User Tag List

First 12

Results 11 to 16 of 16

  1. #11
    Senior Member KDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    8,255

    Default

    I like things to be answered and accounted for. In the case of returning a "bad deed" with kindess, it unsettles me. Nothing is being accounted for. Someone like @fia (not that I presume to speak for her too much here) might say this is establishing a new dynamic.. and that's something I want to "believe", but it's not real enough for me. I have to see that dynamic in action. If nothing changes, and the wrongdoers just go about their merry ways, I prefer the old dynamic. Blame it on a "Sensing" preference. I don't know. I want to see justice now. As far as know, punishment is the best dynamic we have. If I can be proved wrong, I'd be open to it.

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfy View Post
    A value or a principle?

    If you start from a place where you treat others well as a base but then have the above rule, is that a value or a principle?

    Values vs Principles interest and confuse me.
    I'm not sure of the distinction either.

    It sounds like the idea of reciprocity. I'm not sure about this, treating others as they treat you, on the face of things appears to have something to recommend itself, it is in tune, in theory at least, with consequentialism, which in turn holds out the idea of rewarding good behaviour, punishing bad behaviour and promoting learning of what is good and what is bad behaviour by others.

    The thing about all that is that by and large people are totally ignorant of consequentialism or their views of consequentialism are incredibly eschew for a whole variety of reasons, further compounded by simpler ego rationalisations which permit evasions and evasive thinking when confronted with fails.

    There is also the reality that in order to treat others bad, even if they have treated you bad to begin with and you are only retaliating, involves treating others badly, this can be the opposite of what is natural to a person who has to begin with the expectation of treating others well before they know otherwise. If you act against your character or what is natural for long enough you will either suffer some sort of neurotic reaction to the cognitive dissonance or, if you're successful, you'll have conditioned yourself into a character or nature which is different altogether from who you were to begin with. Effectively, even if you are going to employ treating others badly as a contingency, its going to involve a hardening of the heart.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    23,481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I like things to be answered and accounted for. In the case of returning a "bad deed" with kindess, it unsettles me. Nothing is being accounted for. Someone like @fia (not that I presume to speak for her too much here) might say this is establishing a new dynamic.. and that's something I want to "believe", but it's not real enough for me. I have to see that dynamic in action. If nothing changes, and the wrongdoers just go about their merry ways, I prefer the old dynamic. Blame it on a "Sensing" preference. I don't know. I want to see justice now. As far as know, punishment is the best dynamic we have. If I can be proved wrong, I'd be open to it.
    Yeah but shouldnt your actions, whether you're well mannered, kind or conduct yourself with deliberate altruism or mutuality, be about you as opposed to others and their responses? It sounds like you've got an external locus of personality if what you are and the choices you make depend upon exclusively upon the responses of others?

    When people are ill natured towards others its usually an act in two parts, so there's the surface behaviour of stealing, intimidation, whatever, but the secondary goal is usually to confirm the idea that others are like them, or can be made like them, they're not deviant or weak, its everyone else whose deviant or weak etc. The conclusion of the Dark Knight, the dialogue about The Joker's motives is a bit of a clumbsy reflection upon this behaviour.

    So even if they succeed in the first instance, or appear to succeed, its really going to, really, really going to, drive them crazy if the secondary goal cant be satisfied, you can see this kind of thing when there's a troll melt down online. The other, the subject of whatever the ill behaviour is, has proven stronger than the author of it and the author knows it.
    All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.
    Chapter IV, p. 448. - Adam Smith, Book 3, The Wealth of Nations

    whether or not you credit psychoanalysis itself, the fact remains that we all must, to the greatest extent possible, understand one another's minds as our own; the very survival of humanity has always depended on it. - Open Culture

  4. #14
    not to be trusted miss fortune's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Enneagram
    827 sp/so
    Posts
    20,726

    Default

    It depends I suppose...

    to look at things as an instinct, if someone treats me well I want to treat them just as well or better... if they treat me like shit my blood boils and I want to deconstruct them limb by limb

    however, thanks to my socialization and realizations that bad things happen to people who deconstruct others, I only get sarcastic with them instead of removing their fingers with my teeth

    I think that the behaviors in question are more easily addressed when you look at the broader picture of society v individual in a way... social rules are meant to make us live in harmony, after all
    “The phrase 'Someone ought to do something' was not, by itself, a helpful one. People who used it never added the rider 'and that someone is me'.” - Terry Pratchett

  5. #15
    darkened dreams Ravenetta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,680

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KDude View Post
    I like things to be answered and accounted for. In the case of returning a "bad deed" with kindess, it unsettles me. Nothing is being accounted for. Someone like @fia (not that I presume to speak for her too much here) might say this is establishing a new dynamic.. and that's something I want to "believe", but it's not real enough for me. I have to see that dynamic in action. If nothing changes, and the wrongdoers just go about their merry ways, I prefer the old dynamic. Blame it on a "Sensing" preference. I don't know. I want to see justice now. As far as know, punishment is the best dynamic we have. If I can be proved wrong, I'd be open to it.
    I try to compensate for the risk of returning a positive response by having stronger boundaries in place.

    It is interesting that often when a new dynamic is presented, you can learn a great deal about the other person in a hurry. I've recently come to understand why some antagonistic communication can be useful because people reveal a lot about themselves when placed in conflict. The same can be true of a positive communication because in the context of hostility, it can be seen as a vulnerability, and if the person chooses to exploit it, then that also can provide information and the need to put stronger boundaries in place.

    In my work I deal with some people with issues, and I've found that remaining calm and respectful has a powerful effect. There are a few people I deal with who have conflict disorders and brain injury which causes them to be in a state of continual conflict. The calm response is surprisingly effective. It has helped in family relationships as well, but mostly in cases where I know the person's motivation is good, but their perception is distorted. For people I don't trust, I tend to remain calm and sometimes to the point of no emotion, and that can stabilize the dynamic, but it doesn't increase trust on my part and it is not an expression of vulnerability.

  6. #16
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,924
    Quote Originally Posted by Snoopy22 View Post
    Another translation could be an eye for an eye, and it falls within an animalistic emotional process that’s easy to emulate.
    Yes, restraint is the hallmark of emotional intelligence.

Similar Threads

  1. You children are in for a treat.
    By Cerberus in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-01-2012, 11:57 PM
  2. [ISFP] ISFPs do you ever feel like you are being treated like a doormat?
    By liYA in forum The SP Arthouse (ESFP, ISFP, ESTP, ISTP)
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-02-2011, 05:57 PM
  3. [ISTJ] ISTJs: how do you like being treated in a relationship?
    By Leanne_92 in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 09:49 PM
  4. How are you being treated by men and women of different age (and why?)
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 08-29-2009, 03:01 PM
  5. [MBTItm] How you treat others and How you want to be treated?
    By IEE623 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-06-2008, 11:20 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO