Dislike of intensity
I’ve been thinking again – as I do – over the last few days, about another phenomenon amongst the humans. I will reference this back to myself because I draw on my experience of how people interact with me.
But what is this ‘intensity’ to which I refer? I always like to delineate what I’m talking about. By intensity I mean:
- Wanting to know.
- Needing to know more than superficial detail.
- Checking stories for consistency.
- Not taking ‘things’ as ‘meant’ or obvious to most people.
- Avoiding assumptions even if something appears ‘obvious’.
- Not backing off when a story appears inconsistent.
- Intolerance of waffling.
The above is not complete but it would suffice to give an overall picture.
Well, the above does sum me up. From my experience of interacting with others, they – in the vast majority – don’t like my style – and therefore don’t like me. So – should I become less intense to be more liked? How’s about you stand on your head to get more blood into it.
So what is it about any of this. My overview is that (in the vast majority):
- People dislike detail.
- For them life’s too short to consider the fine grain behind things.
- Some superficial summary suffices because the rest of them are happy to hang on to crap.
- Those who dig for detail are quickly labelled with a psychiatric disorder of some sort.
- People see those who don’t accept superficialities as thorns in the side.
- They don’t like being disrobed potentially by detail.
- If people don’t like you for any of the above, then your life is harder.
However, if you happen to need intricate brain surgery (your deity forbid):
- You want a brain surgeon who pays attention to detail.
- Doesn’t accept superficial nonsense, as part of medical decision-making.
So I’m coming to a view that, ‘if it’s brain surgery – fine’ but if it’s being intense about people and the rubbish they spout… well.. ooo well… nooooh.. nooo.. that’s all bad. Let’s avoid him.
And finally those who dislike you (i.e. me), will say it’s nothing do with your attention to detail, ‘It’s your manner’. So gibes and insults – in order to obfuscate the truth is another part of the picture. Strangely though, there’s no problem with my with my manner until people talk rubbish and I start to ask searching questions, or refer to contradictory evidence.
‘Manner’ – lets look at that. You mean if somebody is – on hard evidence – talking utter rubbish, that I shouldn’t say, ‘You’re talking rubbish!’. Nooooo.. I should encase that in marshmallow, and say sumik like, ‘Well – I don’t know about that’? Why?! Tough! Rubbish is rubbish – and you’ll be told so- and I’ve not ever been in a popularity contest.
What’s all this about, then? – somebody is bound to be thinking/asking. The point is this: is it about me or about them. I’m ‘one’ – they are ‘many’. Numbers rule – but facts and evidence also rule. In one sense if 20 people say you are ‘this’ then that holds a certain truth – you just can’t argue with the fact of their collective opinion. It’s just a fact. But then looking at the ‘grain’ – the foundation of such opinions, taking into consideration context, and evidence – how does such opinion weigh up?
The facts are like this: I’m cool so long as another person doesn’t utter total rubbish in the course of any exchange with me. Rubbish means a form or reasoning divorced from the rules of logic, or critical thinking (the two are not the same thing – who’s your friend? Google). So if 80% [it’s just a figure I don’t know the real percentage] of people dislike me for my manner, perhaps its because 80% of people are happy about spouting rubbish and not being told they’re talking rubbish. And no – I don’t think there is anything aggressive or ill-mannered in telling person, quite dispassiontely, “You’re talking rubbish.. and I can tell you why I think so.”
So that’s it – off you pop!