No two people are alike. They all have had their individual experiences with other people. Even in the case of siamese twins…they still can feel differently about each action. Even being connected at the hip doesn’t mean they are any less different people. The fact that everyone being so damn different… we can somehow come together to form rules, beliefs… My peeps just do not understand past their bubble. The weird part is they say the same thing about me. How I cannot see anyone else’s side. I find it very untruthful but if I can’t find someone reliable I can’t put any emphasis on it being true. If someone feeding me a line about my dog and their only experience is their dog…you take it with a grain of salt. Just because it worked for their dog doesn’t mean it will work for mine or all dogs(just because they said it does). Whereas a veterinarian who deals with hundreds of dogs is credible. If he tells me to give me dog cheese to help his foot recover…I’m going to give him cheese or at least give it 90% of my thought process. If the random giving me a line told me that I wouldn’t of given it 1% unless I wanted to make fun of them in my head. “What a fucking moron thinking you can fix that with cheese…I gotta go tell my buds about that one”.
My dilemma today is people who blindly believe in things they know very little about. You try and explain to them how small of a bubble they have but they “fake it till you make it”. “I talk to a bunch of people about the topic at hand and I know a lot of people who deal with this…” In actuality, they know very little. They get dressed…go to work…communicate or not with co-workers and go home. Mind you this is an office setting where clients do not meet with us. My peeps do not go out to bars…are not a part of any “groups” or fraternities. They do not go to church or partake in any organizations. Their communication is very slim. Now I possibly could be wrong and one of them could secretly be very involved with others…but when it all boils down everyone is half-open book. If we are talking about drilling for oil and how it affects the families of those involved we could each have some information. I am 99% sure that none of them have any inside knowledge on how to drill for oil or how it affects families.
Feel like I’m playing Clue. It was the hammer in the living room and it was Dr. Arnold. So that leaves…them knowing someone who drills for oil or has a family member that does. Now in certain instances my peeps think…I should know this…or I know more about this then him/her. Even though they do not know anything or very little about oil digging effects on it’s workers and their families…they will pretend. They will act like there itty bitty knowledge is the lords word. They keep that stance even when challenged about it’s wrongness. What I figured out is that the person delivering the message is part of the problem. Not only the person but also how they deliver it. A guy giving stance on women’s pain in abortion will not be seen as very credible unless it 100% covers how they feel. If the guy said the “pain is very real and is 100% as bad as anyone says it is”. Now women will accept what this guy is saying but totally disregard him because he’s not a woman. If a woman were to have this dialogue it would start a Woman Rights Campaign. Women would be flocking.
So when the guy said there is no affects on oil diggers or their families the woman agree or disregard. The third option is they disagree. They will only disagree if they know for a fact that’s not the case(or at least think so) or they will fake that they know because they feel they should know the answer(or it’s “right” thing to do). So we got several scenarios with disagreeing. You can disagree because you have personal experience with topic or know of people who have had….(To think of it…people do not look at big picture. They think because one person feels that way that it should change. *Changing outlook/having second thoughts on electoral college. It’s like that so single states cannot single-handedly control who is President. If we elected like that we would only be serving a small “group” of people. Each person “should” be independent and be allowed to think one way…but we pool people by the state they live in. We take away that individual vote. Do state values and location really sway a person to think/act/feel as one another. Our our states like individual countries? We have a nationwide set of ideals but it’s packaged by state. Not really changing….*
To base your opinion off of one example is poor judgment. Unless your considered the “smartest” person in the room for that topic. Your hypothesis could be dead ass wrong but everyone else in the room thinks your the beacon of knowledge. With the internet…we can keep these potential mistakes at bay. Without it…we make judgment calls. Going back to oil diggers. In a work environment with five women and one guy. The women would lean towards the man naturally. That is unless one of the women had/has a relationship with someone who had direct or even indirect knowledge. This is how are brains are built. We go to the smartest source or the person most likely to have that answer and treat it as gospel until we find out something different. The problem in this shizzz is when we are making calls on peoples emotions. People who have had more interactions with certain topics should be seen as more believable.
In a nutshell my co-workers were debating a female topic but none of them had any real skin in the game. The debate involved another aspect then just being a woman. It’s hard to say your feelings/opinions do not matter on this topic because it doesn’t involve you. It could possibly involve them…so safe to really gauge how involved they are or think they are. In this case, the best I got was my low number of friends, family, business acquantances. The problem with these all is that the topic of discussion involved a certain group of women that none of them identified as. A group that they have limited to no contact with. Even better is when they try and bring up past experience from over ten-twenty years ago. They refuse to allow the man to think they are right on a female topic. Then said-man gets a confirmation of feeling from a person who has extensive contact with people in this group. Extensive contact from all different age groups to boot. They still hold their ground and they keep their limited experience and keep it on a grand scale. They focus on individual problems rather than the whole community. How do they know how the majority in this group feel? They only have information from one source. Just because that one source feels that way doesn’t mean the vast majority do. They keep ignoring this fact. They have limited connections but boast them.
Would it be the same if it originally came from a female? Would some of them who might of been on the fence have came to the dark side? They get so defensive when connections are identified. They make it seem like they have all this worldly atmosphere. They wake up, come to work, go home, go to bed and redo. Maybe some small friend hanging in between. How can a person who does this with limited access to stranger interactions have opinions on a group of people they never talk about. How do they know how oil diggers or their families feel if they only have a little bit of knowledge from years past? Thirty years ago we were playing with cassette tapes and mongo jombo tvs. You telling me the job has the same effect that it had thirty years ago? Let’s be serioussss…not the case. Information is outdated and chances are it’s not valid and it may never have been valid. Like when we thought the world was flat until we proved it was not. Anyone who has not been informed will still think it’s flat because that’s what they learned. That’s what the people who taught them learned.
Oh My Lanta!!! So why do they do it? Why pretend they know what’s best for this group without knowing? What benefit does it give them? I’m extremely jelly about psychiatrists and such with how many people they get to interact with. It may be misplaced but it seems like it would be very entertaining. How do you enlighten the people to see beyond their scope? The group could have 95% feel one way while your sitting their representing the 5% or less. You feel as if your the expert….but you wrong and you trying to call out someone else as being wrong. How you gonna go to battle and not know 100% that they did whatever your upset about. You just going to kill a man because your friend is similar to him and he would of done it? Should we change an entire groups view off of one member? To make that one member feel involved even though the majority disagree. What happens to the majority when you acknowledge that one member’s feelings. Will you lose members? Will there be recourse?
In conclusion, <<ohhh myyy gawddd… I believe people need to widen their horizons. Instead of constantly thinking about each person…think of the groups in general. Just because it helps you or your friend or family doesn’t mean it’s best for everyone. “Ask not what your group can do for you..but what you can do for your group” 🙂 If you care about the individual you must also care about the group…and the group trumps individuals all day every day!!