Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: MORE Recert News/LBS Re - Off World as Angry Person

[Llundrub]

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     -----especially as the greatest leaders in history showed signs of napolean complex.         -- 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.   ------except that very quickly on, those people were seen as lumbering idiots who needed quick on their feet short people to stab things home on other big dumb lumbering idiots soo the smarter of the big dumb lumbering idiots had smarter sidekicks that they trusted. 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.     ------Except new reaserch like the 'mirror cell' stiff quoted which maybe shows actual cross brain cognition. 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.   ----Well, most people don't call everyone else's bluff. Like say for instance, Oh, you're so full of shit, or you're talking out of your ass, or you're just trying to spread lies or rumors, or any of the other charges railed against members here. Those summary judgements certainly show heat and inability to understand or to put in anothers shoes to boot.     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.   -----By the constant abrogating tenor of rejection of everyone else's POV. That's all, but without substantial own personal additive insight. Ie., Negation without much positive contribution. For instance, you're full of shit!  That's angry. You're as if full of shit because from your POV cows don't goo poo.  That's not angry. There's positive and additive ways of speaking which show respect or at least consideration, and then there's the lack thereof.    Not that I care. Without it it would be a very slow week. 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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.