theories of human nature

[AlphaA]

May 17, 2015 17:17:11 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Calling someone a troll.

I already provided links to pages that discuss the intricate details of trollish behavior. But to summarise into a basic definition - a troll is someone who chooses to communicate in such a manner as to evoke adverse sensations in others...or in the common tongue, a troll is a sh1tstirrer who's agenda is to upset others in conversation, most commonly because they enjoy doing this.

How to determine if someone is a troll. Seems quite straight forward.
If you are often upset when you communicate with this person, according to the definition, they must be a troll.
It's basic logical reasoning... a troll upsets people, you are upset, therefore they are a troll.
Case closed. The equation accurately fits the situation.
You can now label that conclusion as 'truth\fact' and forever perceive that person as a troll.
Yay for truth ! Yay for being able to see it !
Yay for having clear insight to see the bleedin' obvious that this person is a troll !

However, there was one tiny element that was overlooked when examining the other elements within the experience.

The self was not examined.
The self was acknowledged, was noted\included in the original equation...
"If you are often upset when you communicate with this person, according to the definition, they must be a troll."

But what if the other is not trolling, does not have an agenda, no intention to upset you?
What possible reason then is there for you to be repeatedly upset by this person's statements?

The answer must be that you are choosing to be upset because you simply do not like what is being said.
In other words, the person is not being offensive, but it 's you that is offended.

You are upset due to how you interpret the other's words, what you make of them.
But you do not bother to self examine because you have a self perception, a self image that states you are right,
that there is nothing wrong\dysfunctional with how you perceive existence, how you respond to it.

So with that mindset, when you experience being upset when another speaks, on autopilot, you unconsciously activate the programs that declares the other is a troll, that this is the only explanation for you being upset. For there is no way there's a problem within yourself, a weakness or deficiency that results in you not being able to cope with thoughts you don't agree with or like, that results in you being emotionally disturbed.

Sure, there actually are people who are genuinely trolling.
But just because you are upset, does not unequivocally mean the other is troll.
It might be you simply can't handle some thoughts and you become emotionally disturbed by them.

But, as i have noticed within myself and other humans, the path of least resistance, the path that is most soothing to self, is to label the other as having the dysfunction, not oneself. it is more pleasurable and self assuring to think the other is a troll than acknowledge self does not have the capacity to experience certain thoughts.
-----------------------------------

It does not adversely affect me when someone perceives me a troll.
I just take that info as more evidence that mutually beneficial convos cannot be had with them.
They do not self examine because they already perceive themselves to be unblemished with imperfections\dysfunctions, and that the conclusions they formulate from their perceived "perfect"\advanced spiritual state of being are absolutely correct.

It's one of the main reasons why they get upset and the flight or fight mechanism is fired up and they communicate defense and offensively and label others as trolls, because what is being said to them, they judge it challenges their self perception or beliefs they are deeply attached to.

Thus instead of deeper examination of themself or their beliefs, they simply attack the other or their thoughts.

 

That's great, you have the wisdom to understand that the self is not always the one experiencing. Just to clear up on my thread, when I said, I am you. I mean, obviously I am not you in terms of your self image, but I was speaking on the construct of consciousness. Consciousness doesn't acknowledge duality. That's all. (referring to god like thread) 

[earnest]

May 17, 2015 17:55:24 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Fake Buddha quotes.

Possible reasons why a person would clam a quote is fake.

- The quote does not match the knowledge a person has of Buddha.
"I know Buddha is XYZ, he would not say A or B, that simply does not match what i know of him."

Apparently this person perceives they know the absolute truth about a person who lived centuries ago,
and had never written down his own teachings, and everything written about him is second hand knowledge,
yet they believe that all the current documents and teachings of Buddha are absolutely accurate.

- If someone is arguing, and the sole or main motive for arguing is to win, to be right and the other wrong. If the Buddha quote suggests they might be wrong in their reasoning, one way to nullify the effect of that quote is to devalue it by claiming Buddha is not the author. "That quote is of no importance because a non important person made it."
Devaluing by disassociation.

It's the same tactic that some use here when they seek to win an argument
by devaluing their perceived opponent by slandering their character.
"You are stupid, your sight is not clear, you have a mental disorder, you have typos in your posts."
Anything to lower the street cred of the individual.

I could indulge their insecurities and simply attribute, "author unknown" to all quotes i post.
But why would i bother doing that. Their insecurities are their responsibility, not mine.
Plus, they would simply find another way to devalue the quote.

I have seen within myself and others, that people will do incredibly irrational things just to win, to be right. I had, and some people still have difficulty in acknowledging they are wrong, make mistakes, and will employ many devises to avoid acknowledging such things.

These are the people who spend a great deal of time arguing when conversing with others.
 

Are you making a statement because you want to discuss it?

I'll assume yes, but ok if the answer is no.

Can you think of any other reasons why someone may point out that a quote is fake?

If you can, could you please list them.

[laughter]

May 17, 2015 18:08:51 GMT -5 earnest said:

May 17, 2015 17:55:24 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Fake Buddha quotes.

Possible reasons why a person would clam a quote is fake.

- The quote does not match the knowledge a person has of Buddha.
"I know Buddha is XYZ, he would not say A or B, that simply does not match what i know of him."

Apparently this person perceives they know the absolute truth about a person who lived centuries ago,
and had never written down his own teachings, and everything written about him is second hand knowledge,
yet they believe that all the current documents and teachings of Buddha are absolutely accurate.

- If someone is arguing, and the sole or main motive for arguing is to win, to be right and the other wrong. If the Buddha quote suggests they might be wrong in their reasoning, one way to nullify the effect of that quote is to devalue it by claiming Buddha is not the author. "That quote is of no importance because a non important person made it."
Devaluing by disassociation.

It's the same tactic that some use here when they seek to win an argument
by devaluing their perceived opponent by slandering their character.
"You are stupid, your sight is not clear, you have a mental disorder, you have typos in your posts."
Anything to lower the street cred of the individual.

I could indulge their insecurities and simply attribute, "author unknown" to all quotes i post.
But why would i bother doing that. Their insecurities are their responsibility, not mine.
Plus, they would simply find another way to devalue the quote.

I have seen within myself and others, that people will do incredibly irrational things just to win, to be right. I had, and some people still have difficulty in acknowledging they are wrong, make mistakes, and will employ many devises to avoid acknowledging such things.

These are the people who spend a great deal of time arguing when conversing with others.
 

Are you making a statement because you want to discuss it?

I'll assume yes, but ok if the answer is no.

Can you think of any other reasons why someone may point out that a quote is fake?

If you can, could you please list them.

The phenomenon of the misattribution of quotes is something that the internet has accelerated, and that's of course not really all that surprising.

While the only way it's possible to prove a negative -- that a quote wasn't made by Buddha or Einstein for example - is to exhaustively enumerate all possible material and demonstrate it's absence. It is, however, very possible to do the opposite and cite the source of any given quote. This is why in academia, there's a strict adherence to rules of attribution.

In informal conversational settings the effort demanded for proper citation is probably beyond reasonable social expectation, but if a quote is in controversy, the logical and sane response to a challenge is to provide the source of the quote. To respond with a challenge to prove the negative is an obvious resort to logical fallacy.

The phenomenon that can occur over time with false attribution is a devaluing of the authority of the source of the quote. Essentially, the source can be quoted in such self-contradictory terms as to render that source useless as a basis of authority. If Bhudda can be quoted for everything, he can be quoted for anything, and the name of Buddha starts to take on a meaningless absurdity. If you're someone who values the authority of Einstein or Lincoln or Christ or Jefferson or Tesla or Newton or Edison or Twain or Bhudda, and you're familiar with their works, then it's natural to point out when something has obviously been mis-attributed.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but noone is entitled to their own facts.

[earnest]

May 18, 2015 0:04:43 GMT -5 jay17 said:

May 17, 2015 18:08:51 GMT -5 earnest said:

Are you making a statement because you want to discuss it?
Can you think of any other reasons why someone may point out that a quote is fake?
If you can, could you please list them.

1. Yes, why else would i express my thoughts to others if not to discuss?
2. I could do a list like the one i did when offering alternative speculative reasons for Reefs' comment about me when tzu was adamant he knew Reefs' motives. But i have no desire to do this at this time.

Please share if you have any, as this thread is for people to offer their theories about human nature.

Well I did notice that you didn't see any positive possible reasons for why someone may point out a fake quote, you only gave negative ones.

And no positive possible for reasons for why Reefs' made his speculative comments.

Did you see any positive reasons why someone may point out that a quote is fake?

[earnest]

May 18, 2015 13:42:17 GMT -5 jay17 said:

May 18, 2015 6:20:15 GMT -5 earnest said:

Well I did notice that you didn't see any positive possible reasons for why someone may point out a fake quote, you only gave negative ones.

And no positive possible for reasons for why Reefs' made his speculative comments.

Did you see any positive reasons why someone may point out that a quote is fake?

1. Are they actually negative, do they have an innate negative quality unto themselves, or is it that you perceive them to be, you interpret them as such, you attach a label to them that they are negative, due to how you feel in response to them?

2. I judge i expressed negative, positive and neutral possible reasons for Reefs' comment.
Including that the whole post was positive, as i was defending reefs against tzu accusation.

3. Sure, an obvious one, 'the person is confident the quote is fake' and desire to alert the other about it.
And i simply chose not to speak of it, perhaps you would like to.

But did you notice your wording in your first statement, you did not say...
"Well I did notice that you didn't express any positive possible reasons"...
You said ..."Well I did notice that you didn't see any positive possible reasons..."

I interpret your statement to mean you think i do not have the capacity(permanent or temporary) to see any positives.
And you think your conclusion is correct enough that you would declare it to me.

This is but one tiny example of another aspect of human nature, 'Jumping to conclusions.'
And theoretically, this has nothing to do with, 'Oh my bad, i used the wrong word.'

From attentive focused contemplation of myself and other human beings throughout my life, i am confident that the words we express are correct expressions of what we actually think and feel.

That 'using the wrong word' is not the problem.
The actual problem is an incorrect conclusion, which is then reflected in the words we use to express that thought.
it goes a little something like this...(internal monologue)
"Hmm, i see all of what he has said and i clearly see he has not stated any positive reasons.
~JUMP~
"Is he blind, can he not see them, for i can see at least one...yep, he must be blind, he cannot see them."

Retold, this time focusing on the the underlying thinking processes that many(and i was one, for the first 25 years)
who have low self awareness, cannot see occurring in real time.

- i am focusing my attention on reading his statements.
- i understand what he is saying.
- those do seem like valid theories.
- i shall contemplate all he has said.
- ahh, look, all his theories are negative and i do not see any positive ones.
- i have already had experiences of positive ones, they exist, i can see them(recall) as i now scan years of memories.
- can he not see what i see, has he not had these types of experiences?
- surely he has had similar experiences as me, as i think these are quite common amongst us humanses.
- surely he can comprehend that there sometimes are real fake quotes in existence.
- why has he not mentioned any positive ones?
- it does not makes sense why he has not expressed any positive ones.
- the only conclusion i can come up with at this time is he simply can't see them.
- i shall mention this to him, that he cannot see properly.

...all of that, and that is but a tiny portion of the subconscious thinking that occurs before an action is engaged, all of that happens in far less than a blink of an eye because the brain and mind operates => than the speed of light.

There is no evidence i cannot see any positives.
There is abundant evidence i have not expressed any.

You have jumped to your conclusion i cannot see any.
You have jumped over steps of reasoning, deduction, examination.
You have jumped over information, dismissed internal questions, discounted theories\possibilites.

Just using a wrong word...i think not.
Incorrect words are manifestations of incorrect conclusions.
Incorrect conclusions are created by many things, one of them is jumping to them,
instead of attentive focused slow step by step movements.

*silent bow*
*walks away*

[ouroboros]

Re. Fake Buddha Quotes;

It's really much simpler than all that. The suttas of the Pali canon are commonly accepted as the most accurate historical record of what the Buddha actually taught. Therefore, 'show me the sutta from whence it originated' ...




edit.

It is, however, very possible to do the opposite and cite the source of any given quote. This is why in academia, there's a strict adherence to rules of attribution.

Just saw this, ok, yes same, same.

[Deleted]

Aug 2, 2016 23:46:36 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Recent research on narcissism

Could Trump sit still long enough to watch this movie Jay?

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2016 15:45:06 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Aug 2, 2016 23:59:04 GMT -5 @alfio said:

Could Trump sit still long enough to watch this movie Jay?

if you want to know somthing about a person, ask that person.
Trump is of age, ask him, not me.

So is Gopal.

You both are unable to answer.

[Deleted]

Aug 3, 2016 22:15:28 GMT -5 jay17 said:

Aug 3, 2016 20:10:49 GMT -5 @alfio said:

You both are unable to answer.

Jul 28, 2016 19:18:41 GMT -5 @alfio said:

Your are assume everyone is arguing?

Perhaps you assume i am unable to answer.

Assumption is quite common here in ST.org.
Thats why I enjoy real conversations with ppl.

[anja]

The human nature is to be good/true/beautiful and the demonic (not me) nature is to be right all the time no matter what. Sometimes humans have a good daimon also, fortunatly.

[anja]

Aug 23, 2016 23:08:12 GMT -5 jay17 said:

www.yourmorals.org

Just watched the vid. Good and well presented scientific information, IMNHO.

I just don't agree on parts of the evolution-theory and I totally don't agree that the Dalai Lama is a moral authority. In my eyes the Dalai Lama stands for a (conservative) theocratic-system, called tibetan buddhism, and parts of that sampradaya are repelling and even downright nasty as far as I'm informed.

"Over and out..."

[anja]

The Truth About the Dalai Lama :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ie7RB5rOV7Q


1/3. from SwissTV. The Dark Side of Dalai Lama. :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMvBXYRzAw


Is the Dalai Lama a Fraud? :

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlWrpR1tBXA