--- In [email protected], off_world_beings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> --- In [email protected], "Llundrub" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > Off World, I cannot read your mind. But I can read your words. Let
> me quote some back at you, and then maybe you can see why I might
> think you're mad, whether you actually are mad or not. Remember, it
> doesn't matter whether rage is coursing through your veins, it's how
> the world perceives you that suggests that maybe you and your
> enviroment are not exactly matching. Please try to understand that I
> am going through this motion for your benefit, not to punish you, or
> to make you feel bad, but to point out something in your manner
> which may really really benefit you in the future if you can grasp
> it. That is, whether you are mad or not, you are perceived as mad,
> and that limits the effectiveness of all of your arguments. I
> believe that you could get more respect through showing more
> respect, and this woould further your own desires. Again, don't kill
> the messenger. Here's some of your quotes just from the last two
> days:
> >
> > 4-26: "Sounds like your jealous."
> > 4-27: "Grumpy old fart, thy name is Sal."
> > "Why aren't you helping the poor and sick then ....hypocrit. You
> are
> > all talk and fantasy."
> > "I know you are very grumpy."
> > "Sure, like you met them Vaj. You are totally full of sh!t. I am
> > talking about IF, repeat IF, someone levitates. You have never
> seen it
> > and you are talking through your ass again."
> > "Yes, you come across as jealous.
> > Hari Om Tat Sat to you too"
> > "No they don't, because nobody dropped the A."
> >
> > Now, these might not sound so very angry each individually but
> anger stems from within, and usually is merely expressed when the
> situation is adventitious. Those who are not angry cannot be
> angered in kind, and do not respond in kind. At this very newsgroup
> are many very mature individuals such as but not limited to Rick
> Archer, LB, Vaj, Bob Brigante, none of which I have ever noted to
> react in kind to anger or act in anger at all. Their emotional
> maturity when confronted with obstacles has proven always to be an
> inspiration to me personally, as I am in no way as mature and wise
> as they are.
> >
> > Those who are not angry naturally feel no need to respond in
> anger even when others act angrily towards them. Turn the other
> cheek and all that. Now I have deleted posts older than two days
> but if I really wanted to strike the point home and I dredged up you
> old posts I'm certain that I could make a much better case. But
> again, this is for your benefit. And I hope you take note, and find
> the balance, as it could be the key to your, and my success. I can
> tell you I am a very wrathful person, and that's why I have no cash
> at this very money. My lack of success is merely my fault. Don't be
> like me. Get it together Babe. With Love :)
>
>
> No I think you are imagining things. There is no anger there. Good
> luck.
Its interesting that we tend to construct personality images and even
mental / emotional dynamics for others on the list -- most of whom we
have never met. If we all met at a FFL reunion, I speculate that most
would experience a strong discordance between our personal image of
the other, and the clearer "gestalt" of them upon seeing their words,
actions, expressions, interactions, in person, woven together.
There are both some advantages and disadvantages in such non-corporal
interaction on a chat group. On one hand, by not meeting, we don't
have all the other visual and interactive ques about the person -- and
thus we don't stereotype on such. We don't make associations (often
weakly founded IMO) about the person based on appearance, sound of
their voice, smile, conversational response time (quick and witty or
more pensive), etc. For example, studies have shown that tall people
are often considered more as leaders, or more trustworthy, than
shorter than average persons. There is not much inherently valid in
such an assessment -- perhaps its a reptilian brain sort of response
-- or genetically lingers in us, harkening back to the days when the
biggest guy was a better leader because he could take out more of the
enemy.
Research has uncovered a jungle of cognitive mistakes we make in
assessing others. There is A) what we see, B) how we interpret what we
see -- often quite flawed if the research in cognitive scinces is to
be believed, C) perhaps some intellectual reprocessing of B). A + B +
C = D = our impression of the other. Often, A is quite different from D.
On the other hand, knowing a person solely by text, leaves a lot of
gaps in our image of the person. Many of us tend to fill in the gaps
with stuff -- often not rationally derived stuff -- just impressions a
person may give us. Probably related to one or several other people we
do know that wrote in similar tone, or held such opinions, or reasoned
in a particular way. Not particularly scientific. The monkey mind
just grabs on to stuff to fill up the gaps. Perhaps related to things
in our own lives and psychodynamics. Similar process to above, A + B
+ C = D but now A is much smaller. We have just the words. And anyone
who has played with acting or rhetoric knows that the same words can
be read in so many different ways, the same words can be construed as
serious, funny, angry, satiric, crazy, insightful, soulful, rash, etc.
So on one hand, just reading a persons words can be a more purer
exercise if we can avoid the pitfalls of filling in gaps with our
imaginative "monkey minds." Or at least become aware when we do and
attempt to farrot out such. With just text, and no gap filling, we
transcending the inconsequential markers that may prompt us to
classify people in certain ways that would occur in real life
encounters.
On the other hand, without voice inflection it is more difficult to
cypher out tone from text alone. It often is there, but takes more
time and effort to see it. And it may take a series of the person's
posts to see the tone.
Even then, I can often read a persons posts and "hear" many possible
tones -- mocking, fast banter reparte, anger, satire may all be
possible interpretations of any particular post.
When I read off's post, there is sometimes a flavor that could be
viewed as anger. Over time, I have come to think of it as more locker
room banter "busting your chops" sort of thing. Or perhaps a british
wit the cadence of which others may miss. Or something else. Who
knows. What can we do, other than to take the person's word ("its not
anger") or see their writings in their larger context, or be open to
multiple interpretations.
When I look at Off's words, as RJ listed, I don't see any dasterdly
explicit signs of anger. Its all stuff that seems mild and could just
be off-the-cuff banter.
Why does RJ strongly see anger? I don't hold that everything is
projection, but that is one possibility. At times, I could intepret
more anger in RJ's words than Offs', though I sense more its sort of a
high energy rant jag he is on, not anger.
Regardless, iwonder what use seeing too much emotions in the words as
written. Sure its nice to read passion and wit in a post. When its
clear its clear. But when too nuanced or jumbled, why make a judgement
call on a person's emotions?
I know at times people have declared that I am angry, or that I have
an agenda, or other such grand insights. When asked to simple point to
my words that express such, usually there is no response. Knowing my
writing is more on the wit, satire, inquisitive, "getting to the core
of things" side, I know the perceptions of anger are incorrect. And
for the few that know in person, they know I am not an angry sort of
guy. Far more laid back and mellow.
Yet its interesting if not good feedback as a writer/poster. If some
are misinterpreting words and tone so grossly, while the disconnect
may stem from something in them, surely its a good que to try to
tighten up my style. Make the wit or digging for deeper levels more
explicit. Pare away phrases that may have multiple interpretations.
And not jump so hastily myself as to another's internal state. At a
minimum, be open to multiple interpretations. Be comfortable with not
classifying everone.
To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Or go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!'
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
