What Other People Think and Say... Why do you care?
Options
Replies
-
Guess so. But still. You only try to get on "the good side" of the interviewer so you have a higher chance of getting the job. Because you're most likely one of 500 applying. You kind of have to stand out from the crowd.GorillaEsquire wrote: »
Size matters.Fruitylicious03 wrote: »It's the same with qualifications. Person A can be massively intelligent...person B not so much. But he studies just enough to actually get a diploma. Person A has a higher IQ than person B, but has no diploma.
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »
My point is... stop letting people control you.
Which is cool and all and I doubt anyone would recommend anything other than that.
It is not that people do not care. If you are a functioning human being you will care to some degree but the ability to handle those feelings is different from person to person. Emotional resilience and robustness is an essential skill for navigating life so building that like a muscle is a great goal.
However, constantly placing the emphasis on the people affected by hurtful behaviour or words to change is lame in my view. It does nothing more than preserve the status quo rather than securing real change (although you may disagree that change is necessary.)
Rather, I think more emphasis should be placed on people who want to air their views with impunity but dodge the cognitive dissonance that exercising this right may be hurting others by saying "ohhh, I don't need to change, nothing wrong with my behaviour but you overly PC, sensitive person, you have issues.Y u no change?"
If people want to engage in what is in many case nothing other than bad behaviour then fine. However at least have the good grace to take responsibility for what you are doing.
0 -
In short, I agree completely.0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »Fruitylicious03 wrote: »
Guess so. But still. You only try to get on "the good side" of the interviewer so you have a higher chance of getting the job. Because you're most likely one of 500 applying. You kind of have to stand out from the crowd.GorillaEsquire wrote: »
Size matters.Fruitylicious03 wrote: »It's the same with qualifications. Person A can be massively intelligent...person B not so much. But he studies just enough to actually get a diploma. Person A has a higher IQ than person B, but has no diploma.
A little off topic, but true nonetheless... When I ran an ad about 5 months ago for a new paralegal, I received over 300 applications. About 6 of them were from fully-licensed, practicing attorneys begging for $15/hour, so they could pay their rent.Fruitylicious03 wrote: »
Guess so. But still. You only try to get on "the good side" of the interviewer so you have a higher chance of getting the job. Because you're most likely one of 500 applying. You kind of have to stand out from the crowd.GorillaEsquire wrote: »
Size matters.Fruitylicious03 wrote: »It's the same with qualifications. Person A can be massively intelligent...person B not so much. But he studies just enough to actually get a diploma. Person A has a higher IQ than person B, but has no diploma.
Our economy is in the crapper.
I digress..
My apologies. I replied to a poster above that asked why do you care what interviewers think. My point is, that people really only care about what they think on a professional level, (ex. Wether they will consider giving them a job or nor) not on a personal level. (Ex. I can't hire you coz ur fat!!!) Lol.
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »People don't change.
And your argument propagates a Victim's Mentality.
If someone robs you, it is not your fault. Fault has nothing to do with preserving your well-being and rights.
You can either sit around in a support-circle, holding hands, boo-hooing and waiting for the robbers to "change" because "it's the moral thing to do."
Or...
You can pull yourself up by the bootstraps, open a giant can of self-esteem, and proceed through life being epically awesome and dashing future wrongs by basking in your own forthright kickassedness.
Oh, and by the way... "Bad people" love people "waiting for the world to be nicer."
They're called "targets."
And this is a terrific example of dichotomous thinking. Rather than approaching a problem from both ends of the spectrum you place the burden only on the affected to change who tend to be the group that lack power or are marginalised. In other words you expect change from one group without expecting compromise from another. Progress v the status quo.
People do change as does society. Attitudes change. Ideas change the world. You only have to look at how the rights of gay people, women, and minorities have progressed to know that is true.
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »
My point is... stop letting people control you.
Which is cool and all and I doubt anyone would recommend anything other than that.
It is not that people do not care. If you are a functioning human being you will care to some degree but the ability to handle those feelings is different from person to person. Emotional resilience and robustness is an essential skill for navigating life so building that like a muscle is a great goal.
However, constantly placing the emphasis on the people affected by hurtful behaviour or words to change is lame in my view. It does nothing more than preserve the status quo rather than securing real change (although you may disagree that change is necessary.)
Rather, I think more emphasis should be placed on people who want to air their views with impunity but dodge the cognitive dissonance that exercising this right may be hurting others by saying "ohhh, I don't need to change, nothing wrong with my behaviour but you overly PC, sensitive person, you have issues.Y u no change?"
If people want to engage in what is in many case nothing other than bad behaviour then fine. However at least have the good grace to take responsibility for what you are doing.
Uh yeah...if someone comes in my house holding a knife or something he's pretty much getting peppersprayed. Or worse...come eye to eye with my father and his double barrel shotgun...we don't give a damn about his rights. He came onto OUR property, he came into OUR house, threatening US with a knife. So yeah. Bye bye have a nice life in hell.
I'm not going to wait for him to fall down and pray for forgiveness for being an *kitten*. It ain't happening. He's not changing his views. He doesn't give a s*** about me. He'll stab me with no remorse. So I'll pepperspray him with no remorse too. Darn it.
0 -
Fruitylicious03 wrote: »GorillaEsquire wrote: »
My point is... stop letting people control you.
Which is cool and all and I doubt anyone would recommend anything other than that.
It is not that people do not care. If you are a functioning human being you will care to some degree but the ability to handle those feelings is different from person to person. Emotional resilience and robustness is an essential skill for navigating life so building that like a muscle is a great goal.
However, constantly placing the emphasis on the people affected by hurtful behaviour or words to change is lame in my view. It does nothing more than preserve the status quo rather than securing real change (although you may disagree that change is necessary.)
Rather, I think more emphasis should be placed on people who want to air their views with impunity but dodge the cognitive dissonance that exercising this right may be hurting others by saying "ohhh, I don't need to change, nothing wrong with my behaviour but you overly PC, sensitive person, you have issues.Y u no change?"
If people want to engage in what is in many case nothing other than bad behaviour then fine. However at least have the good grace to take responsibility for what you are doing.
Uh yeah...if someone comes in my house holding a knife or something he's pretty much getting peppersprayed. Or worse...come eye to eye with my father and his double barrel shotgun...we don't give a damn about his rights. He came onto OUR property, he came into OUR house, threatening US with a knife. So yeah. Bye bye have a nice life in hell.
I'm not going to wait for him to fall down and pray for forgiveness for being an *kitten*. It ain't happening. He's not changing his views. He doesn't give a s*** about me. He'll stab me with no remorse. So I'll pepperspray him with no remorse too. Darn it.
Sure I don't disagree with any of that.
However, my point was specifically about where the acceptable boundaries are when it comes to speech rather than imminent physical harm.
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »Well, you convinced me. I want to come live on whatever planet you live on.
It's sounds utopian.
So, you made a number of broad, unsubstantiated assertions and ended off with a thinly veiled ad hominem.
That's pretty poor form for what has been a reasonably civil debate so far.
All the best then
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »
You are pushing an idea that I (and others) somehow need your permission to have an opinion.
No.
I am saying that not only is asking the question of some people "do you think you could be more emotionally resilient and robust?" is a good idea but by the same token asking some people "do you think your words would be hurtful and harmful and as such could you modify your behaviour?" is a good idea also.
I welcome yours or anyone else's opinion but If I believe it can cross the boundary to causing psychological harm, which I believe it can, reserve the right to challenge it and try and change attitudes.
Surely that is what free speech and open debate entails?
0 -
GorillaEsquire wrote: »
Agreed.GorillaEsquire wrote: »
You are pushing an idea that I (and others) somehow need your permission to have an opinion.
No.
I am saying that not only is asking the question of some people "do you think you could be more emotionally resilient and robust?" is a good idea but by the same token asking some people "do you think your words would be hurtful and harmful and as such could you modify your behaviour?" is a good idea also.
I welcome yours or anyone else's opinion but If I believe it can cross the boundary to causing psychological harm, which I believe it can, reserve the right to challenge it and try and change attitudes.
Surely that is what free speech and open debate entails?
Thus my statement about "ignore it, or create a better counter-argument."
I love a good debate. But, I think trying to "change people" is a complete waste of time and energy.
If you craft a good counter-argument, and those particular people lose enough times, "change" will evolve as a matter of necessity.
Oi.
Let's not agree...there's no fun in that.
Good thread. Nothing wrong with a bit of intellectual sparring.
Have a good one dude.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions