I live in New York, which has a basic culture of "hyper aggressiveness." It isn't "rudeness," as so many people like to think of New Yorkers. They can be aggressively kind and generous. They are just aggressive.
I'm also in the tech industry, which seems to have a very aggressive and competitive culture.
It doesn't stop me from being kind and courteous, but it gets grating.
My experience is that, when someone mistakes courtesy for weakness, they start trying to "game" me. I put up with it for a bit, until they push too far.
Then the till gets slammed on their fingers.
They get very, very upset. Far more upset than if I had just disabused them early on.
I'm learning to enforce my boundaries earlier. It doesn't make me as popular, but it also prevents those "psycho freakouts."
There seem to be a lot of people who live at a level of abstraction where they perceive every interaction as being about dominance and submission. In my humble opinion it is a very limited mindset.
I consider myself to be generous person, and also slow to anger. As a result, there are people who think they hit the jackpot and found a submissive pushover who is like a flimsy tree that will bend over at the slightest breath of wind.
Of course it's much more like being water; moving around obstacles, yet always forward and unstoppable.
What matters is showing people that there can be real kindness and strength in the world. Sometimes it plants a seed for others to also have the courage to be kind. I believe that's how to make the world a better place. It sure makes life worth living.
It was eye opening. There was this whole other dimension to the room, which I could barely see, but to her it was front and center.
I don’t aspire to be like that primarily or exclusively, but sometimes it’s helpful to notice and pay attention to.
Not for a kind person. For a kind person it takes courage to be rude. It takes courage to say no, because it's so easy to say yes, because it feels good and it feels right (and I guess is also better for your health?).
I would stop trying to change people or even thinking you can. Someone will pretend they changed all thanks to you, only to be themselves again later when they're done robbing you.
There's a pervasive pattern of the narcissist type surrounded by submissive people and leaving a trail of submissive victims. These people are immediately repelled if they sense you're a waste of their efforts. When you're submissive, they'll take from you and betray you later. When you're not, they don't even ask. They reveal themselves immediately. But they make their money and build their empires by collecting those who yield to them and remain loyal despite occasional revelations of their true character or lack thereof. Trump could easily be seen as such a phenomenon. But most people who are OK with their job will yield to keep it (backed by the psychopathic behavior of corporations and their lack of character, because they aren't people). And many will submit just to make money (even to evil). So there are no shortage of such people to take advantage of. And the more people thrive by doing so, the more we create. Some may even become president.
If you believe you're water, seek water. That is the best approach. Strengthen your water coalition. Stay healthy, strong, and happy. Once you're good, then fulfill your purpose.
That is sociopathic so it isn’t always easy to identify but it’s easy to disregard.
Kindness is generally a default. At a minimum it’s called mutual respect and at an absence it’s called being an asshole. It hardly takes any courage to be better than that. I cannot imagine the amount of medication people require if that is their definition of courage, as there isn’t any challenge there. Perhaps it’s a cultural difference.
Any tips for doing this during a pandemic? Beyond just the usual of treating people well?
This takes practice and experience but the gist of it here is that you have establish and understand boundaries.
Kindness is giving someone a helping hand when they need it, but not going overboard and letting them take advantage of you over and over again.
In my experience, the less you let vampires suck out your energy, the more you'll be able to give to people and the way to that is by saying No and hearing No.
I personally start by being kind and then await kindness back. If they reciprocate, great. If not, I politely decline their next request and change my response if they change theirs.
Great relationships are formed when there is a mutual exchange of happiness and ideas else it's basically one party taking advantage which is unhealthy.
E.g. It is possible to make a complaint at a restaurant in a factual way and with a smile.
E.g.2. Giving hard feedback with a smile, and constructively.
It comes down to empathy, and the basic rule of treating others as we wish to be treated.
The tech industry has definitely become more aggressive over the last 20 years. I credit it to the people who decided they should join it because there is a lot of money to be made, when before it was mostly people who liked technology.
And for that latter point: I consider an aggressive attitude a sign of fear (perhaps a consequence of a kind of imposter syndrome?). Generally I pity the mean people.
The worst people are the people who move to cities and try and fit in by adopting some caricature of these customs, which is often accompanied by engaging in hideous games of one-upsmanship with their fellow new arrivals.
This part made me think of this video on the NY subway that exemplifies exactly what you're talking about: https://youtu.be/yVzAC7mLxJw
This guy is doing something extremely kind for this lady that it brings her to tears and yet the way he does it almost seems aggressive and demanding but it's such a nice act!
And for the kindness to be appreciated and not considered as weakness you need to select who to give it to properly. And for that you need to be judgemental.
And bbc and current mainstream median culture will not tell you to be judgemental.
Why? Because they they want to be the teller what is right and what is wrong - not you.
I have experienced this a few times in relationships. Was brought up to always be courteous and kind. In our society those are the most admired qualities of a person. In the big world where people didn't grow up the same way I did I felt this is often misinterpreted for weakness. Trouble always starts when I "suddenly" do not budge from a position I believe in. An example is I do not believe in splashing my life on social media.
We were also brought up to be kind to visitors. Go out of your way to make them feel at home. We joke now as adults how the only time we had Coca-cola in the house was when we had visitors. The idea is a visitor shouldn't stay too long so it is best to be kind to them. The problem starts when visitors overstay and continue to expect the same treatment. Or they visit to often.
A defining trait of American culture is hyperactivity. Commenting on trivial stuff, moving around restlessly while holding a drink, despise for idle time. The "kindness" thing is a form of hyper-expressivity which is rarely seen in calm cultures.
If you think that there are defining traits of that many people in a country that varies so greatly in terms of geography, lifestyle, religion and culture, then you just don't know what you're talking about.
I've always suspected the perceived "rudeness" comes not from the residents of New York, but rather the people from neighboring locations that commute into New York for work. New Jersey, I'm lookin' at you.
Can you elaborate on it? I don't have much experience interacting with people.
Folks each have their own "schtick," but it's what they are after that matters.
1) Money
2) Property
They want me to give them money or goods.
3) Prestige
They want me to feed a need for prestige. This can be as simple as agreeing with them in public, an endorsement or referral, or a requirement for some kind of submissive fawning.
I started to write up a detailed description of how this can happen, but realized that this is probably not the best venue for that. Suffice it to say that I have spent my entire adult life amongst some very aggressive and manipulative people, and keeping a good relationship with them, while gently enforcing personal boundaries, has always been a challenge.
For me, I have a personal ethical code that revolves around rigorous personal and "cash register" Honesty, as well as Integrity.
Can you give a concrete example you specifically encountered? I lived in New York for half of my adult life before moving west. I can’t remember ever having to be too worried about that. Is it possible you just have trouble expressing yourself outwardly?
Well, there's always passive-aggressive insults. That's considered a low-risk approach.
Looks like we've pretty much exhausted this thread. I'll just exit, stage left.
Happy Holidays!
Once you have that, the other factors (industry, city) don't matter - you are able to act the way you want independently of how people are, because you're confident that you won't let their transgressions cross over into "you."
It's been a long process learning this for myself as well.
The midwest is nice. New York city folks are not. I've worked at two companies where I managed or worked heavily with our New York office and hated it both times.
I realize not every New Yorker is an asshole and not everyone can leave the city on a whim but if its good for your health its worth considering.
We also volunteer in droves [1].
[1] https://gallery.mailchimp.com/e3163e2ee79e21b79cf36982c/file...
In fact I don't believe I even think of myself in categories such as "weak" or "strong". I know I'm extremely averse to conflict, which, I guess, would be considered "weak". I'll let you have your way (within reason), but then that's the last time you'll see me, which is probably not the outcome someone trying to exploit you is hoping for.
I will say the opposite can also be frustrating. People conflate niceness with kindness or even worse, morality. Being gruff isn’t intrinsically immoral. Being super “nice” isn’t intrinsically moral.
This might sound like some sort of rationalization for bad behavior, but I don’t think so. When you optimize you have to have at minimum a hierarchy of optimization goals. At some point, one goal WILL conflict with another. This means that conflating niceness with morality will inevitably lead to misguided and immoral/unethical behavior.
To be frank, I find the ratio of people who actually do that to people who think they do that but are really using it as an excuse for not exercising their interpersonal skills is 1:1000. I've known many people that called themselves brutally honest, but with the exception of one particular manager I can recall, it always ended up being an excuse to feel powerful by shocking people with a brazen lack of tact while the truth of the statement, even if occasionally beneficial, was incidental.
Who knows... maybe you're the 1 out of the 1000. The tone of what you wrote sounds more reasonable than what many others have expressed in that vein, so I'm inclined to think so, but it'a hard to tell without having universally accepted bounds to words like kindness, politeness, and honesty. That said, doing good deeds and not directly insulting people we deal with doesn't absolve us from a the basic social necessity to treat other people with compassion and humanity. For that reason, whenever I encounter anyone that touts their honesty at the expense of kindness, I generally consider it a tacit admission that they have some serious work to do on their interpersonal skills and don't realize it.
A complementary but closely related problem is that many people mistake unkindness for aggression.
For those wonderful angels I am willing to lie to their face, because the nonsense that comes back is a stressful nonproductive time suck. Those are the people nobody wants to work with because they are a net negative and continue to exist merely as padding for future layoffs. The common uniting theme is underdeveloped self-awareness/empathy.
For everybody else kindness is a dose of honesty coupled with empathy and mutual reassurance regardless of excellent or poor performance. When it's sincere it is an investment in relationship building.
each passing day I feel more and more inclined to buy me a piece of land with no one around it, build a small house in the center of it and never interact with this kind of people forever.
The best strategy seems to be to give people the benefit of the doubt initially, being kind and altruistic without reservation. But as soon as they don’t respond in kind, you update your strategy immediately and stop extending any generosity beyond baseline courtesy. The ball is in their court now. If they switch from selfishness to altruism, then you can match them. Otherwise, don’t let yourself be exploited.
I’ve found this approach has simplified many social decisions for me. Even things like whether to say hi to a neighbor passing on the sidewalk. I used to not always be sure of the best way to handle these situations. If you give a hearty greeting and are ignored, you feel lame and rejected. If you ignore them and it turns out they are friendly, they could see you as unfriendly, or they might also be on the fence, waiting to see what you do, and by ignoring them you miss out on establishing a friendship that could be valuable to both of you in the long run.
Now it’s easy: I say hi the first time I see someone and treat them warmly. If they aren’t friendly back, I don’t worry about it. I simply ignore them now unless they make an effort to change the dynamic (happens more than you might think, actually).
This way you don’t miss out on the good people, don’t sweat the bad/manipulative people, and remain flexible in case someone was just feeling shy or having a bad day. Game theory ftw!
I think a potential flaw is assuming people are static beings. Consider if you passed me shortly after my dog died...I may not be in a mental state to even notice you said anything. If we passed weeks or months later I could be in a completely different state but we’re still not connecting because you’ve already concluded it wasn’t worth the effort.
I feel like there is a fundamental issue if people look for interactions to be transactional marketplace. It’s completely different than deliberately acting from a place of compassion
Some people will be narcissists, self involved, and mean. Some people will try to take advantage of you. That's okay; You cut them out of your circles and move on. Being kind and pruning your social circles to those who are kind in return is like tending a garden. It isn't 'unkind' to weed the place a bit from time to time to make an environment that you enjoy being in.
Agreed. We all deserve the same fundamental measure of respect. It’s equally important to be kind to myself and to others. The two are the same thing in disguise.
It can take reflection to parse out each situation, but if a “helping” act of mine is actually damaging to me in a way I resent or would prefer to avoid, then am I really being kind to the other person? I’d argue that often I’m actually acting out of an unhealthy impulse of guilt, some sense of social-obligation, self-identity, etc, which is really just about myself.
Sometimes helping another person - even if they want said help - actually doesn’t help them at all, and that’s not really kindness in my opinion. It requires judgement.
True kindness includes more than the “soft and mushy” feelings a lot of us look on with suspicion. Authentic kindness and care can be hard as fuck because it means saying no or not helping someone when your natural impulse is to do so.
See: parenting, family members/friends with addictions, letting go an employee who’s well-intentioned, breaking up with someone who’s nice, etc.
IMHO Buddhist thought is a great tool for thinking about this kind of stuff.
I see and experience the same things you do, and I choose compassion and kindness (my mantra with strangers is: trust, care, help). I can't change other people or the world, but I do choose how I respond to them. I can defy the evil, unhappiness and despair in the world. What I've learned is that it is so much better for me, and for the other people, and for the situation - it doesn't solve every problem, it's not the entire solution, it doesn't even work every time, but it moves the needle; perhaps most importantly, I think it sets an example and inspires others - imagine a world without the compassionate people. Compassion is armor: When people act like jerks, usually it's because they have their own problems, their are overwhelmed, they are afraid, etc. You and I act like jerks too. Have compassion on them and on yourself - life is hard.
> never interact with this kind of people forever
Whatever kind they are, they are everywhere. We all need to find our peace of mind, but at the same time I don't want to withdraw: What am I living for? To avoid? More people are more opportunities to live.
But then again, would it really be a genuine gesture on the giver's end if they were to filter based on the receiver's character or whether they will be grateful for it?
The positivity from you is likely to be absorbed by the negativity, never to be seen again, instead of snowballing into a boulder of positivity as you'd hoped. I feel the only answer is to be an endless source of positivity. In that case you're not worried whether the drops of positivity from you end up somewhere they're appreciated or not. The negativity sponges might suck you dry, so it's not for everyone. For most of us the answer might be to constrain our positivity outlets into safer, more controllable spaces (volunteering for an organization, etc.) where it is less likely that we might feel anything negative for our efforts.
Kindness can and should come with boundaries. No one is entitled to your time or energy. Choosing to spend that energy on another person, without thought of reward, is a form of kindness.
We can and probably should be polite to people by default. That is a way of showing kindness. If the other person decides to be a blackhole, leave them. If they are harming someone, you are free to (and probably should) warn other people.
Kindness does not require you let people take advantage of you.
Helping others doesn’t mean you have to set yourself up to be a sucker. Which you kinda point out when you about volunteering. But IMHO in any space our own judgement is still required and essential.
"Humans are extremely social, we have better health when we are interconnected, and part of being interconnected is giving"
Being generous and resenting it or moving away from people would probably be antithetical to being connected. Being taken advantage of makes one feel less connected, which might be what you're experiencing.
For a good, short read related to this I'd suggest Sebastian Junger's book Tribe
BNS doesn't mean it only happens between neighbors, just that that's what it feels like even if it happens between two parties that are not necessarily neighbors, e.g., two coworkers, two classmates, two CEOs of rival corporations. The list is endless.
BNS is the bane of my existence. I'd do anything to have a life where I'm not in a BNS match with anyone.
I'm a pretty reasonable guy. I can put myself in others shoes. But when I notice that people don't retribute, I tend to act. My father put up with a lot of things (trying to be a better person) that I don't.
Now some would summarize it as: be as kind to you as you're to others. I, like your father, has a weird tendency to do everything for free.. but it's unhealthy and I suffer. But I can't really blame others for that.
Being strong and balanced.. a healthy dose of selfishness (kinda like a kid)
Ready for a move to a house of my own without audible neighbors or selfish and uncompromising attitudes.
Struggle for scarce resources triggers ancient and primitive defensive attitudes. Either that or people in the northeastern cities are rude.
Honestly learning to set boundaries was game-changing for my emotional health and my relationships.
The alternatives are:
Victim. "I am too weak and poor to help anyone but I expect people to help me." This belief corrodes you.
Stoic(can't think of a better word.) "I don't help anyone and therefore I don't expect anyone to help me". Well, better than the victim but ends up passing up many opportunities where others are genuinely ready to help.
Abuser "I don't bother to help others but I take advantage of them" - becomes obvious very quickly and you are ostracized and hated.
Doormat "I help everyone but because I don't have healthy boundaries, I end up attracting abusers and victims." Gross.
The "best people" are clear and confident with their boundaries and generous with their time and resources when people are on the right side of the boundary. I see this a lot with truly successful senior managers and businesspeople, for example.
Even in politics, when a candidate runs for office, they want to tell stories of "X came to me and needed help and I really took the time to hear them and help them (kindness). Then Y came and they sought to rip us off and I told them to go fuck themselves (boundaries)." We seek that as species, we expect that out of the best among us, and therefore we reward those who operate from this place (and it's good for lots of other reasons.)
* where your boundaries lie along the spectrum from self-serving to doormat
* your propensity to be generous to people on the good side of your boundaries
I myself trend close to what you'd call a stoic. Probably out of fear of being a doormat. My boundaries are healthyish, but I don't quite trust them. So I don't seek out help from others, and in return I hope they don't ask for generosity from me. Being generous without crossing my boundaries is something I have to work on.
I know some narcissists who can actually be quite generous. This fools them into thinking, "There's no way I'm a narcissist!" because they can easily recall past instances of generosity. Yet they're still regarded by others as selfish. Their boundaries are shifted so far in their favor that they feel taxed being generous to others who most would deem worthy of generosity. And they expect sympathy, attention, and generosity in situations where most would not have that expectation.
These abusers often do end up ostracized, but that doesn't always look like solitude. They become victims, upset at their crummy relationships and unable to garner sympathy from others, yet unwilling to ever point the finger at themselves. Some end up alone, yes. Others befriend other victims who they can commiserate with, but those relationships don't last long for obvious reasons. So it's sort of a fleeting, on-again off-again ostracism.
Of course I'm speaking in generalities here. Plenty of victims aren't narcissists, etc. And I do have sympathy. Nobody chooses to be a narcissist. I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about your personality traits, take it seriously. It'll be tempting to deny and seek disconfirmation, e.g. by changing the subject, blaming your accusers, deflecting to other causes (e.g. race or gender), or running away to find people who will say nice things about you. But for all our follies, human beings are naturally pretty decent judges of character. If you're getting consistent character feedback from lots of different people, it's probably accurate.
One thing jumped out:
>> I think some people are just wired that way, or perhaps set on that course by environmental factors early in life. Either way, it's not a choice. So I think it's somewhat of a tragic condition.
and
>> My advice would be that if you're consistently getting negative feedback about personality traits from others, take it seriously.
If you think about it these two comments are contradictory. Either you are a victim of your programming, or you have the power to (slowly and painfully) recognize it and change.
I am a firm believer that people ultimately can recognize their problems and change. Recognition is the harder part. For most of us, to recognize the really deep and ugly things about ourselves is really hard and often is only done when someone has hit bottom and are forced to confront that there's something wrong. It's easy to say "listen to feedback" but it's impossible to convince someone they should until they've had some painful experience that forced them to recognize there's something that needs to be heard. But it's possible and important.
The other thought as I was reading your comment - I think you'll enjoy Ray Dalio's Principles book.
Healthy boundaries are more consistent and universal than you think, with the massive caveat being different cultures handling boundaries differently.
But it’s more about the fundamental psychological nature of human beings and less about individual personality.
IMHO a lot of what you describe boils down to “people who could develop healthier boundaries through therapy or other forms of personal growth and healing.”
From the Meditations by Marcus Aurelius:
> [...] Do not be carried along inconsiderately by the appearance of things, but give help to all according to thy ability and their fitness [...] (Book V)
> [...] Reverence the gods, and help men. Short is life. There is only one fruit of this terrene life, a pious disposition and social acts. [...] ( Book VI )
You can read the full ebook here [1] (I'd link to project Gutenberg but unfortunately they're still blocking German readers). Alas.
[1] https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/marcus-aurelius/meditation...
Stoicism has more to do with things that happen to you vs how you treat other people.
It's great that you disclaim it a bit with "can't think of a better word", but it's just inaccurate.
Perhaps "libertarian"? Or "rugged individualist"?
The line between helping others and full on people pleasing is too blurry, and unfortunately I fell into the second camp.
People pleasing is a BAD, BAD thing.
With family though, (as I notice all your descriptions are from) it is neither time bounded nor emotionally constrained since family don't really leave - they're always there, sometimes physically and certainly emotionally. Your first act of kindness to assist might well be voluntary but the second act could well be more out of a sense of obligation than choice and creates an increasingly involuntary burden.
I have found you have to be careful not to expect much in return otherwise you can start feeling resentful.
If you don't feel like doing something, you should stop. You'll eventually feel resentful and drained if you keep doing something you don't want to do.
I’ll help you with a career transition discussion. No matter how many hours it takes.
On the other hand when my best friend asked to help him move. I told him no. Laughed in his face. None of my friends dare ask me for physical help now.
I think the world is a better place when we specialize in things we are uniquely gifted at.
Packs of wolves do automatically specialize their individuals (eg alpha wolf spends more time looking after the others) - but the crucial part is that their roles change. If the alpha dies, another individual has to take their place, or the group becomes unbalanced and will probably die because of it. They are not necessarily „gifted“ at being an alpha, but they might be just good enough.
I also cannot imagine helping anybody move who laughed into my face when it was my turn. I actually cannot imagine being their friend at all, but that’s just me maybe.
Have one group of people who "actively" is kind to people, i.e. they actually act on their desired.
Then compare the results to a control group who "wants" to be kind to people, ideally has a proven track record of being kind to people, but are not allowed to act on that during the duration of study. Then of course they also need to still be as satisfied and happy as before, otherwise they turn into a biased control group.
Then if there are no differences, and compared to another control group of "normal" humans, there is a statistically significant improvement in health, then and only then, they may be on to something... Otherwise this is just another case of survivor bias.
This is all just pointless. At least here it's for a good cause, but I always am amazed by what kind of conclusions people derive from the well established: Causation implies correlation... Erm, NOT.
Is human behavior truly so opaque that experiments cannot be designed that conclusively determine specific causation?
Even in pharmaceutics, confounding variables are already common place that led to a considerable replication crisis, with human behavior it would be even more impossible to control for every variable, and measure only what one wants to measure.
A very simple problem with such a design which would perhaps indicate that human beings that are not allowed to be kind would be less happy is simply that human beings become unhappy when they are told what to do, not necessarily anything related to kindness; it's certainly not implausible.
And the fundamental problem remains that a man cannot be compelled to participate in any study, and that alone is a selection bias that cannot be overcome — studies thus select upon the kind of person who have the time and willingness to participate in them.
- causality is less widely applicable than we like to think
- our behavior is more complex than we like to think
I'm more inclined to doubt causality. Not that it's not a useful framework in general, but that is less useful when applied by humans to humans regarding human constructs like kindness.
“There is research suggesting that people who are in better health are more likely to volunteer, but because scientists are very well aware of that, in our studies we statistically control for that,” says Sara Konrath
Few as an example:
1. Individuals who do high risk activities might be less likely to do volunteer work.
2. Individuals who simply have bad habits in life might be less likely to volunteer.
3. People who die earlier won't even make it far enough to be in position to donate.
4. Poor people are less likely to be able to donate and can get less care for medicine, have worse conditions generally.
I see thousands of such examples, I don't think it's possible to control for all of that, is it? You would have to
1) List all of those things that should be controlled. I imagine already this to be an amazing feat.
2) Somehow gather all this data from people.
Think about it, if you are volunteering you are likely to not just have good health, but afford good health care, have plenty of free time for various activities, less stress in life, enjoy and seek social activities, outdoor activities, etc. All those things could impact health, but not volunteering itself.
My health is in shambles. So these days I have to take pride in just making sure kids have food.
Horrible feeling when people ask for help, and I know I’ll just be a burden.
It takes effort to be kind.
That's okay. Sometimes you are taken advantage of. Sometimes your kindness truly helps improve another person's life. Sometimes your kindness returns to you amplified.
Risk minimization isn't always the best strategy. It can be okay for things to not work every time.
But what if you only make anonymous donations, or help others in ways that are "kind" but do not allow others to connect with you? What's the contribution of kindness as "morally positive actions", and the contribution of kindness as a "social(-izing) activity"?
Kind of interesting how as a society we seem to be rejecting it - a lot of technology enables us to be alone or at least not in direct contact with others.
I wonder what the ramifications of that will be in the future.
What I've seen during the pandemic is that technology enables my family to be in direct contact (if not physically) with others for most of our waking time. Certainly, my kids spend more time with their friends virtually than I did with mine physically as a child.
Does the physical part matter? The article references a study where altruistic behavior (a donation) has benefits even if that behavior isn't done in person.
Helping others any way I can does make me feel good (so does receiving help, for that matter), I guess that's the case for the majority.
I hate hearing the phrase 'real world' or 'physical' being used to describe non-electronic interaction. Call the in-person stuff analog if you'd like. But the digital stuff is just as real. We never have the entire quantum state of other people accessible. We always just get a small blurry sample of their true presence. Does it matter whether it goes through air or down a copper wire?
The only difference is with regard to security. I can see that argument as valid. But unless security/imposters are a concern, it's still the real deal.
1) People who like to take high risks, might be less keen on communal activities, like volunteering.
2) People who have bad habits might also be less likely to volunteer.
3) Depressed, stressed out, cynical people may be less likely to volunteer.
4) Poor people are less likely to donate and also have lower life expectancy.
5) People who died earlier didn't make it into that point in life where they would be able to donate. This one is easier to control though.
And probably countless of other things? I'd need to go deep into the actual study to understand how they controlled for all of that, but right now it makes me very skeptical.
Poor people seems to be quite generous [1].
[1] https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/the-science-behind-b...
Alright, what does being kind really mean?
It depends on the giver and on the receiver; and therefore how healthy the relationship/exchange is. Let me explain:
* if the receiver is a narcissist/sociopath, for starter they won't value the "gift" received, nothing will ever be enough, and they always seem to attract plenty fo givers
* if the giver had the disease to please whereas their own worth is depended on being told "good job" or similar, it will eventually deteriorate since in the mind of the giver, what they give will always be > what they receive and won't end well.
* Then there's victimhood chic, where people feel that they need help on everything 24/7 and becomes a co-dependent relationship between them and - slowly but steadily - the entire world; and rapidly reaches a point of impasse since the needs keep escalating and the help keep diminishing
Buddha had the 4-part solution:
1. Help yourself
2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
3. More suffering is needed
4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
I find it grating because my disposition of being kind gets me in situations where people try to exploit their perception of my kindness. There is this implication of "so you want me to think you're nice? well do this for me and I will." When it turns transactional like that - where their assumption is that I'm being kind to get something (because maybe that's how they interact - by being kind to get things), I feel like I have no choice but to switch to a very serious tone. Then comes the "you're not being very nice" which is the intent: I don't want them to think I'm being nice for personal gain. This is all very cynical and I really need to work on it, but it's a knee jerk response to what seems like slimy behavior.
>1. Help yourself
>2. Climb a mountain, tell nobody
>3. More suffering is needed
>4. The enemy is a wonderful teacher
I love wisdom like this - is there anything that talks about this in depth or is it more of a proverb only?
For most of my life I have assumed that people are mostly good, and while this may actually be true, when I reflect on some of the times in my life I was stressed out it was due to extending myself to others, to then later feel taken advantage of or on the hook for future favors.
As an example, I helped an older neighbor put up a wireless security camera. I had the same camera and I used a double-sided industrial strength adhesive to affix it to the side of my house. When my neighbor asked for help and I made it clear upfront that I'm not too handy, and this is just what worked for me. I didn't have a drill or screws for a proper install and in my case those weren't needed. Mine had been installed for 6 months at the time using the adhesive. I told her that if she was OK with that then I'm happy to get out the ladder and install it. Turns out, the siding material on her house was different than mine and her camera only stuck to it for a couple of hours before dropping off, swinging by its solar-panel's charging cable. She stormed over, knocked aggressively on my door during my dinner, and marched me over to the swinging camera to show it to me suspended in the breeze. Her girlfriend also commented on my inept handy work.
So, I helped a neighbor and was honest upfront with a disclaimer. She accepted and then when things didn't work out she made it my fault. I was the schmuck. Oh, and I setup the software on her computer and phone so she could get email alerts for motion activity. Despite the generosity I showed with my time, when the outcome wasn't ideal I got blow-back for my good deed.
This also reminds me of the time I let my choosing beggar neighbor hop on our WiFi network until he got his installed. Needless to say, he never did get his own and became indignant when I cut his access off after several months of free use. Yep, lots of people suck.
I grew up in a third world dog-eat-dog culture where kindness is generally equated with naivete and everyone has to keep their guard up against each other.
I'm still struggling with ping-ponging between being taken advantage of or being too mean. I don't know where to draw the line and with whom.
In the last couple months alone I've been played for a fool by a few people who, to put it simply, weren't deserving of kindness. It certainly has not been good for my health, mental or physical, and it's going to leave me too cold and cynical for someone who could actually use some kindness, until I being to feel bad about that and open myself up to being exploited and so the cycle repeats.
This is especially true in modern corporate environments, where incentives are aligned to promote a dog eat dog world, no matter what the corporates speak about 'values'. It is compounded by a culture where not getting a promotion or not earning ever increasing salaries, is propagated and interpreted as undeserving, weak or useless.
Human nature is described in Hindu scriptures as 'restless and unpredictable as a drunken monkey, stung by a scorpion'.
So people learn to hide their kindness, and put up a facade of toughness. But just as a lie repeated a million times is percieved as truth, a kind personality hidden behind toughness loses itself and the person becomes a shell of their former selves.
That is why you have news stories today celebrating small acts of kindness, integrity, honesty or truthfulness, where the norm is those acts should be a standard part of every persons life.
Forgive everyone who you imagine did you wrong. And imagine everyone forgiving you.
Then forgive yourself.
He has solution to all relationship/marriage problem and health issues such as herpes…? ???????????? ??? ??? ??
Robinson.buckler @ ‘ ‘ yahoo ‘ ‘ . ‘ ‘ com !!!!!!!
Thank you!!!!!!!
Great book.
Are you sure you're not over-generalizing from your social circles? That's quite the generalization. I think I know a bunch of New-Yorkers who would disagree.
Kindness is a polite word for love
- Being social with other human beings (in person) is good for you.
- Light exercise is good for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Zone has issues, but I think it's approximately good.
