Jenny and Erin

44 Responses to “Just the Facts”

1. Jason Says:
   August 13th, 2007 at 3:55 pm

   I think I might have linked to this article on my site before, but I’ve said basically the same thing… you can’t ever really know someone from their actions, and you can’t really find the value of another person, because you don’t know the real “who”, you only know “what” they do.

   How Love Works - Separating Who From What

   You might also be interested in the “Pride” part of this article:
   Seven Deadly Sins Now “Slightly Injurious”

2. Jenny Says:
   August 13th, 2007 at 5:20 pm

   Jason,
   I’m not so sure I agree with you. I do think what someone does is at least equally telling as who they are. In my experience it’s nearly impossible to separate the two particularly when the actions being considered are recent and/or particularly striking. I think making a distinction between “who” someone is deep down and “what” they do is just asking for trouble.

   I guess I’m trying to figure this out that’s why I’m asking. I currently believe a person’s actions are the best indicator of who they are. That said, I don’t think a person *is* their actions. I understand we are all more than the sum total of our actions (or any one action) but don’t know how much more. I’ve personally done things in my past I would never repeat but those actions have been essential in forming “who” I am and so they are important. How important to who I am today I’m not sure.

   Yes, I remember reading your post How Love Works (and very much enjoyed it) but I’m more interested in understanding this topic from a first person perspective. I’m always curious as to how people understand themselves including people:
   ~whose actions have been horrifying yet see themselves as more than their actions and want others around them (including those they have victimized) to see them in the same light, or;
   ~whose actions don’t amount to much of anything yet if asked would definitely consider themselves much more than their endless days in front of the television would lead others to believe.

3. Jason Says:
   August 14th, 2007 at 2:25 pm

   I think it’s only difficult to separate the two when you don’t really know the person. At that point, you HAVE to make assumptions based on the actions that you know, but you should keep your mind open to learn that they are NOT who their actions would seem to indicate. It’s asking for a poorer life to not distinguish between the two, because if someone’s actions do not reflect who they are well, you can lead them to change relatively easily. If they DO reflect who they are, it’s difficult to impossible to convince them to change.

   Your actions do not directly determine who you are, it is your perception of the experiences you have (resulting from your actions), and your response to those perceptions that helps to determine who you are. At the same time, you can, at any time you choose, transcend your past experiences and become who you choose to be.

   For the last part, you can only judge others (whether “who” they are, or “what” they do) by your own, or what you perceive to be society’s, standards. Those people may believe as you say because, by their own standards, they are justified in doing so.

   Also, in regards to the first person, I try (and usually succeed) to evaluate people based on who they are now, regardless of what they have done in the past. It is, admittedly, harder to do so when you were their victim, but I still usually don’t have much problem doing so. The hardest people to do that with, in my experience, are actually those that hurt the people I love, not those who hurt me directly. Yet I still forgive them… holding grudges (or whatever term you want to use) only hurts me and uses up my energy, it doesn’t do squat to the target of that grudge. That doesn’t mean I forget what they did, just that I forgive it.

   Sheesh, speaking of forgiveness, you’re going to have to forgive me for writing a comment that’s practically longer than your original article. Sorry about that!

4. Jenny Says:
   August 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

   Jason,
   No forgiveness necessary for the length of your comment. I’m interested in what you have to say otherwise wouldn’t of said anything. Heck, you can write a book back if you so desire although you should keep in mind that a comment of that length and complexity would take me considerably longer to respond to, but respond I would!

   I’m not sure I understand what you are saying with this sentence so before I say anything would appreciate it if you could clarify and maybe give me an example “…because if someone’s actions do not reflect who they are, you can lead them to change relatively easily”.

   I agree that it is far more difficult to separate “who” a person is from “what” they do when you don’t really know the person. I also believe it is important to be aware of “what” the people you know are doing as actions are often a precursor to shifts in “who” they are. So I guess I repeat you sentence back to you with a slight word change and suggest that “…you should keep your mind open to learn that they ARE who their actions would seem to indicate”.

   Yes, a significant part of how we respond to another’s actions has to do with who we are as a person (so basically that mental map or filter concept again) and so any decisions I make about another‘s actions are based upon “my“ or “societies“ standards. I do believe there is right and wrong in the world - maybe not universal standards but personal standards non-the-less. I discussed this briefly over the weekend and I believe the example used was a person being stabbed to death and while I might not appreciate being stabbed to death (I most certainly would not appreciate it!) someone dying of painful disease might welcome the relative ease and quick nature of being stabbed to death.

   Even throwing universal standards under the table if I am incapable of either articulating a set of standards for myself or being able to discuss those standards with others I would be living a life based on total whims of the moment. Given enough time these whims would likely cause damage to both myself and others around me. I think that is fair to note if you are someone in my close proximity, it might even be fair to judge me upon.

   You said, “Those people may believe as you say because, by their own standards, they are justified in doing so.” Yes, but at least if they adhere to standards of any sort whether religious, societal, personal or even a gang’s and could articulate those standards I would be better able to determine “who” they are as a person. Unfortunately not many people I have met are able to do this which is a source of frustration to me. Wouldn’t this very process of examining and clarifying one’s values and definitions of good/bad and right/wrong be an essential component of challenging one’s existing mental paradigms?

   Again, I must note a slight disagreement with you. While I think forgiveness is a noble thing I do believe there are times in one’s life when forgiveness of another is a mistake (I don’t mean never forgiving by this statement I mean attempting forgiveness at a specific time in one’s life). I say this not speaking of myself. Sometimes that energy that you refer to as being used up is the very energy that allows another person the strength to transcend their current circumstances.

   I’m not sure that the points I’m trying to articulate are coming across but do appreciate the discussion Jason and wanted to say I stopped and read all the links along the way. You make very thoughtful and good points on a day to day basis.

5. John Murphy Says:
   August 14th, 2007 at 8:45 pm

   Lengthy discussion all round I’d say. So I shall carry out a slight diversion if I might. In my spare time I am a hospital radio broadcaster (not something that happens in the US as far as I can tell). Anyway I was in Ireland for a few months so went to the local hospital and asked if I could join their team to do some broadcasting. They agreed and so every Thursday night I would turn up in the studio and broadcast for 2 hours. Long story short it occurred to me that as no-one ever saw what I looked like but could hear my voice I wondered what they would say if they were asked what I looked like from just hearing my voice.
   I know when I see someone whose voice I’ve only heard before I’m normally quite a way away from my mental picture of what I think they look like.
   As I said at the beginning this is a little diversion but it does show that without actually seeing someone ‘in the flesh’ it is very difficult to form any accurate impression of them.

6. Jenny Says:
   August 14th, 2007 at 8:53 pm

   Lovely diversion John.

   What kind of broadcasting do you do at a hospital in Ireland? No, I’ve never heard of that in the US. I also tend to envision people widely different then they appear in real life when I’m going simply by the sound of their voice. I wonder just how far off my visions of people I chat with online are? Have you any experience in this?

7. Jason Says:
   August 15th, 2007 at 10:35 am

   Okay, to respond to your lengthy response to my lengthy response

   What I meant by that phrase is that people have a vision of who they are, regardless of what their actions show to themselves or others. When someone does something that does not fit with their vision of who they are, if you can show them how to change that behavior, it isn’t terribly difficult to convince them that they should, in fact, do so. If, on the other hand, you are trying to convince them to change behavior that DOES agree with their vision of who they are… well, all I can say is good luck.

   When it comes to the judging by personal, societal, universal, or whatever other standards, what I meant is that you need to understand, while still evaluating (otherwise known as judging, but judging carries some significant connotations that evaluating does not) them by your standards and those of society that you have accepted as your own, their standards are not necessarily the same as yours, and that can alter what your final evaluation of the action is. For example, let’s go with a very well known and controversial standard: abortion. Let’s say that by your standards, abortion is flat out wrong, the killing of a baby. You understand, however, that not all others have this same standard, believing that it is merely a clump of cells with no existence of its own. Now let’s bring someone having an abortion into the equation. If you judge them by your standards, they have done something evil. However, they may not believe they have done something wrong at all, no worse than blowing your nose (I doubt the would be THAT casual about it, but you get the point). Knowing that this is what they believe, that it is their standard, your final evaluation of that action is different than if you ONLY use your standard… because if you only use your standard, then you have to believe that they knowingly and willingly chose to kill a baby. That is a TOTALLY different thing (regardless of whether YOU believe that’s what they did) than performing the same action with their standard, and your resulting overall picture of “who” they are will (or at least should) be very different.

   As regards the forgiveness thing, I accept your statement, that not forgiving someone can provide the strength for some people to transcend their circumstances, but I do not think it is a good or healthy way to do so. It’s possible that the ends might justify the means, in particular cases, but I don’t think it’s healthy to intentionally hold on to grudges as motivation. I think holding grudges has impact across a huge swathe of your life, much of it in ways that are not intuitive, so that you don’t even realize that it’s those grudges you are holding on to that are causing the strife or stress elsewhere.

   So, if this keeps going this way, are you going to collect and organize our discussions into an e-book that you can sell, or give away to get traffic? It certainly seems like it might become long enough to do so

   Oh, and by the way, thank you for having an intelligent discussion with me… they’re all to rare these days, without breaking down into mindless “You’ll never convince me” arguments (not that I get into such arguments… when a conversation degrades to the point where it is approaching such a thing, I just leave it be).

8. Jason Says:
   August 15th, 2007 at 10:39 am

   Oh, and as far as what someone looks like not matching what you imagine, I find that to be far more the case with people whose voice I hear than people whose words I read. Somehow, hearing someone’s voice gives me a far clearer mental picture of what they look like than reading their words. I really don’t form much of an image just from reading.

   But despite the greater clarity, my imagined appearance is wrong at least as often as right.

   By the way, if you want to see what I look like, you can look at my About Me page.

9. Jenny Says:
   August 15th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

   Response to an email (just in case anyone else is thinking the same thing):

   Yep, I guess you can fairly say I’m contradicting myself from the post to my first response to Jason. All I can say is it was an intentional choice to put this in the category of “Things I Don’t Understand”. I’m honestly trying to though.

   I learn best by putting ideas on and seeing how they fit, writing them out and mostly through discussion. I seek and value the thoughtful points of view of others (although I might just decide to disagree after all is said and done) and welcome your thoughts also. I imagine you’d have a lot to contribute if you ever decide to. Thanks for asking.

10. Liara Covert Says:
    August 15th, 2007 at 9:23 pm

    Your sense of “the facts” is grounded in your own perception. What you consider to be “the fundamental truth” (or as Al Gore calls, ‘The Inconvenient Truth’) today may not be the same view another day. Clarity is grounded in one’s state of mind. How you evolve shapes your perception. What and who you believe also reflect back in how you feel and what you uthink you are.

11. Mark Says:
    August 15th, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    Given enough facts people would be capable of making educated guesses about another person, and they may even be right. As an example, consider walking down the street and briefly noticing someone else walk past. Those few moments are not enough to tell you a lot, but I’d bet you could figure out a thing or two, and be right (sound familiar )

    As for who vs. what, I believe that what someone does is just as important as why they do it, and both what and why play a part in shaping “who”. And we judge others on a combination of what we perceive of all those components, and what we accept as social norms (which may or may not be true social norms).

    Re: Examining and clarifying one’s values and morals.

    Heh, I hope I haven’t caused you frustration in not articulating mine very well.

    I think would only be an issue for an individual if they found their current values and morals causing problems in their life. Or noticed that they had problems and could associate them with their core values.

    And if that isn’t the case, then any stated values are likely to be different from their true values. I.e., most people don’t know themselves very well, so asking them to accurately describe a core part of themselves which they haven’t thought about much… Well, you won’t get an accurate answer. This is where what someone does is more important than what they say.

    For instance, I don’t believe I value integrity as highly as I should. Thus, for example, I find it easy to say I’ll turn up to a social event, but then decide not to at the last minute. Lucky for me in most cases friends realise that I may or may not turn up, and don’t expect me to. But I also know there have been cases where I haven’t been invited because I wasn’t expected to turn up, but in reality, this time I would have. For a while I thought that I should turn up even if I didn’t want to because being invited carried an obligation to attend. Eventually I realised that socialising when I didn’t feel like it was more damaging to me than any benefit others received. So, applying honesty and integrity and gratitude, I now try to, as diplomatically as I can, turn down invitations to parties that I don’t intend to attend, while thanking the host for the invite.

    Re: Evaluating others.

    It becomes an even more interesting question if you imagine applying it to an alien civilisation. Is it right to judge them by our own standards? Or on the flip side, could we effective judge them by their own standards if those standards are almost completely different to ours?

    Then apply the same thinking to different human cultures. Then to different individuals within the same culture. At each level I think there are sets of standards which are either held by all, or at least accepted as the norm, and anyone believing otherwise will be held accountable (i.e., some people may believe it’s ok to kill another. That doesn’t mean they won’t go to jail if they do.)

    So I don’t think there are necessarily universal standards, but there are binding contextual standards (which would also be binding in the case of alien civilisations. I.e., even if they valued killing others we would certainly not allow them to kill us, and would let them know our opposing stance in no uncertain terms).

    PS: Jason and Jenny, just an outsider observation, your metadiscussion (i.e., the discussion about your discussion) is very familiar. I could easily imagine all of us sitting down for a long, in-depth, highly enjoyable chat.

12. Jason Says:
    August 16th, 2007 at 1:46 am

    “Who” is also a relative term. When I say “who” in my comments here, I’m referring to who the person really is inside, their true self, with all the crud washed away. It’s also very common, and is probably being used by others on this thread, to mean the total concept of a person that you have, all the things you believe they have and are on the inside, compounded with all their previous and current actions. This latter meaning is, in fact, probably far more common usage than what I mean.

    In evaluating others, yes, you do have to use standards. You don’t actually use external standards, only those that you have accepted into your own personal set. And we can, in fact, effectively judge them, using the connotations of that term, using our own standards, regardless of how alien or similar they are. On the other hand, our evaluations of them may be worthless. When you evaluate someone, the purpose (generally) is to form a picture of what you can expect from them in the future, given any specific type of circumstances. The usefulness of your evaluation is directly related to how alien the other person, or being, is. Judgements, however, are an evaluation of that person’s past actions based on your standards. That means that they apply, without any relevance to how alien the person being judged is.

    By the way, if you are interested in having an actual conversation with me, I am on Yahoo Messenger quite a bit (don’t get offended if I don’t respond quickly, however, as I leave it connected even when I’m not around). If you’re interested, Mark/Jenny/Erin, I know that you have my email, so email me and ask my ID and I’ll tell you.

13. Jenny Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 6:40 am

    ~Liara~
    I don’t agree with your statement that one’s sense of “the facts” is grounded in their own perceptions. Certain things are facts - what I ate today, my height, the vehicle I drive, how I voted last year and so forth. While some of these facts could change it would be highly unlikely they would change overnight. I can sell my vehicle and start driving a new one but that again wouldn’t be my perception that would be an actual change in vehicle. Although to be fair my perceptions, state of mind and what and who I believe would certainly play a large role in how I feel and who I think I am in relation to driving said change of vehicle.

    I’m uncomfortable with the statement “Clarity is grounded in one’s state of mind.” as my state of mind changes both frequently and often quite randomly. Wouldn’t clarity be better maintained if it was grounded in something other than a state of mind which fluctuates rapidly throughout the day/wk and month? I’m wondering if I am misunderstanding what you mean by clarity or even one’s state of mind?

    PS. How are your travels?

14. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm

    Clarity, defined as the ability to think about something without the mental “clouding” of distracting, competing thoughts and images, HAS to be grounded in one’s state of mind. Think about it… what’s the relative clarity of your thoughts when you’re incredibly angry, extremely excited, or at peace?

    Though extreme emotions can cause you to have razor sharp clarity on a single subject, it does so at the expense of clarity on virtually all other subjects. When you are at peace, on the other hand, you can choose to focus on a single subject, but it is easy to either release that focus or change it’s target. With white-hot anger, on the other hand, it’s quite difficult to release or change your focus (and if you can, chances are you’re no longer white-hot angry).

    If it makes you uncomfortable for the reason you stated, then perhaps you could work on reducing the frequency of changes of state of mind that you experience. And believe me, I’m not trying to say that in any sort of negative manner… I have recently stabilized my own mental state an enormous amount. I was changing, not quite moment to moment, but at least hour to hour, and now my mental state remains at peace nearly all the time. I probably slip and lose my peace once or twice a day, and only for a few minutes, mostly.

15. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm

    Just because I’m tired of writing ridiculously long comments on this thread, I just thought I’d say “Hi” and thank you for being a regular visitor (and commenter) on my site, as I am on yours.

16. Jenny Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 1:59 pm

    So much to think about…

    Jason:

    …holding grudges (or whatever term you want to use) only hurts me and uses up my energy, it doesn’t do squat to the target of that grudge. That doesn’t mean I forget what they did, just that I forgive it.

    and
    

    As regards the forgiveness thing, I accept your statement, that not forgiving someone can provide the strength for some people to transcend their circumstances, but I do not think it is a good or healthy way to do so…but I don’t think it’s healthy to intentionally hold on to grudges as motivation.

    I think there is a lot of mental territory between maintaining and nursing a grudge and forgiveness. I believe both extremes have the potential to be unhealthy but agree long-term it is much healthier to forgive than to maintain a grudge. When a person has been harmed it is okay to take time to heal before worrying about the person who has harmed you, or forgiving them or even thinking about them.

    Also, I wonder if there aren’t some things that don’t deserve or even should be forgiven. I’m not suggesting that an active anger is maintained (as I completely agree that this is unhealthy to the person holding onto it) but “forgiveness without forgetting” implies something I’m not sure I agree with. As I struggled with this I looked up forgiveness in the dictionary and found “the act of excusing a mistake or offense” as one of the definitions. There’s a whole lot of things I don’t think are excusable. On the other hand, most of the things I can think of are forgiveable.

    ”Who” is also a relative term. Who I say “who” in my comments here, I’m referring to who the person really is inside, their true self, with all the crud washed away.

    As in a soul? I wonder - if people don’t know themselves can they ever get a handle on “who” someone else is?

    In evaluating others, yes, you do have to use standards. You don’t actually use external standards, only those that you have accepted into your own personal set.

    Again, I have a slight disagreement here. I think as one becomes more sophisticated in understanding the motivations, desires, mental maps, etc. of both themselves and others it is possible to step outside themselves in their evaluations and use at least some external standards in the evaluation process.

    The usefulness of your evaluation is directly related to how alien the other person, or being, is. Judgments, however, are an evaluation of that person’s past actions based on your standards. That means that they apply, without any relevance to how alien the person being judged is.

    Hmmm, I wonder if another way to consider this would be to say the usefulness of my evaluation would also be strongly linked to the strength and depth of my self-awareness? The deeper my understanding of anything including myself the more material I have available to understand the subject. Thoughts?

    Mark:

    Given enough facts people would be capable of making educated guesses about another person, and they may even be right…Those few moments are not enough to tell you a lot, but I’d bet you could figure out a thing or two, and be right (sound familiar )

    I imagine if someone spent enough time looking at a wide variety of facts about people they’d be able to start making fairly sophisticated guesses. Companies already successfully do this all the time. As do criminal profilers or city planners and so forth. (Yes, very familiar )

    As for who vs. what, I believe that what someone does is just as important as why they do it, and both what and why play a part in shaping “who”. And we judge others on a combination of what we perceive of all those components, and what we accept as social norms (which may or may not be true social norms).

    Yes. Very nice distinctions.

    Heh, I hope I haven’t caused you frustration in not articulating mine very well.

    Nope, none. I’m not sure that I’d agree that you haven’t articulated your standards well. Perhaps not in great detail but in past conversation as well as later in your comment you do articulate standards.

    And if that isn’t the case, then any stated values are likely to be different from their true values. I.e., most people don’t know themselves very well, so asking them to accurately describe a core part of themselves which they haven’t thought about much…Well, you won’t get an accurate answer. This is where what someone does is more important than what they say.

    The more I’ve considered my own position the more I think I was missing the mark on defining exactly what it is that frustrates me. I imagine at the root it is rather a frustration with people who lack self-awareness or the desire to possess self-awareness than with people who haven’t or don’t articulate their values. You can’t have one without the other and self-awareness seems far more important than even values. I don’t know if this is exactly it yet either but it is much closer…

    As far as your last sentence well, I imagine this is true for oneself also. If I was seeking to better understand myself wouldn’t an unflinching look at my actions alone (as there are always a zillion reasons for anything but lots of time my reasons aren’t that great they’re just well-worded excuses) give me a lot to think over?

    At each level I think there are sets of standards which are either held by all, or at least accepted as the norm, and anyone believing otherwise will be held accountable…So I don’t think there are necessarily universal standards, but there are binding contextual standards…

    I like the distinction made when adding binding contextual standards to the discussion. I need to think this through a bit more.

    PS. Jason, no intention at this point of collecting and organizing into an ebook just liking the exchange of ideas but if you decide to do so send some traffic my (and Erin’s) as well as Mark’s way…;) Yes?

    Mark, what are you talking about? You’re not an outsider… Sitting around having a long conversation would be great fun. Come and visit how-a-bout?

    Jason & Mark, I don’t know how to use Yahoo Messenger but if any cool discussions start happening don’t leave me out, okay? Just explain in great detail and very slowly what I need to do and I’ll figure it out.

17. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 2:29 pm

    I think part of our “disagreement” is a different definition of forgive. When I say I forgive someone, or more precisely, some action of someone, what I mean is that I no longer devote any mental energy to that action or my memory of that action. I do not forget it… it remains one data point in my mental map of who that person is. It plays a mostly unconscious part in my prediction of their response to any future interactions. But I no longer worry about it, dwell on it, or any other similar type of thing.

    I also have a “weighting” system in my mental maps of who someone is. Different actions have different weight, with the biggest factors in determining that weight being how recent the action was, whether the action was deliberate (ie did they intend to do something bad to me), and whether I think they have changed (ie would they do it again). The drop-off on the first factor tends to be steep, as I try to keep my mental map of someone relevant to who they are, not who they were. The second factor is really a multiplier of the first, so it drops in weight right alongside it. The third, obviously, is persistent… if I think they would do it again currently, then that’s a heavy factor in my dealings with them.

    Keep in mind that the weighting system referred to above is *mostly* subconscious, and incredibly rapid. I don’t, generally, consciously consider these points, though that does happen on occasion. I just subconsciously match everything they say or do against this map.

    So in terms of the definition you mentioned, I don’t excuse the act. I simply drop the relevance of it as it recedes into the past, knowing that people change over time. I also don’t waste my mental energy and focus worrying about that act… this happens even faster than the shift in the weighting of the act.

    Okay, I’m going to break this into more than one reply comment, so they aren’t too long individually.

18. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    “Who” a person is… yes, what I mean by who a person is can be related to their soul, with one exception. Souls are generally considered an enduring, stable part of our selves, sometimes even considered immutable (unchanging). Who you are on the other hand, while deep to a similar level as the soul, is completely determined by your own choices.

    Who you are is directly opposite of immutable. It changes every day, every hour, maybe even every second, as you have more experiences. Every experience you have, no matter how small or quick or irrelevant it may seem goes into determining who you are. A lot of this is subconscious, as things get added into your mental map of reality. Your consciousness, however, if you are aware, has the ability to override and make changes to your mental map. It can change who you are instantly, if you make a decision (which, in order to avoid merely being a preference, requires a commitment).

    This also plays into forgiveness, because you are forgiving an act committed by a person. That person, the EXACT one who committed the act, no longer exists. The constant change of who we are prevents that possibility. On the other hand, it is rare for such a change to be drastic and overnight, so keeping in mind previous actions is relevant.

    As far as really knowing who someone else is, I really don’t believe it’s possible. The closest you can really come is knowing quite a bit about who they were recently, since they are changing even as you are getting to know who they were. That is a major part of why relationships fade over time without ongoing commitment… your relationship is with a person who no longer exists, so without commitment to continue learning who your partner is becoming, it becomes faded and irrelevant. That is why the relationship must be continually renewed… you must commit to who your partner is becoming/has become, not just who they were.

    Okay, enough for that one, on to the next.

19. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm

    You can’t evaluate someone by external standards, no matter how self-aware you are, because by using those standards, you have brought them into yourself, making them your own, even if it’s only temporarily.

    As far as your self-awareness and self-knowledge increasing your ability to evaluate others, this is definitely the case. There are two main reasons for this… one is that as you become more aware, you realize motives and linkages within yourself you didn’t know existed previously, which allows you to see similar things in others. The second reason is that becoming more aware makes you more cognizant of your own filters, thus making it more likely that you can see around or past them.

    Making predictions about someone is far different, by the way, than knowing who they are. Models used for prediction are based on current knowledge about a person, some of which is available to external sources (read: other people) as facts. However, by knowing a thousand facts about you, I can only predict how you will act based on my knowledge of how other people “like” you have acted in the past. It won’t really allow me to know you. That means that any predictions are inherently limited, not to mention that predicting someone’s acts is very different than knowing the person, regardless.

    A machine may be able to predict my actions relatively well. A machine is not, however, capable of knowing who I am. It can only make mechanical connections between my past actions and what other people who have had similar past actions have done. You can refer to this as “knowing” you if you’d like, as it actually IS technically similar to what we do, but it’s not the same to me.

    That’s it for this one, one more to go (for now).

20. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm

    This comment is going to be far lighter material than the previous three (from me). Your comment about being frustrated with people’s lack of self-awareness brought to mind a series of books I read a long while back. It was a sci-fi story, where there was an enormous computer, built by aliens (in this case, sentient planets… I’m not going into that much detail here, though). This machine was capable of predicting the future with incredible accuracy. There were a few people with access to the machine, and they had plotted out some incredibly long sequences of events to get to a final outcome of a unified human existence (ie all humans on all planets together in one unified system of government). What makes that series relevant here is that what threw a monkey-wrench in the works is that someone became aware.

    That implies, of course, that the majority of people are not. And, in fact, it does seem to be the case that the majority of people are not terribly self-aware, and have never even really thought about what that means. That can be a frustrating thing, especially if you’re recently self-aware yourself, as you want others to have that same awareness, and you want to communicate concepts which require that awareness.

    An unflinching look at your actions can be useful, yes, especially since they can reveal over time some underlying motives and filters of which you are not consciously aware. That, of course, is always good when trying to learn more about yourself. On the other hand, an unflinching look at your actions, along with your motives behind those actions, is generally even more useful. Actions certainly carry information, including some about who we are, but are only part of the story, so only part of the story can be learned from them.

    And finally, if you use Windows, just go to http://messenger.yahoo.com, and download the client. It’s pretty self-explanatory how to set it up from there, but if you need additional help once that part is done, just send me an email. Or if you get it installed and get a user name, send me that in an email, and I’ll add you to my friends list

21. Jason Says:
    August 17th, 2007 at 3:10 pm

    PS - Thanks for the interesting conversation, hope it continues

22. Erin Says:
    August 18th, 2007 at 3:37 pm

    Wow, you all have A LOT to say! If you only knew how happy this makes Jenny!

23. Jenny Says:
    August 18th, 2007 at 7:56 pm

    Clarity

    I just was working from a different definition of clarity. When I think/speak of clarity I am not referring to what is happening in one’s thoughts or state of mind from moment to moment even if they are at relative peace throughout much of the day. Rather I experience or define clarity on a subject or situation as a conclusion that I’ve come to over time or perhaps through a flash of insight. Although it can/is refined or changed on a regular basis it is a stable concept regardless of fluctuations of state of mind. The examples of how extreme emotions interfere with the ability to focus or think clearly is exactly why I don’t feel one’s state of mind is the source of clarity.

    No offense taken at your suggestion regarding reducing the extremes of mental states as it is certainly worth considering. Good work on maintaining a peaceful state of mind all day.

    Thanks
    Thank you for the thank you. Being a regular visitor on your site is my pleasure. Likewise, thanks for all your comments and discussion and general attempts to keep me on my toes here.

    Forgiveness
    Yep, we’re just working with different definitions again. See a theme developing?

    I would completely agree with your definition and outlined process of forgiveness I’d just call it detachment instead.

    I think detachment is much harder under more extreme circumstances however and those sort of extreme circumstances seem to be where the word and concept gets bantered around rather easily as a prescription (particularly by people of faith or of certain new age beliefs). It is under these extremes where forgiveness is necessary or freeing in addition to detachment (or perhaps as a precursor to it) that I think it can be healthy to focus one’s energies inward instead of actively focusing on either trying to force detachment or forgiveness.

    Who a person is
    I’m really having trouble with this concept so need to give it some more thought before I say any more.

    PS. I think I’ve forgotten to address a couple things but out of time. Will read this through again later and patch up any missing spots.

    I also am enjoying the conversation.

24. Jason Says:
    August 20th, 2007 at 12:12 pm

    I don’t see a real difference, in the long run, between what I said and what I see as the generally accepted definition of “forgiveness”. I think some people use forgiveness when they really mean justify, but that’s another discussion. If I no longer hold their actions against them, and harbor no negative emotions toward them or the action, and even more so let it fade quickly from my perception of who they are, have I not forgiven them?

    I try to always evaluate others based on who they ARE not who they were or what they have done in the past. I find this works out well for me, and that I can get along with people that others avoid because of their past. I believe this is good for both me and the others around me. It can be very helpful, and stress-relieving, to find someone who accepts you for who you are, without judging you by who you’re around, what you many have done in the past, etc.

    I have it easy, because this comes naturally. I know that for the majority of people, that isn’t the case, and that it takes a lot of work to get to that point. That’s unfortunate, because life is much easier for both you and those around you when you do forgive those around you and cease to hold grudges.

    ————————-

    As for clarity… I don’t quite understand your definition. Clarity is a conclusion that you have already come to understand? That isn’t quite registering in my head. I’ve always seen clarity as something to do with being able to see from here to there clearly, not just being able to perceive the destination once you’ve already arrived. Oh well, maybe it will make sense to me later.

25. Jason Says:
    August 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

    So I’ve re-written some of what I put in one of my replies on here, clarified it, and made it into an article… somebody tell me what you think:

    4 Steps To Truly Forgiving

26. Mark Says:
    August 21st, 2007 at 5:43 am

    “Jenny: The deeper my understanding of anything including myself the more material I have available to understand the subject. Thoughts?”

    Agreed. And as valuable as the understanding is the importance placed upon each piece of information. For example it doesn’t matter if someone knows everything there is to know about relationships, they’d still have a difficult time with relationships if they thought the most relevant piece of information was that relationships sometimes end poorly.

    “Jenny: I imagine if someone spent enough time looking at a wide variety of facts about people they’d be able to start making fairly sophisticated guesses. Companies already successfully do this all the time. As do criminal profilers or city planners and so forth. (Yes, very familiar )”

    Interestingly those who receive constant, objective feedback on their evaluations are apparently more likely to be aware of their fallibility. And the rest of us invariably make mistakes without being aware of it. (from here: http://www.williamjames.com/Science/ERR.htm)

    “Jenny: As far as your last sentence well, I imagine this is true for oneself also. If I was seeking to better understand myself wouldn’t an unflinching look at my actions alone (as there are always a zillion reasons for anything but lots of time my reasons aren’t that great they’re just well-worded excuses) give me a lot to think over?”

    Agreed.

    “Jenny: Mark, what are you talking about? You’re not an outsider… Sitting around having a long conversation would be great fun. Come and visit how-a-bout?”

    Hehe no, I meant as someone not yet directly involved in this particular discussion

    No Yahoo Messenger here either. I already use MSN and Skype. I might just switch over to Trillian if it’s been improved since I last used it. That way I won’t have 100 IM apps cluttering up my system tray…

    “Jason: Keep in mind that the weighting system referred to above is *mostly* subconscious, and incredibly rapid. I don’t, generally, consciously consider these points, though that does happen on occasion. I just subconsciously match everything they say or do against this map.”

    Same here, and I suspect everyone applies a similar system. For me how recent an action was is evaluated against whether I think they have changed. If someone did something a long time ago and they seem to be the same person, it doesn’t really matter how long ago that action was, I’ll still treat them as if they’d do it again until they show otherwise. So there isn’t necessarily a steep drop-off.

    “Jason: So in terms of the definition you mentioned, I don’t excuse the act. I simply drop the relevance of it as it recedes into the past, knowing that people change over time. I also don’t waste my mental energy and focus worrying about that act… this happens even faster than the shift in the weighting of the act.”

    I suspect I find past actions which are reflected by current behaviour to still be highly relevant because I know how ingrained habits can be. Thus while people do change many of their behaviours don’t, at least not significantly, or quickly.

    “Jason: Your consciousness, however, if you are aware, has the ability to override and make changes to your mental map. It can change who you are instantly, if you make a decision (which, in order to avoid merely being a preference, requires a commitment).”

    Again I’d mention our habitual nature. Do you think our differences from moment to moment, and our ability to consciously direct our choices, has much of an impact on the malleability of our self when you consider that most of our actions (thoughts etc.) are habitual?

    “Jason: You can’t evaluate someone by external standards, no matter how self-aware you are, because by using those standards, you have brought them into yourself, making them your own, even if it’s only temporarily.”

    Isn’t there a distinction between adopting a new standard, and attempting to evaluate someone using a new standard? In the former case you would evaluate everyone by that new standard from then on, but in the latter case you would revert to your old standard after that one evaluation.

    “Jason: What makes that series relevant here is that what threw a monkey-wrench in the works is that someone became aware.”

    Interesting. Does this mean that the vision of unified humanity was achieved while humans were *not* aware? How does that work?!

    “Jason: I try to always evaluate others based on who they ARE not who they were or what they have done in the past. I find this works out well for me, and that I can get along with people that others avoid because of their past. I believe this is good for both me and the others around me. It can be very helpful, and stress-relieving, to find someone who accepts you for who you are, without judging you by who you’re around, what you many have done in the past, etc.”

    How do you see others’ past actions, which at the time were an accurate reflection of who they were (at least according to your knowledge of them), with an up-to-date knowledge which is very similar to your prior knowledge, making them seem just as likely to do the same thing again?

27. Jenny Says:
    August 21st, 2007 at 8:54 pm

    Jason Says:

    August 20th, 2007 at 3:26 pm e

    “So I’ve re-written some of what I put in one of my replies on here, clarified it, and made it into an article… somebody tell me what you think:

    4 Steps To Truly Forgiving”

    Okay, I’ve directed my further comments regarding forgiveness to this post on Jason’s site.

28. Jenny Says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Jason, you said:
    “I’ve always seen clarity as something to do with being able to see from here to there clearly, not just being able to perceive the destination once you’ve already arrived.”

    I think you’ve misunderstood what I am saying. Although I don’t feel clarity is found in one’s moment-to-moment thoughts or state of mind neither do I see it as something I can only understand after the fact.

    Instead clarity is a concept that remains relatively stable regardless of any moment-to-moment fluctuations in mood or state of mind. Clarity is cultivated on an ongoing basis updated and adjusted as I gather relevant information.

29. Jason Says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 11:46 am

    First, before I get into any deep response, if you want an all-in-one client, and don’t like Trillian, try GAIM… actually I think they renamed it to Pidgin, but I haven’t updated… mine still says GAIM.

    So, now on to the meat… though I’ve answered some of this on my blog: I let things drop off because I know that people change, and I prefer to give someone the benefit of the doubt, though it’s always tempered by the knowledge of their past actions. I do believe that a lot of actions are habitual, but that you are not your habits.

    That’s also my response to your question on the impact of our malleability… I have, personally, completely altered an aspect of myself in one instant decision, and had it be permanent, so I know it’s possible. I don’t think that everyone is aware enough of themselves to do it regularly, but I do believe that everyone is capable of doing it. If you want an example, look at someone who truly converts to Christianity, who believes with all their heart. It can change MANY aspects of their life completely, in an instant. And yes, some people fall back, but some people do not… and some of those who do not go back to their old ways are not particularly more self-aware than average.

    So yes, I’m aware of habits, and how hard they can be to change. I’m also aware of the power of the conscious mind. I believe that power is more than enough to override habits, and even long-standing beliefs, and that this fact is reason to give people a chance, even without specific evidence of change… provided that enough time has gone by since the last specific evidence that they had not changed.

    As far as external vs internal standards… you can sort of judge someone based on standards which are not your own, but your judgment has a much greater chance of being invalid, because you’re not really using that standard, you’re using what you think that standard might be. If it’s not your own, then your understanding of the standard is likely to be faulty, unless the standard is very cut and dried, very black and white (ie killing someone is always wrong, regardless of circumstances… you can obviously use this standard without adopting it as your own). But even then, your USE of it is artificial, and if you’re doing it to communicate with someone else (and I can’t think of many other good reasons to use a standard which is not your own) they are likely to be able to tell, and you’ll come off sounding phony.

    By the way, I really liked:
    “And as valuable as the understanding is the importance placed upon each piece of information. For example it doesn’t matter if someone knows everything there is to know about relationships, they’d still have a difficult time with relationships if they thought the most relevant piece of information was that relationships sometimes end poorly.”

    If you don’t mind, I may paraphrase that at some point in one of my articles.

30. Jason Says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 11:51 am

    Jenny:
    I don’t think I understand what you mean by clarity still. How can clarity be stable? How can clarity be “updated”?

    I just don’t perceive clarity to be an object… to me clarity IS a state. Clarity is turning “clear”, an adjective, into a noun. That doesn’t make sense to me except as referring to “a state of being clear”.

    And no, that isn’t a definition from a dictionary, that’s just my thinking. Can you explain to me more how you think of clarity as something that can be updated?

    Or are you referring more to something like understanding or awareness?

31. Mark Says:
    August 22nd, 2007 at 8:10 pm

    Malleability of beliefs
    I agree that a belief can be changed instantly, given enough force driving the change. But is it likely? I’d argue not. Not for a conscious choice, at least. Not for most people. Talking purely statistical likelihood, most people can’t permanently change anything instantly, in a psychological sense.

    I’ve never experienced any significant, immediate change as a result of a conscious decision to change. I’ve also heard people talk about making instant changes, yet when questioned they showed that what they believed had changed was still influencing them in ways that showed the change wasn’t complete.

    That said, I’ll accept that it is possible. I’ve experienced changes caused by highly emotional events which were unexpected. And if you firmly believe that you’ve made such a change consciously, I believe you (though I’m curious about what it was).

    Judgments based on borrowed standards
    An example of this could be putting yourself in someone else’s shoes when considering an argument. Or playing Devil’s advocate. You’re not adopting a new standard, but if you’re serious, you’re wholeheartedly trying to consider an alternate point of view, and how that alternate view would cause you to behave. I believe this is possible if you have enough understanding and empathy.

    No problem on paraphrasing my words. Glad you liked it. Go nuts

32. Jason Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 10:24 am

    I understand what you’re saying, Mark, about the borrowed standards, and I agreed above, but my point is that you’re not ACTUALLY using the standards you claim to be using, unless they’re black and white. You’re using what you think those standards are like based on seeing them from the outside… which is not the same thing.

    As far as the instant change, one of my personal experiences with it is depression. I used to suffer very badly from it. I got medicine (I only took it for a month), and it helped, and I got over my depression for a while, but then it came back. This time, I knew medicine would help, so I went to the doctor, got the same medicine (again for a month), but this time I made a decision… I’m not going down that path again.

    I don’t know if you’ve ever dealt with depression, but it’s generally very persistent. Everyone else I know who has suffered from it continues to do so, at least from time to time. Since I made that decision, I haven’t been depressed for more than a few minutes, maybe an hour at the very most. Prior to the decision, I suffered for months and years at a time.

    Just for reference, that decision was about 8 years ago now. And, incidentally, the same changes that made depression not come back dealt with a lot of other mental crud at the same time.

    Heh, any votes for me writing an article on how I overcame depression?

33. Jason Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm

    Just as an FYI… this post has sent more page views my way than any other “regular” web site… ie excluding stevepavlina.com, problogger.com, search engines, and social bookmarking.

    Admittedly, it’s still not that high, but thank you anyway!

34. Erin Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm

    Wow Jason, that is very impressive. I too know several people you intermittently struggle with bouts of depression. I think a post on the topic would be very interesting.

    Mark, I agree that in the majority of situations it is incredibly difficult to change just based on a conscious decision, from grand schemes to little habits. Yesterday I had a particular habit that I wanted to break, or try to break just for one day. I made the conscious decision, believed it and went about my day sure I was going to change. I was astounded to find myself in the middle of doing the very habit I set out to break not once or twice, but fifteen times. I don’t think it’s a matter of simply deciding, because that I did, it’s something deeper. I think it’s repitition, and working more with the unconscious mind than the conscious one.

35. Jason Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm

    I agree with you… most change is slow(er). And repetition does set things down into you subconscious, which of course is what runs any operation that the conscious mind is not currently paying attention to.

    My point wasn’t that it’s easy, or that anybody can do it whenever they want, just that it is possible, and people do change, so it’s worth giving them the chance without waiting for concrete evidence (that they have changed).

36. Mark Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 7:57 pm

    True, your perception of other’s standards. Hopefully one’s perception is accurate enough for the distinction to be irrelevant

    Good work on overcoming your depression! Very good

    I’ve suffered from depression in the past, but thankfully not enough to need medication. And I’ve only seen a psychologist once. And even then dealing with it took ages. I guess we just see change in different ways. To me the fact that it took a while before depression stopped after the decision was made made me believe my change wasn’t instant, nor complete. I haven’t been truly depressed for years, though sometimes still lonely (my diary says not even that at all this year. woo!). However getting to this point took a hell of a lot of self-reflection and learning to accept myself, even though as I said, my depression was probably fairly mild in comparison.

    I was recently reading about cognitive dissonance. Apparently the more dissonance one experiences, the easier it is to make the change required to dissolve the dissonance. In other words, if two beliefs conflict, the greater the conflict, the easier it is to change one or both beliefs to stop feeling distraught. Perhaps that’s why it was harder for me to believe what I needed to in order to end my depression; i.e., the war between my sense of high self-worth and the opposing sense of low self-worth was more like a final border scuffle just before a treaty is signed, than a war.

    btw, see this post of mine for some more of my musings on this topic, in relation to beliefs.

    And sure, write that article

    Erin, yeah, I’ve been through that too. I’m pretty sure that’s been the way of all changes of mine that are linked to habits, including habitual thoughts (which includes depression).

37. Erin Says:
    August 23rd, 2007 at 8:52 pm

    Jenny and Jason, in regards to your conversation on clarity, it seems you are talking about two different things, as Jenny touched lightly on.

    To simplify - if clarity is a synonym of clear, it appears Jason is talking about clarity in terms of “My thinking is clear. This is clarity as an act or action. On the other hand, Jenny is talking about clarity in terms of “The decision is clear, or as a final point or a decision. This subtlety in definitions seems to me where the hang-up is. But, of course, correct me if I’m wrong.

38. Jason Says:
    August 24th, 2007 at 10:09 am

    Mark:
    I wonder if more than directly being the level of conflict, it’s the strength of the feelings/beliefs (meaning the conflict is likely to be stronger), and even more so, that the conflict brings both of them far more into your consciousness than normal.

    Erin:
    Clarity is not a verb to me, it’s an adverb. It is, as you said, thinking something like “My thinking is clear”, but clear is describing thinking, hence adverb. And I understand what you’re saying about Jenny, but I simply don’t think of that as clarity… clarity to me is how well I see things without distortion in order to add them to my patterns in the proper places… not how well I understand something I did or chose in the past. I can see other people using it that way, but it just doesn’t work that way for me.

39. Mark Says:
    August 26th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    Jason: That sounds right. The text I have says there’s a lot of evidence for justification resulting in changed attitudes. In one experiment people who received $1 as a payment said they enjoyed the task they were paid for more than those who received $20 (those who were paid $20 enjoyed it about as much as control group who weren’t paid).

    In another experiment people in a high-effort weight loss program, where the effort was directed to irrelevant tasks (e.g., tongue twisters) lost more weight than those in a low-effort program. So even though the tasks had no direct impact on their weight, they did have an impact through the change in attitude the amount of effort induced.

    In both cases it could be that people justified the effort involved, and by doing so invoked their full attention, thereby making it easier to see their options and make a choice. And self-justification is something people seem to devote a lot of energy to, even if it doesn’t seem that way at the time.

40. Jason Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

    Also, if you get too much reward for the effort you put in, you don’t feel like you “earned” it, and earning your reward is a HUGE motivation, far more than simply being given it. That’s why commissions cause people to work much harder than salary, even if the end result is the same amount of money.

41. Jenny Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Judgments based on borrowed standards
    “Mark: An example of this could be putting yourself in someone else’s shoes when considering an argument. Or playing Devil’s advocate. You’re not adopting a new standard, but if you’re serious, you’re wholeheartedly trying to consider an alternate point of view, and how that alternate view would cause you to behave.”

    “Jason: I understand what you’re saying, Mark, about the borrowed standards, and I agreed above, but my point is that you’re not ACTUALLY using the standards you claim to be using, unless they’re black and white. You’re using what you think those standards are like based on seeing them from the outside…”

    “Mark: True, your perception of other’s standards. Hopefully one’s perception is accurate enough for the distinction to be irrelevant.”

    I was just thinking about what you two are saying and wondered then how you’d consider someone like an undercover officer or a spy… I imagine it would be a delicate balancing act maintaining their own point of view but needing to understand and oftentimes act according to an alternative point of view which if they actually end up embracing leads to consequences just as dire as being seen as “acting” their alternative point of view.

42. Jenny Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 5:20 pm

    Erin and Jason,
    Oh, I am being misunderstood! I don’t see clarity as being something stuck in the past. I see clarity as fluid but grounded in a concept that is informed by more than what happens in my moment-to-moment state of mind. Now maybe, just maybe I’m talking about something other than clarity but to me this is clarity unless you can find a better name at which point I might be willing to reconsider

43. Jason Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 5:28 pm

    It used to be that I would have easily assumed that role. I had no particular attachment to anything, and acting is very easy to me. I even have several positive attributes for a spy… I pick up new languages easily, my ability to rapidly analyze someone is extremely good, and I can really easily see how to manipulate people.

    Now, on the other hand, there’s no way that I would ever do that. I refuse to be untrue to myself in that way. If I can pick up information from observation, or if my ability to analyze people was of use, I would certainly consider helping out with that type of thing, but not the undercover type of thing.

    When I didn’t know who I was, it was easy to be anyone, and have it not bother me. Now that I am understanding more and more of who I am, and making more and more of it a conscious choice, I am coming to understand the strength that comes from being who I am all the way through.

    All that being said, I didn’t really answer your question. I think that such people, in this fallen world, are necessary, much in the same way as soldiers. I think it is a shame that it is necessary, and I feel that people who take either route are voluntarily sacrificing some of their own potential for growth in order to serve their country in a role that it needs.

    And I suppose some people can actually BE true to themselves in that sort of role, if that’s part of who they are. It’s just not part of who I am, at least any more, and not, to the best of my knowledge, part of the makeup of most people.

44. Jason Says:
    August 27th, 2007 at 5:30 pm

    Jenny… from what I understand of what you’re saying, the concept you think of as clarity is what I categorize as “understanding”. Understanding to me is the degree of knowledge (and your ability to apply it) relating to whatever thing is occupying your attention.

    That’s not the best way to phrase it, but hopefully communicated my meaning.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail