Why do people react to things in a different way?
Honestly, it all boils down to the fact that they view the situation differently, because they’re looking at it from another place. To understand this, imagine a black void, with two people standing a ways away, both facing an object of any kind, but for our purposes, we’ll use a lamp. Each one sees it from a different angle.
One might say “the lamp is ugly”, while the other says “the lamp is fine”. Person A reacted with hate, and person B might not understand, and think they are a bad person. Even if Person B, who is looking at the part of a lamp that doesn’t have a blemish, understands that Person A might have a blemish on their part, Person B still can’t see the blemish, and might still act with love towards the lamp.
But if you switch their spots, and person B was mentally in Person A’s place, having had their raising, or come to the same mental conclusions or suffered their pangs and felt their joys, and then had to stare down that blemish, would they react any differently? Essentially, I’m saying that if person B was turned into person A, having had all of their experiences and gone through what they went through, they would look at the blemish on the lamp a lot differently than they did before. Because they would then see it from a different angle.
Only from seeing something from a different angle can we experience the other side of a situation, and understand someone’s reaction to it.
I believe Christmas is the time to see how purely altruistic we are.
Allow me to explain.
There are two types of altruism: The kind that’s done because you get the warm fluffy feelings inside, and the kind that’s done simply to fulfill what’s seen as a dire need.
Although many people would like to think they do a good deed for the sake of it, the warm fluffy feeling is actually a sub-conscience occurrence for most, so individuals can not really control it. Thus, when they do good deeds (although they might feel as though they are being charitable for it’s own sake) they are actually doing it because it’s been ingrained in them through positive reinforcement that you feel like a good person for doing it. So thus, you keep doing it.
Altruism is defined though as giving without receiving. If you get even the personal gain of feeling better or having a better outlook on life, then you are receiving something by giving, and it’s an exchange, not a donation. Pure altruism means giving, putting one’s self in a worse position, without gaining anything.
It’s hard to say really if the second category even exists. But if there is, there are two types of people I can see as being true altruists. Sociopaths, and those with a a set underlying drive to better the entire world.
In a perfect world, we’d all have this, but that’s a topic for another time. But if you had the goal to make the world better as a whole, you would thus have to goal to make every situation better individually, and would do just that for that reason. It might not be as fun, getting something done just to get it done and then moving on to the next project, but if someone did this, it would definitely be the rawest form of altruism, and they would definitely be true altruists.
If anyone wonders anything about me personally, here’s everything I’m willing to share:
Yep. That was it. And yes, you could probably find out anything you want about me on the internet, but what good would it do?
I don’t want to give out any of my societal labels because I don’t believe they should be factors in our thinking. That’s what being unbiased is about. I don’t gain anything from this website either, which is how I like it. It’s simple thinking.
One thing I debate regularly is the necessity of societal labels at all. If you took a child and raised it without the understanding of girls and boys (only teaching it the science aspect of course), then would they still have the same likes and dislikes as if they were raised without that? Or the label of “American” or “Black” or “Asian” or “White” or “straight”. I don’t believe they’d be the same person as if they’d been raised in an average household anywhere in the world (because all societies have labels of some kind).
What if we did away with the ideas of gender? Or class? There’s no telling the diversity we would open ourselves up to, or the pain we’d save our children as they conformed to the stigmas society oppressed on them at a young age. We could use less words like “straight”, “transgender”, “gay” or “cis-gendered” and simply just be. I don’t mean to offend anyone, merely ponder a question. Whatever labels someone wants to take on should be fine, but we shouldn’t tell our children that they have to be something. I think it’s fine if they’re nothing in particular.
Even a label we choose for ourselves. We are inclined to conform to, as changing your label in the eyes of others is a difficult and emotional process. But if you don’t have a label, then you are ever more free to go outside of it as you wish. And then, grow.
So if you want to know about me, just think of me as label-less. And yes, I understand that people I know are probably going to read this, just please be respectful and don’t out me 😉
This is a pyramid of the needs of a human being. The bottom is what you have to have, and as it climbs up, you need things less and less.
You can have things towards the top of the pyramid, without fulfilling the lower levels, but the lack of those elements will contribute to a negative well-being (which basically means you’ll be unsatisfied with your life).
Some say that it takes a hard road to become someone who thinks logically and can work towards bettering the rest of the world. This might be true. Sometimes the best trailblazers are those who’ve had to travel through thorns and jungle. They can get you further because they’ve missed the lower levels of the “needs” pyramid, and are strong.
But if we all work together, and ensure everyone had food, and water, and shelter, then maybe everyone’s worries will be brought up a level. So that when we look at the world, we’ll see less a struggle for the basic physical needs, and more of higher thinking, because more and more people could afford to do that.
It takes a strong person to get through thorns, but if we can clear the thorns now, everyone can walk the path, and we’ll get further as a people. That’s one way of looking at it at least.
Does the phrase “precision of language” ring any bells? If so, it’s probably because you read/saw The Giver (a great book/movie- you should read/see it if you haven’t). In the movie though, they bring around the fact that where communication is direly important, it’s not the most important thing. Sometimes it’s what you don’t say that matters more. I happen to agree- where we should portray our ideas as thoroughly as possible, it’s the ideas themselves that matter most. You can portray an idea through anything that is taken in with sensory input, and not just words. Sometimes music says it better, or a touch, or seeing a painting. Sometimes you might not feel how a person felt when they were held captive, and you’d be unable to fully empathize and work that into your reasoning. But if you can see a movie about being held prisoner, or a painting, or hear their cries, you can. The meaning can change everything (although sometimes it takes more than one intake or five minutes to fully change a decision based on new input). My Conclusion => Precision of language matters, but it’s not the only way (and sometimes not the best way) to express a complex or abstract idea.
Protest photos are honestly the best way I can connect with the feelings of protesters, other than being there myself. If you read what they write on the internet, you get angry words, misconstrued meanings, and all that other stuff. But if you can see them, you can feel them, and you see all the hurt and hope they can possibly hold, and then you know.
It’s not from what they say that you understand, it’s from what they do. It doesn’t really matter why they’re protesting (as long as it’s a serious matter, not that McDonalds should give everyone free food), although I do take sides on issues, but the act of protesting something very important to you that earns you my respect. All we can ever do as a people is teach and fight for what we believe is right. That’s the best thing we can do with our lives.
However, peaceful protest is what we should look at, and not unnecessarily harmful acts. A protester should be looking at results, and the best way to results is communication and understanding, not uncontrolled feelings and rash behavior. Be smart, be safe, and be the change you want to see.
If you took someone who grew up as one of nature, so for instance, a human who was raised by animals (you can think of this as Tarzan, but remember that you’ll probably be inclined to be biased in his favor) and integrated them into society, how well would they be able to understand morals? Would they never understand fully, and only show the mechanical learnings (such as, “they said giving your worn clothes to the needy is good, so I must always do that”) and never fully believe them?
If we took this person, who was raised by nature (self-serving but still caring for members of his or her close family, whatever comes naturally), and brought them to, say, America, would they be able to grasp morals (and how long would it take?) by being shoved into society?
Maybe they would have to be integrated into society slowly, and taught morals by a completely unbiased individual to fully understand it.
Or maybe, since after learning they would think it through and consider it often, they would end up with better morals and ability to portray them than someone who was raised here, with the teachings of these ethics (because we all know there are people everywhere who claim to have good morals, but don’t debate moral subject or even think about how ethical they act on a regular basis). Because he would be looking at something people rarely do, would he see it clearer in a short amount of time, or gradually over a LONG stretch of time (just enough to un-ingrain the teaching nature gave him), or would he never fully understand?
Yes, I understand this post is almost completely questions, but only with questions can we find answers. So feel free to leave any answers you want to give in the comments! I would love to hear them and will address main viewpoints in later posts as they relate!
I think one of the real ways to look into a person is to see how they help others.
How likely are you to open your home to anyone who needs it? Would you loan money to an acquaintance without a reason why? Can anyone depend on you for some food or a warm place to stay, or perhaps some cash if they’re in a tight spot?
Think about your position in this matter, how you really are, and how you’ve acted in the past, and perhaps you’ll find you are a true friend, or perhaps, a little self-serving, although I do believe it’s possible to be so afraid of getting in a similar position yourself that you don’t help others who are there already.