|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jul 31, 2022 5:06:05 GMT -5
Howdy, All... from another one who's not so active in the forums these days (un-FOR-tu-nate-LY)... As we nutz come from quite differing backgrounds... and we're all pretty friendly in here... I thought I'd just ask a question of folks. If necessary, please dump the thread, if it's deemed 'inappropriate' ( cof!, Ack! - thank you sumgai, newey, JohnH and others...)... but I think it's going to be Ok, given this is a 'Coffee Shop' forum, hence is not reallllllly bound to just music things... unless I have my wires crossed... So, to the question: What if: Someone in a group is given an award... but they don't earn it (by learning a new skill, performing some task better than someone else in the group, contributing to the greater knowledge of the group, etc)... but they get the award because the people giving out the award observe this person drives a Hyundai car (as a silly but innocuous attribute of the person). There are other people in the group who have the same level of skill, perform just as well, etc... but they mostly drive Kia cars, so they don't get any award (assuming the 'cause and effect' is being drawn correctly). Is this discriminatory? Is it fair? Is it even an issue? More particularly... If someone is singled-out for an award, does this necessarily mean everyone else does not deserve the award? (given there is no limit on the number of awards that may be given out)... I think this is sort of speaking to the 'Appeal to Ignorance' fallacy (see below).. or something else... It's almost an exercise in logic... and as such, I'm trying to 'filter' the thinking in terms of a couple of common fallacies (see ' 10 Common Logical Fallacies Everyone Should Know (With Examples)' for more details):- Appeal to Ignorance: When it is said that an argument must be true if it cannot be proven false, or false if it cannot be proven true. Bandwagon: The Bandwagon fallacy occurs when something is said to be true or good simply because it is popular. If the group as a whole makes no 'noise' about the award or the process, I guess everyone is Ok with the decision (well, that's pretty silly, knowing some people can be shy or unsure or there will be 'consequences' to voice anything different)... If one person says they don't agree with it, they are often 'shouted-down' by others in the group (by virtue of their beliefs OR through the 'Bandwagon' fallacy)... and no doubt, there are a lot of other options in how folks in the group might behave. Yes, I'm probably thinking too deeply about stuff these days (amongst other nonsense, seeing I'm now a 'retired gentlemen' (Oh, brother!)... but I thought it might be interesting to see what folks think... or not. Fanx! -John |
|
|
|
Post by thetragichero on Jul 31, 2022 6:56:11 GMT -5
is this an award at work? is the award money?
if the answer is 'yes' to the first question and 'no' to the second, i wouldn't care because i only show up to work to be compensated in money, not to fill my trophy case with useless awards
any other organization i personally frequent (social, community, religious, whatever) I'm there for what i can bring to the organization, not for any sort of outside recognition
|
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 31, 2022 11:01:20 GMT -5
Needs more Cow Bell, errr...... more information. (Sorry 'bout that. Just watched a rerun of the most iconic episode of SNL, ever.) An important piece of the puzzle is whether the award is being sponsered by the group itself, or by an outside agency of some sort. If it comes from within, then presumably all members are cognizant of the requisite criteria, and equally amenable to any restrictions, etc. Similarly, they are all, presumably, eligible for this award, given the restrictions (length of membership time, etc.) that are made known at the outset. If the award comes from an outside source, then things get hairy, meaning that it's almost impossible to make everyone happy. Here's where your inferred line "some members of the group might be unhappy" comes into play - you need to be more specific, if you please.  sumgai p.s. Or you could just ask your fellow countryman, gumbo, what he thinks. He'll be more than happy to take you down the rabbit hole, I'm quite sure.  p.p.s. Two Korean car makers?  Just where was this hypothetical award intended to be handed out? If it's some society or culture where English is not the predominant language, then I am probably not qualified to render a valid opinion on your question. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 31, 2022 19:20:08 GMT -5
I took the "Hyundai" versus "Kia" thing to be strictly hypothetical. The point being there was nothing to merit the award beyong the preference of the awarding body for Hyundai drivers. Obviously unfair in thew abstract, unless perhaps the award is for Best guitarist who drives a Hyundai" or something. But the value of an award is directly related to the perceived worthiness of the organization doing the awarding. "Best Picture" from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS, ie., the "Oscar") may indeed have some merit-based value; "Best Picture" from "Joe's Online Movie Blog", not so much. But this raises a more basic question- Is "Hyundai" pronounced as a two-syllable word, or three? Is it pronounced like "Hyoon-Die" or "High-un-die"?  |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Jul 31, 2022 19:57:53 GMT -5
Many thanks for the thoughts so far... and obviously, I need to re-tool the explanation for this 'made-up scenario'... as folks are sort-of missing some of the key points... In short, it's not about the award, who is awarding it, what it is... or any of that - it's more about the division that's created in the group by awarding some prize or favour or whatever... and the reasons for the award.. and whether those reasons are fair... or 'universal'... or even 'fashionable'... I'll keep re-thinking things... But this raises a more basic question- Is "Hyundai" pronounced as a two-syllable word, or three? Is it pronounced like "Hyoon-Die" or "High-un-die"? Down here in Oz, it's mostly "hi-UN-di" (with 'u' as in 'pull' and both 'i' sounds as in 'fly')... although I have heard some folks pronouncing it "HWIN-day", although that was in the earlier days of the brand down here. |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Jul 31, 2022 21:50:09 GMT -5
Down here in Oz, it's mostly "hi-UN-di" (with 'u' as in 'pull' and both 'i' sounds as in 'fly')... although I have heard some folks pronouncing it "HWIN-day", although that was in the earlier days of the brand down here. Here in the States, it's almost universally "HYOON-die" or often "HUN-Die". But ever since I heard Jeremy Clarkson say "Hi-UN-Die"on Top Gear, I figured the Brits are probably pronoucing it correctly, as usual, and we " 'Murracans" are the ones doing the butchering . . . |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 31, 2022 22:35:59 GMT -5
But this raises a more basic question- Is "Hyundai" pronounced as a two-syllable word, or three? Is it pronounced like "Hyoon-Die" or "High-un-die"? Properly speaking, it's pronounced "high and dry". Because that's where you're left when it kicks the bucket.  |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Jul 31, 2022 22:52:10 GMT -5
Many thanks for the thoughts so far... and obviously, I need to re-tool the explanation for this 'made-up scenario'... as folks are sort-of missing some of the key points... In short, it's not about the award, who is awarding it, what it is... or any of that - it's more about the division that's created in the group by awarding some prize or favour or whatever... and the reasons for the award.. and whether those reasons are fair... or 'universal'... or even 'fashionable'... I'll keep re-thinking things... John, re-read my dissertation. I said "if a group is presenting the award from within it's own ranks, then it's pretty likely that everyone knows the rules and qualifications going in. The time to express any dissatisfaction would be when the R's-n-Q's are being formulated, not at the presentation ceremony (or at least, not at the time of announcement of winners, prior to the ceremony). IOW, division is possible, but it can be avoided if everything about the award is made known up front, and is open for discussion well before the deadline. That doesn't hold true if the award is from an outside agency. Even if every one in the group is apprised of the potential award beforehand, any disagreements are non-starters for the simple reason that said award is coming from that outside agency. Yeah, that was circular, but I'm sure you get the point. To address your point head-on, I say that there can be no division created here, it'd be pointless. Anyone who does get upset can correctly be called childish and/or mean-spirited. Now, as to alleged "fairness". I think we have different viewpoints on this, and part of that is based on age and experience. You and I tend to say "well, yeah, that's the way that life goes", whereas "youngsters" might feel less pleased with a situation like you described in your OP. But only might, most folks are pretty level-headed when it comes to things like this. And yes, I got the allegorical references, I was having a bit of fun, tha's all. Nonetheless, I think I've made my point. The tl;dr of it is this: "If the award comes from within the group, then speak up early to avoid any dissension later on. If the award is coming from outside of the group, than no dissension is possible, so suck it up." HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 1, 2022 13:29:07 GMT -5
From my experience, the value of the award is directly related to the body granting said award. For example, there's this trophy...  ...then there's this one...  This could be a move by an employer to placate generation preferences. Most of my coworkers in Portland were all mid 20's to early 30's. Companies out there did all kinds of things to entice and retain personnel. We had espresso machines, boutique beer and soft drinks, pool table, free lunches...you get the idea. Since I've been back in Chicago I see the familiar "Go ahead, ask for a free latte machine, junior. I've got 20 resumes on my desk..." My lawyer friend may agree with me that the only award I want to see is monetary... I believe the majority of people involved in your premise would be more concerned about jeopardizing the attachment they have with their employer than about any elements of fairness or authenticity in the process. As to fairness or privilege... Let me digress. Fairness is not exactly a valuable instinctive trait for survival...lions never play rock-paper-scissor with a gazelle...which might be why we're not especially good at it either, being mammals and all, too... Let me pose a question to you, Oz: Hypothetically speaking, you are living 10,000 years ago. You're in your cave with your family, food, fire, tribe and everything you hold dear. You look out the front of your cave and see a stranger walking towards your cave. Do you grab a plate or a club? If we were talking face to face this is the point where I tell you not to verbalize your answer, because you already answered it in your head. Sort of makes us xenophobic by nature... In other words, looking for fairness in any dynamic including humans is expecting said humans to play against type. That's my two cents... HTC1 AFTER THOUGHT: Since both of these manufacturers are known for vehicles that spontaneously burst into flames, I would be fine with not being a recipient... |
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 1, 2022 13:49:14 GMT -5
My lawyer friend may agree with me that the only award I want to see is monetary... All About the Benjamins . . . The only award I have evr won was for perfect attendance when I was in like 6th grade- got two free tickets to a Chicago Bulls game. In the mid-'60s, the Bulls were a recent expansion team and they couldn't give away the tickets. So not much of an "award" anyway. I don't feel that the dearth of trophies or awards has made my life appreciably worse, nor would my life be better if I had many such. |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Aug 2, 2022 4:18:05 GMT -5
I like the side-tracking... as it helps give my head a rest ( "...my brain hurts...", Thank You, Monty Python) (and that's "PIE-thun" with 'u' as in 'sunk', not "PIE-THON" with 'o' as in 'odd') I believe the majority of people involved in your premise would be more concerned about jeopardizing the attachment they have with their employer than about any elements of fairness or authenticity in the process. ..and hence, the 'Bandwagon' fallacy - I'll go along with everyone else because if I don't follow everyone else, there'll be consequences, even if I 'know' that it's 'wrong' ... maybe. P'raps it's more about principles cf 'survival' ... which leads to your other point, cynical1, which I think is cultural...... ...which is about the competitive nature; I'll get him, before he gets me... but this is getting too far on a sidetrack... maybe. To get back on-point (again, maybe)... If one person/sub-group is given an award based on a personal/group attribute (they drive Kia and/or they drive Hyundai) and not a learned skill, or contribution to the entire group (the group saves the company money or the group works better together as they have confidence in each other, etc), is it 'fair' that the people who don't get an award feel cheated? That they see it as, like, a 'favouritism' or some such thing? If everyone does their job well and no-one really excels in any aspect of their job, what is even the purpose of giving out an award at all? If everyone in the main group has the same clout (that is, everyone has an equal vote.. or non-vote), does it make any difference? For example, if the people who have the power to 'hire and fire' have more say in giving out the award, it is, by definition, unfair.. but again, that's likely something people already know (even if they had no say in THAT power being given to the 'hire and fire' people). I'm also thinking of the original 'The Incredibles' movie, where Dash says 'if everyone is special, then no-one is special' (or something like that)... but is it even important to say that someone is special if it's 'only' based on an attribute? ...and what is the point of the award if it's possible for everyone to get it? (that is, there is no stipulation that only one person will get an award) Obviously, my brain is very foggy on all of this.. as it's a manufactured scenario, that is modelling something else... and so, there's a lot of 'loss in translation'... but it's still helpful to see how other folks' thoughts run around this 'rat track'... More to come, obviously... |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 2, 2022 8:40:13 GMT -5
I believe you may be over thinking the problem...and possibly looking too far upstream... All mammals (this means you, me and anyone reading this, too) have 2 basic needs from birth. Attachment and Authenticity. Attachment has two main provisions: 1.) A safe haven (i.e., distress alleviation and comfort) 2.) A secure base from which to explore, learn, and thrive. Authenticity is still debated, but a quick overview would be: 1. Self-awareness: Knowledge of and trust in one's own motives, emotions, preferences, and abilities. 2. Unbiased processing: Clarity in evaluating your strengths and your weaknesses without denial or blame. 3. Behavior: Acting in ways congruent with your own values and needs, even at the risk of criticism or rejection. 4. Relational orientation: Close relationships, which inherently require openness and honesty. How does this apply, you ask... As with all mammals, we are programmed to form attachments for our own survival. It starts with your parents, then based on the job they did, you form attachments with individuals, groups, organizations or cultures where you feel safe and accepted. I'll let you sort out authenticity on your own. The reason people are not motivated to challenge your hypothetical award is that in order to maintain their attachment to the organization, they are willing to compromise their authenticity to maintain said attachment. I.E: Attachment trumps authenticity. No gazelle wants to be on the savanna by themselves over who drinks first at the watering hole... This survival behavior starts before the brain can pass information between hemispheres, so it's not much of a walk to where this duality surfaces everywhere in nature. We are nature...it's sort of unavoidable... We can debate this indefinitely...so let me move on... One thing I've learned in training horses for over 20 years is that you can never remove an instinct. The best you can do is teach a new response to the same stimulus. One of the things a horse is naturally cautious of are things that move or make noise. A good example of this for horses would be plastic grocery bags blowing in the wind or stuck to a barbed wire fence. As some of you may know, this induces an instinctive response to play Seabiscuit for about 50 yards...not cool if you happen to be on said horse...and you saw the bag a second after the horse did... To help the horse find a different reaction to plastic bags, you employ a "sacking out" or desensitivation process. In practice, you take a plastic bag, tie it to a stick and introduce it to the horse. It's a slow process I won't get into here, but by gradually teaching the horse that the bag will not kill him and there is no threat from plastic bags he learns to be unmoved by plastic bags. This only works, by the way, if the horse trusts you enough to form an attachment. My horse rips every bag open that he sees looking for horse muffins... But the point is, if the horse is attached to you they will compromise their authenticity (instict) to maintain the attachment because you are offering a safe haven and a safe base to learn from. In the end the horse is more curious and willing to explore new things. So, to your point. Fairness is a concept dictated by consensus. Consensus infers a social structure. The social structure is held together by attachments to the structure. Because we're mammals there is always an alpha at the top. The alpha determines what is "fair" in most instances...until they are challenged and replaced. If the social structure attaches to the new alpha, then the definition of "fairness" may be subject to change. So, to end this before my fingers cramp, if you feel the employment of "fairness" is not acceptable to you within the social structure you find yourself in, these are your options, as I see them: 1.) Challenge and usurp the alpha to employ your own sense of fairness. That could become a lot of moving parts. 2.) Bend your authenticity to maintain your status or acceptance within said social structure. This is typical. 3.) Leave. If it's not a safe haven and this is not a place to grow and explore from...then how valuable is the attachment anyway? You could try and find a different reaction than acceptance of your hypothetical award and change the mindset of the organization to come around to your definition of fairness, but that's a tough slog. See above. So, it seems to me your question is not about "fairness", but more of how an alpha chooses to utilize or exploit this base instinct within a social structure.
Now my brain hurts... Happy Trails Cynical One |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 2, 2022 9:57:23 GMT -5
John,
c1 is correct, you are over-thinking this. (Or are you perhaps taking some kind of philosophy class?)
But I finally nailed it down. Let me get away without quoting any exact thing you've said, and instead just paraphrase, OK?
Your underlying idea is that fairness, or the appearance of such, is all-encompassing. To paraphrase my own words, essentially there are people who shrug it off when they're not "chosen', and there are people who rant and rail against anything that seems slanted towards some oddball criterion. Age and experience usually play into defining those groups, though by no means are they definitive boundaries.
Here's life in a nutshell: It's a lottery, and that's it. If one's ticket isn't called out for a winning number, there are several questions one must ask of him/herself:
a) will my life end now;
b) will the sun stop coming up:
and
c) will my cat still love me?
If one can reasonably answer 'No' to the first two and 'Yes' the last one, then what could possibly justify any feelings of 'unfairness'? One should not think that 'the system' is out to get one, pure and simple. Pretty sure at this point that I don't need to repeat myself.
Glad to be of service. Stay bundled up and dry down there, the Weather Channel says you're fixin' to get a bit cold, a bit windy, and a bit wet.
HTH
sumgai
|
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Aug 3, 2022 7:07:10 GMT -5
I'll admit I over-think a lot of things.. but that's probably 'coz of how I've learnt to think... going from lots of stuff to something simpler and organized that fits within my existing knowledge; I think this comes from 35+ years of mind mapping ( see Wikipedia: Mind Map ) Some of what's been written here is even 'bigger' and 'deeper', I think... and I've certainly opened a can of worms for my own philosophy on a lot of things (which I expected)... ( ...trying to form up a complete 'version' of the question has clarified some points.. Ooo.. but I'll continue... and note that the usage of 'sub-group' in what follows now refers to the people giving out the awards and no longer means the recipients... sorry about that [Chief] )So, the question, then: With the understanding that:- - everyone coming into a 'group' (perhaps through no choice - they were 'volunteered', let's say) agrees that they are all 'equally qualified' to perform a defined task;
- everyone also agrees that while there are 'personal attributes' that some people have and others do not, these attributes are irrelevant to performing the task; and
- the group as a whole 'trusts' some 'sub-group' of itself (this is the crux of the matter.. and where it all falls apart) to issue awards based on the performance of the task on behalf of the group (it falls apart as this 'sub-group' 'corrupts'(?) the awards by subsequently basing them partly or wholly on the personal attributes of the recipients, which was NOT universally agreed-to by everyone... but is assumed by the 'sub-group' to be 'commonly accepted' or that the 'Bandwagon bias' will 'allow' the 'sub-group' to 'get away with it')
...are the people who have NOT been given the award 'entitled'(!?) to feel 'cheated'? In this case, it seems it would be justified as the 'rules were changed' on the fly, without everyone's knowledge or approval.. I think? ...but I guess if the group said 'do what you like' to the 'sub-group', it's just bad luck and you'd have to live with it... or try and get things changed after the fact... Hmm....It basically seems we can't get away from business/club/societal 'poly-ticks', huh? |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Aug 3, 2022 7:18:12 GMT -5
John, Stay bundled up and dry down there, the Weather Channel says you're fixin' to get a bit cold, a bit windy, and a bit wet. Managed to survive Ok, Fanx!... but I tend to get really nervous with wind about (again, I think, because of prior history, particularly out on the water in boats: "You can beat the sea 99 times out of 100. It only has to beat you once" --Uncle Bob)... I was lucky to only have to deal with "dancing wheely bins" and was not part of the group of 300+ who had trees fall on them, their roofs ripped off, etc... More of the same (but less intense) tonight... It was pretty rank for us last week when it was like -2C overnight where I am, when our 'normal' cold is maybe 5C overnight... (and ya, I know -- 'not cold' -- but I have dealt with -20C in Toronto for a couple of weeks during some sort of holiday many moons ago ) -John |
|
|
|
Post by sumgai on Aug 3, 2022 12:34:00 GMT -5
John, Aha!! I've got it. This is where I should've sent you right at the beginning..... Check out this book, and you'll learn more about your philosophical question than any of us could ever scribble on these pages. I swear it!! Dinosaur Brains
In my opinion, this should be required reading for everyone, period. If you read it, you'll come to understand why I said that. HTH sumgai |
|
|
|
Post by ozboomer on Aug 3, 2022 18:49:37 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 5, 2022 5:44:05 GMT -5
It seems your group setting is already on the way to being a healthy team. They acknowledgte attributes required to perform their tasks and dismiss the non-essential traits of its members.
Then, the organization takes a perfectly good team and screws it up with a non-performance related award.
Your question is interting, in that it asks about the individuals reaction, versus the impact on the organization. This leads me to suspect the organization has more issues than the employees. It also leaves me with the impression that this is bordering on entitlement versus merit.
What does Webster say?
en·ti·tle·ment | \ in-ˈtī-tᵊl-mənt, en- \
Definition of entitlement
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
1b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
3 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
Well, I think we can comfortably remove 1, 1a and 3 from the discussion. So, we are left with "belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges".
Let me detour a moment to add that in any situation, it is only YOU that can make yourself feel anything. You make yourself angry, sad, rejected or whatever when triggered by a stimulus.
So, as I see the question now, you're asking if a scenerio promoted by a social structure which favors one group over another for a strictly superficial justification is "fair".
What does Webster say:
fair adjective
\ ˈfer
1a.) marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism
That makes the answer an unequivocal no. This is not fair.
But it is life.
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by newey on Aug 5, 2022 7:30:52 GMT -5
cyn has it down, life is inherently unfair, although we endeavor to make it "more fair". I was just going to add that, once the group decided that personal attributes were irrelevant, awarding based upon personal attributes is therefore "unfair". It also makes such an award essentially worthless- the perceived value of the award is based on whether the rest of the group thinks it merited.
To strip this down to its essence, I can declare that I am the greatest human in the world, and give myself an award so stating, but I should not be surprised if my award is deemed worthless by the rest of humanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 5, 2022 9:50:32 GMT -5
...I can declare that I am the greatest human in the world, and give myself an award so stating, but I should not be surprised if my award is deemed worthless by the rest of humanity... That's not true! Your award is worth at least half of the award I gave myself...
HTC1
|
|
|
|
Post by asmith on Aug 6, 2022 8:01:47 GMT -5
Let me detour a moment to add that in any situation, it is only YOU that can make yourself feel anything. You make yourself angry, sad, rejected or whatever when triggered by a stimulus. Would just like to chime in and say many psychotherapists would disagree with you on this one, and would be concerned that this notion borders on (if not overlaps) the notion that if you feel out of control about something to an overwhelmingly uncomfortable degree (which comes in many flavors, such as anger and sadness and panic, but is essentially the same thing underneath) then your lack of control is ultimately your fault. Respectfully, I think this is pretty harmful. A small child bitten by a large dog will need a lot of work to try and get their rational conscious brain to reprogram their unconscious brain to the point that when they hear a dog nearby them they don't immediately panic before they realize they're even feeling the way they are. It isn't the child's "fault" that they have that response, just as it wasn't the child's fault that they were bitten. That's only one example. Lots of people go through hell, and can't just snap out of feeling bad about things that remind them of the hell. Neither the hell, nor their brain's immediate reaction to things that remind them of it, is their fault. I think that's obvious enough. Though, I think I see where you're coming from: if I'm right, you're claiming that you can control your emotional response to something in principle; that e.g. the child bitten by the dog can consciously change their unconscious response to other dogs. And undoubtedly this is a healthy notion, because we don't want folks to feel at the mercy of their emotional responses; that'll just make them feel even more out of control than they already did, and throw them into a vicious feedback loop. But you can't just decide to change habits and then have it done with, because "you" (and habits) don't work like that: the conscious rational 'you' pops out of and floats atop a mass of underlying unconscious phenomena that the evolution of your ancestors developed way before it developed consciousness, and one of those unconscious phenomena is your array of emotional responses to something. Psychologist William James called human beings "bundles of habits," and habits — whether physical or emotional or somewhere in-between as most of them are — take time to break. I think it's very important to say "Only you make yourself feel anything in the long-term," and encourage folks that they can change their emotional habits over time, given that they have the opportunity to do so, and know that it's possible to do so, and can put in the work. I fully agree with you if that's what you meant (which I think you did). But I also think it's important to be aware that folks can rarely, if ever, make themselves "feel anything" in the short-term. Your emotional responses to things are there before conscious-"you" knows they've arrived. Example: I know quite a few people who have an unusually-strong emotional response to what they perceive as injustice, stemming from experiences with injustice in their past that involved dire material consequences for them. They see any form of injustice and the anger just bubbles up out of them. Were they in Ozboomer's hypothetical situation, many of those folks would feel that unconscious swell of anger at what they perceived to be the injustice of the award's presentation a few moments before they could rationally tell their conscious selves that the award was a silly trinket at work and has few if any lasting material consequences. (Many of those folks would furthermore feel annoyed at themselves for being out of control of their emotions while knowing rationally all along that the award means nothing.) However, given a supportive network of others who are willing to give them rational perspective and willing to help them put in the work, these folks' rationality can carry them through the incident, and talk themselves down, and then hopefully, next time, or the time after, or just at some point in the future, they won't seethe at something unjust before they even realize they're doing it. |
|
|
|
Post by cynical1 on Aug 7, 2022 4:58:01 GMT -5
If we're talking about trauma I would agree with you 100% Physical or psychological abuse, trauma, chronic stress..etc is wholly different than an award for driving a certain car...
I apologize if my verbiage was generalized and over simplified. My point was simply this, allowing yourself to feel slighted for not driving a Hyundai is on you, not the granting body of said award.
Good to see you around here again.
HTC1
|
|
Just where was this hypothetical award intended to be handed out? If it's some society or culture where English is not the predominant language, then I am probably not qualified to render a valid opinion on your question.
