentation, he will stop the speaker and ask the group, "does everyone understand? So-and-so, observe everyone's blank face and silence. The only reason why I understand you is because we've been doing this together, other people haven't so you need to explain in a clearer manner."
I kicked someone from my team today in Cox. They were being disruptive by rushing ahead of everyone. I warned them, then when they did it again, I kicked them. If I was a team member, I would keep quiet or quit the team if I was unhappy (as a few people did, quitting because that guy was acting crazy). But I'm running the team, and I have the power/responsibility to kick the person.
Post a Comment