I sell things.
I'm not yet an expert, but I can read people well. I can portray myself to a person's liking with very little understanding of their cultural background.
You may perceive that as dishonest. I disagree. I see that as adapting to a situation. Ask any military brat that had 9 different schools and they will tell you that without adapting, you will die. Starting with a positive first impression is key to making anyone like you.
Stagnant communities, rather, communities that don't receive many outsiders are mentally stunted in their ability to adapt to new scenarios. Sure, they have to occasionally adapt to economic issues, but rarely new faces and cultures.
Much like facial and physical gestures of "thank you" or "I'm sorry" are noticeable among all languages, the emotions and motivations are noticeable to the perceptive empathizer.
If, for example, you come to buy a car from me but you protest that the price is too high, my body language and tone of voice will subdue and I will show you competing prices in the region. I do this subconsciously. I am understanding your emotions and empathizing with you while maintaining my integrity by offering transparency.
Once you realize the complexities of this unspoken language you start to pick up on some disturbing things. People fucking lie.
It happens ALL THE TIME. It happens face-to-face. Someone wants you to believe something about themselves because that will temporarily improve their social status or a plethora of other reasons. Fret not, these people are easily rooted out. If they lack the means to move themselves they will be shunned by the community. People that are genuinely dishonest don't last long in communities where they say outright lies to people's faces.
Online in text, though? There's an odd disconnect. Otherwise honest people feel obliged to link distracting, false or otherwise incomplete articles and then state them as a matter of fact. They have no problem not even linking this sites and concluding what the headline told them to. If they were to have a discourse in person I imagine they would be much less bold in their assertions.
But they do it anyway. There's an odd line that I think is blurred between truth and narrative online. People believe what they want to believe and then look for sources to reinforce their narrative. They don't take any time to fact-check these narratives. They only espouse from "trusted" sources what they are so damn sure was the truth without having seriously looked into it.
Unfortunately, though my empathy and inter-personal skills are high, I guess more often than not that a person's objectives online are simply to win an argument. There is no intention to learn, to share, to emote: If there were, a dialogue instead of an insult/reframing war would ensue.
The ultimate response for people that won't respond to your logical arguments is to respond in whatever way they chose to attack you. Snarky comment followed by innocuous article? Link the Onion and call them a Cunt.
Whatever you do, don't let a person that is being obviously dishonest leave the table thinking they have won the minds of anyone. Call out their bullshit, don't let them bait and switch and most importantly, don't let them de-rail any valid point you've made with a dismissal and a shitty link.
No comments:
Post a Comment