Making Friends: What Works and What Doesn’t
November 29, 2009 by admin
Filed under Uncategorized
John Vespasian asked:
Every few years, investigative reporters uncover scandals of some religious or social movement which, under the pretence of improving the world, serves only to enrich its leaders. This sort of exploitative phenomena are not new. Abundant examples of similar cases can be found in sources from previous centuries.
Why do these abusive situations repeat themselves so frequently? What allows those harmful schemes to attract thousands of victims in different countries and historical periods? The response lies before our eyes: individuals feel alone and want to belong to a closely-knit group, even if that entails paying the highest price.
Men and women wish to be part of a community. We all desire to feel needed and appreciated. In a harsh city environment, a polite sentence or gesture may constitute a shocking act of generosity. Even self-serving, abject flattery can work once in a while in situations that have become so dehumanized that people are starving to hear a few nice words.
Isolation creates psychological vulnerability, which, on many occasions, turns into long-term dependence and subservience. Sociologists have come up with sophisticated theories to explain why people fall prey to heartless manipulators, but do we need a long chain of reasoning when direct observation can provide the answer?
The fundamental cause of such pernicious relationships is a false theory of friendship. It is a fact that, from infancy to retirement, men get together, talk, and cooperate. Although we see friendships begin everyday and fail every hour, in advantageous or disruptive conditions, we seldom take the time to reflect how the process works.
When it comes to making friends, commonplace advice has become integrated in the dominant culture to such an extent that it reigns uncontested. Traditional guidelines have been recycled and rehashed without much regard to veracity or scientific proof. Here are some bromides that are often served as entrée, main course, and dessert:
1. Smile to random strangers.
2. Do not express unpopular ideas.
3. Avoid making controversial statements.
4. Listen to others and never contest their views openly.
5. Do not attract undue attention.
6. Show interest in whatever stories people choose to tell you.
7. Be flexible and avoid making clear-cut statements.
8. Do not antagonize others by bringing up sensitive subjects.
9. Cultivate small talk and avoid criticizing people.
10. Do not embarrass others by pointing out obvious contradictions.
The list could be extended to comprise a hundred commandments. The issue is to determine whether those recommendations lead to friendship or to something else. What are the results of following such advice?
Rational people do not choose their friends amongst those who avoid firm commitments, appear self-effacing, and sugar-coat their remarks. Playing down your personal views in order to please strangers will certainly minimize the amount of conflict in your life, but it will also render you invisible to potential friends, that is, those who share your values and convictions.
Being yourself is the first step to build satisfactory relationships. If you choose to dissimulate your interests and beliefs for the sake of conformity, you might be accepted by a certain community, but only as an empty human shell. Is it worth it to give up your personality in order to enter a space where you essentially don’t belong?
From time to time, when a situation so requires, it may be advisable for you to refrain speaking out your mind. Those cases tend to be exceptional in modern society. As a general rule, a man is better off by letting his philosophy inspire his words and gestures so that others can see him the way he is. In practical terms, this is what an open attitude entails:
* Reserve your acts of kindness for people you like.
* Do discuss about ideas, principles, and ethics.
* If you believe that you are objectively right, take a clear position.
* Remain open to examine evidence that contradicts your views.
* When you make a mistake, apologize, and learn for the future.
* Be polite, but if someone tries to force something upon you, just say no.
* By pointing out contradictions to people who are willing to listen, you might prevent a catastrophe from occurring.
* Seek truth and steer clear of insincere people. Liars are the sort of persons that you don’t want to have in your life.
* Choose deep, involved conversations over nonsensical, time-wasting trite.
A realistic theory of friendship begins with a commonality of interests and values. A life filled with empty social engagements is tantamount to an endless nightmare from which you never wake up. Seek out people who appreciate profound discussions and share your rational beliefs.
Offer consistency between form and substance and fly high the flag of your convictions. Be yourself and you will not fail to attract your perfect social match. True friendship is what binds those who share the same road and move forward in the same direction.
JOHN VESPASIAN writes about rational living and is the author of the novel “When Everything Fails, Try This.” He has resided in New York, Madrid, Paris and Munich. His stories reflect the values of entrepreneurship, tolerance and self-reliance. See John Vespasian’s blog about rational living.
http://johnvespasian.blogspot.com/
Every few years, investigative reporters uncover scandals of some religious or social movement which, under the pretence of improving the world, serves only to enrich its leaders. This sort of exploitative phenomena are not new. Abundant examples of similar cases can be found in sources from previous centuries.
Why do these abusive situations repeat themselves so frequently? What allows those harmful schemes to attract thousands of victims in different countries and historical periods? The response lies before our eyes: individuals feel alone and want to belong to a closely-knit group, even if that entails paying the highest price.
Men and women wish to be part of a community. We all desire to feel needed and appreciated. In a harsh city environment, a polite sentence or gesture may constitute a shocking act of generosity. Even self-serving, abject flattery can work once in a while in situations that have become so dehumanized that people are starving to hear a few nice words.
Isolation creates psychological vulnerability, which, on many occasions, turns into long-term dependence and subservience. Sociologists have come up with sophisticated theories to explain why people fall prey to heartless manipulators, but do we need a long chain of reasoning when direct observation can provide the answer?
The fundamental cause of such pernicious relationships is a false theory of friendship. It is a fact that, from infancy to retirement, men get together, talk, and cooperate. Although we see friendships begin everyday and fail every hour, in advantageous or disruptive conditions, we seldom take the time to reflect how the process works.
When it comes to making friends, commonplace advice has become integrated in the dominant culture to such an extent that it reigns uncontested. Traditional guidelines have been recycled and rehashed without much regard to veracity or scientific proof. Here are some bromides that are often served as entrée, main course, and dessert:
1. Smile to random strangers.
2. Do not express unpopular ideas.
3. Avoid making controversial statements.
4. Listen to others and never contest their views openly.
5. Do not attract undue attention.
6. Show interest in whatever stories people choose to tell you.
7. Be flexible and avoid making clear-cut statements.
8. Do not antagonize others by bringing up sensitive subjects.
9. Cultivate small talk and avoid criticizing people.
10. Do not embarrass others by pointing out obvious contradictions.
The list could be extended to comprise a hundred commandments. The issue is to determine whether those recommendations lead to friendship or to something else. What are the results of following such advice?
Rational people do not choose their friends amongst those who avoid firm commitments, appear self-effacing, and sugar-coat their remarks. Playing down your personal views in order to please strangers will certainly minimize the amount of conflict in your life, but it will also render you invisible to potential friends, that is, those who share your values and convictions.
Being yourself is the first step to build satisfactory relationships. If you choose to dissimulate your interests and beliefs for the sake of conformity, you might be accepted by a certain community, but only as an empty human shell. Is it worth it to give up your personality in order to enter a space where you essentially don’t belong?
From time to time, when a situation so requires, it may be advisable for you to refrain speaking out your mind. Those cases tend to be exceptional in modern society. As a general rule, a man is better off by letting his philosophy inspire his words and gestures so that others can see him the way he is. In practical terms, this is what an open attitude entails:
* Reserve your acts of kindness for people you like.
* Do discuss about ideas, principles, and ethics.
* If you believe that you are objectively right, take a clear position.
* Remain open to examine evidence that contradicts your views.
* When you make a mistake, apologize, and learn for the future.
* Be polite, but if someone tries to force something upon you, just say no.
* By pointing out contradictions to people who are willing to listen, you might prevent a catastrophe from occurring.
* Seek truth and steer clear of insincere people. Liars are the sort of persons that you don’t want to have in your life.
* Choose deep, involved conversations over nonsensical, time-wasting trite.
A realistic theory of friendship begins with a commonality of interests and values. A life filled with empty social engagements is tantamount to an endless nightmare from which you never wake up. Seek out people who appreciate profound discussions and share your rational beliefs.
Offer consistency between form and substance and fly high the flag of your convictions. Be yourself and you will not fail to attract your perfect social match. True friendship is what binds those who share the same road and move forward in the same direction.
JOHN VESPASIAN writes about rational living and is the author of the novel “When Everything Fails, Try This.” He has resided in New York, Madrid, Paris and Munich. His stories reflect the values of entrepreneurship, tolerance and self-reliance. See John Vespasian’s blog about rational living.
http://johnvespasian.blogspot.com/
Skepticism – Disbelieving the Theorists
October 14, 2009 by admin
Filed under Uncategorized
John W. Martin asked:
Skepticism – Disbelieving the theorists
http://www.yallways.com
Skepticism – An attitude of doubt towards the veracity of a certain concept. With reference to the paranormal, skeptics make up a significant portion of those who express interest in such phenomena. Skepticism does not refer to those who refuse to believe in the paranormal. Rather, it applies to people who remain unconvinced until presented with adequate proof. Thus, the skeptic’s position is perhaps best summed up by author Carl Sagan who stated, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Although anyone can experience skepticism, some researchers have made this concept a personal philosophy. They have established themselves as self-proclaimed skeptics and even formed professional communities. The goal of the “scientific skeptic” is not to blindly reject claims, but, rather, to apply reason to every event. Essentially, scientific skepticism involves utilizing critical analysis to confirm or deny claims lacking conclusive support. This field specifically focuses on those phenomena which seem implausible but are accepted by many.
Some skeptics have actually aided the cause of paranormal research. Most notably, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry aims to promote the rational, scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena. The Committee was founded in 1976 by a self-proclaimed scientific skeptic, Paul Kurtz. Since then, it has published articles, organized conferences, produced documentaries, and created a network of researchers devoted to logically evaluating paranormal claims. Topics they have analyzed include UFOs, cryptozoology, psychic abilities, alternative medicine, and astrology.
Another prominent organization is The Skeptics Society, which seeks to use science to counteract the spread of superstition and pseudoscientific theories. The Society conducts its own investigations and sponsors informational lectures. It also publishes Skeptic magazine, which debuted more than fifteen years ago. The magazine boasts approximately 50,000 readers and posts regular podcasts on the internet. Topics of interest to the Society range widely from paranormal claims to conspiracy theories to diet fads.
Some paranormal skeptics have taken on the official role of “debunkers.” These researchers focus specifically on disproving paranormal claims. Rather than conduct objective inquiries, debunkers seek only to expose fallacies within the phenomena they study. Due to their passionate disapproval, debunkers frequently cause debate and controversy. In extreme cases, debunkers neglect to accept evidence which contradicts their beliefs. Such persons are referred to as “pseudoskeptics” and generally meet with disapproval from the greater skeptic community.
Skepticism requires an open mind. It is not the stubborn rejection of ideas, but, rather, a desire to see compelling proof before admitting acceptance. The skeptic will accept any claim that can be confirmed with substantial evidence. Thus, skepticism is a rational approach to inquiry used by many who refuse to accept phenomena for which there is no proof.
Skepticism – Disbelieving the theorists
http://www.yallways.com
Skepticism – An attitude of doubt towards the veracity of a certain concept. With reference to the paranormal, skeptics make up a significant portion of those who express interest in such phenomena. Skepticism does not refer to those who refuse to believe in the paranormal. Rather, it applies to people who remain unconvinced until presented with adequate proof. Thus, the skeptic’s position is perhaps best summed up by author Carl Sagan who stated, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Although anyone can experience skepticism, some researchers have made this concept a personal philosophy. They have established themselves as self-proclaimed skeptics and even formed professional communities. The goal of the “scientific skeptic” is not to blindly reject claims, but, rather, to apply reason to every event. Essentially, scientific skepticism involves utilizing critical analysis to confirm or deny claims lacking conclusive support. This field specifically focuses on those phenomena which seem implausible but are accepted by many.
Some skeptics have actually aided the cause of paranormal research. Most notably, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry aims to promote the rational, scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena. The Committee was founded in 1976 by a self-proclaimed scientific skeptic, Paul Kurtz. Since then, it has published articles, organized conferences, produced documentaries, and created a network of researchers devoted to logically evaluating paranormal claims. Topics they have analyzed include UFOs, cryptozoology, psychic abilities, alternative medicine, and astrology.
Another prominent organization is The Skeptics Society, which seeks to use science to counteract the spread of superstition and pseudoscientific theories. The Society conducts its own investigations and sponsors informational lectures. It also publishes Skeptic magazine, which debuted more than fifteen years ago. The magazine boasts approximately 50,000 readers and posts regular podcasts on the internet. Topics of interest to the Society range widely from paranormal claims to conspiracy theories to diet fads.
Some paranormal skeptics have taken on the official role of “debunkers.” These researchers focus specifically on disproving paranormal claims. Rather than conduct objective inquiries, debunkers seek only to expose fallacies within the phenomena they study. Due to their passionate disapproval, debunkers frequently cause debate and controversy. In extreme cases, debunkers neglect to accept evidence which contradicts their beliefs. Such persons are referred to as “pseudoskeptics” and generally meet with disapproval from the greater skeptic community.
Skepticism requires an open mind. It is not the stubborn rejection of ideas, but, rather, a desire to see compelling proof before admitting acceptance. The skeptic will accept any claim that can be confirmed with substantial evidence. Thus, skepticism is a rational approach to inquiry used by many who refuse to accept phenomena for which there is no proof.
