Sensitivity without reason

[quatona]

Does anyone know the word maudlin"?

I do. And?

Pointless (or misdirected) sentimentality is a waste of time and energy. It is just vanity.

Same could be said about getting all worked up about people one feels are pointlessly sentimental.
Anyways, since there aren´t any rules I know of that determine when and under which circumstances an emotion is pointless or misdirected, and since we don´t know what someone gets out of her sentimentality and what it helps her with, and since the person herself apparently does not regard her sentimentality pointless or misdirected, we are at square one.
Anyways, if someone wastes her time and energy, that´s up to her and none of my business.

 

[KCDAD]

I do. And?

Same could be said about getting all worked up about people one feels are pointlessly sentimental.
Anyways, since there aren´t any rules I know of that determine when and under which circumstances an emotion is pointless or misdirected, and since we don´t know what someone gets out of her sentimentality and what it helps her with, and since the person herself apparently does not regard her sentimentality pointless or misdirected, we are at square one.
Anyways, if someone wastes her time and energy, that´s up to her and none of my business.

OK... let me rephrase my OP. Why is Red Auerbach's (or any "used to be" celebrity's) death lead off the news-worthy?

 

[TheMissus]

OK... let me rephrase my OP. Why is Red Auerbach's (or any "used to be" celebrity's) death lead off the news-worthy?

Because prominence is a deciding factor in newsworthiness. A retired coach is still prominent within the sports world.

 

[quatona]

OK... let me rephrase my OP. Why is Red Auerbach's (or any "used to be" celebrity's) death lead off the news-worthy?

It might help me understand and answer your question in a way you find meaningful if you´d first tell me why anyone´s death is lead off the news-worthy?
I mean even in the case of leaders in charge a one-liner would be sufficient for information purposes.
I am explaining public attention, interest as well as obituaries in cases of deaths of (former or current) public persons as being founded in the wish to honour the influence, impact and results that their lifework had.
Why do countries have memorial days?

 

[xMinionX]

OK... let me rephrase my OP. Why is Red Auerbach's (or any "used to be" celebrity's) death lead off the news-worthy?

Because people will pay attention to it, and it doesn't really require more than a tiny block of text in a Newsweek or a Time Magazine.

 

[RavenPoe]

Why sugar the medicene......if you beat around the bush or you shoot straight the message is still the same.

Because the way in which the message is delivered determines how it is accepted - if at all.

 

[Im_A]

I had a discussion this morning about someone who was all upset about Red Auerbach (a former Basketball coach) dieing at age 89 of a heart attack. I asked why they were upset about it and they got all bent out of shape saying that I was an insensitive jerk. All I wanted to know was why be upset about an old man dying when over 6000 people died in this country yesterday. Why was the sense of loss so great for this guy that had been out of sports for many years, had lived a long and apparently productive life and NO relationship with the mourning person whatsoever. Other than having his name mentioned on the news, why get upset over this guy?
Any ideas? Comment? Insults?

since i wasn't there at the time that i heard you ask this question, i see that you did nothing wrong here.

a simple question of why someone is upset about a famous's person death shouldn't be responed to an out of control response.

that is what i gather from your OP here. that you asked a simple question and an irrational response came.

with the information given, i see you did nothing careless, or insensitive.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Because the way in which the message is delivered determines how it is accepted - if at all.

Well as long as it is delivered, mind you I do have a very abrasive nature when it comes to delivering messages.

 

[quatona]

Well as long as it is delivered, mind you I do have a very abrasive nature when it comes to delivering messages.

A useful axiom of communication:
A message is delivered if the receiver gets it. That the sender has sent it is not sufficient for it to be delivered.

 

[JesusWalks78]

A useful axiom of communication:
A message is delivered if the receiver gets it. That the sender has sent it is not sufficient for it to be delivered.

For a receiver to react positively or negatively to it, they must have processed it....there for ethe message has been delivered.

 

[quatona]

For a receiver to react positively or negatively to it, they must have processed it....there for ethe message has been delivered.

Something has been delivered. Not necessarily the message.

 

[JesusWalks78]

Something has been delivered. Not necessarily the message.

Let us use a message that is potentially offensive:

Lets say that you wanted to tell someone they were fat (these are not neccesarily things that I would say but are using it to demonstrate and are only examples). we will take it that the woman in question has put on some weight.


Soft Lie

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: No Darling.

Soft Honest Reponse:

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: Well Darling I think that you have put on a little weight, and thats fine, but perhaps you should wear your other jeans.

Brutally Honest:

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: 1) Does the Zoo make the Elephant look Fat?
2) Its not the jeans.
3) You have gotten fat.
4) You should go on a diet if you are planning on wering those anytime soon.

Perhaps my Soft Honest approach isnt the best, if you can think of a better one please feel free to add it.

However in both the scenarios, the woman is receiving the message of "You have put on weight"

Why did I add the soft lie....because gentlemen that is the correct answer

 

[quatona]

Let us use a message that is potentially offensive:

Lets say that you wanted to tell someone they were fat (these are not neccesarily things that I would say but are using it to demonstrate and are only examples). we will take it that the woman in question has put on some weight.


Soft Lie

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: No Darling.

Soft Honest Reponse:

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: Well Darling I think that you have put on a little weight, and thats fine, but perhaps you should wear your other jeans.

Brutally Honest:

Woman: Do these jeans make me look fat?

Man: 1) Does the Zoo make the Elephant look Fat?
2) Its not the jeans.
3) You have gotten fat.
4) You should go on a diet if you are planning on wering those anytime soon.

Perhaps my Soft Honest approach isnt the best, if you can think of a better one please feel free to add it.

However in both the scenarios, the woman is receiving the message of "You have put on weight"

Why did I add the soft lie....because gentlemen that is the correct answer

The best approach is the one that results in the recipient getting what you intend to communicate.

This depends on the person you are talking to and the way he/she tends to interprete things.
E.g. it makes a difference whether you talk about god to a fellow Christian or to a nonbeliever.

It depends on how much common ground I and the recipient have.
It also depends on the circumstances and the relationship.
E.g. the question and potential answers can have a completely different intention (and reception) if the scenario is a clothing store or at home short after a quarrel.
Chances are that you have already misunderstood the question "Do these jeans make me look fat?". Maybe it was just a way of asking "Do you still love me? I feel uncomfortable with myself and our relationship and need some comfort."

The funny thing about communication is that the more objective a statement is the less meaning does it carry. The intended and interpreted subtext is what makes statements meaningful.
If I tell someone "It´s 5°C outside", this is a pretty much empty information, unless I think it is in any way useful to the person ("You better put on a coat." or "I am cold. Can we put on the heating?" or whatever.) Likewise, if I receive such an empty information, I am assuming that the other person wants to communicate something else. This pretty much depends on the situation.
(Are we about to leave for a walk? -> "Put on warm clothes".
Are we about to leave for a walk and it has been -20°C for weeks? ->"Hey, you needn´t put on two coats anymore. One is enough."
Is "It´s 5°C outside" the response to my proposal "Let´s go have swim in the ocean"?-> "No, I think it´s too cold."
Am I going to drive to work and grabbing for the ice-scratcher? -> "Hey, you won´t need it."
Etc. etc.)

 

[JesusWalks78]

The best approach is the one that results in the recipient getting what you intend to communicate.

Please show how the person in the two secenarios didnt receieve the message that she was fat.

This depends on the person you are talking to and the way he/she tends to interprete things.
E.g. it makes a difference whether you talk about god to a fellow Christian or to a nonbeliever.

If I say to the Christian that all non believers are going to hell, both he and the non believer would process the words and have receieved the message.

It depends on how much common ground I and the recipient have.
It also depends on the circumstances and the relationship.
E.g. the question and potential answers can have a completely different intention (and reception) if the scenario is a clothing store or at home short after a quarrel.
Chances are that you have already misunderstood the question "Do these jeans make me look fat?". Maybe it was just a way of asking "Do you still love me? I feel uncomfortable with myself and our relationship and need some comfort."

The funny thing about communication is that the more objective a statement is the less meaning does it carry. The intended and interpreted subtext is what makes statements meaningful.
If I tell someone "It´s 5°C outside", this is a pretty much empty information, unless I think it is in any way useful to the person ("You better put on a coat." or "I am cold. Can we put on the heating?" or whatever.) Likewise, if I receive such an empty information, I am assuming that the other person wants to communicate something else. This pretty much depends on the situation.
(Are we about to leave for a walk? -> "Put on warm clothes".
Are we about to leave for a walk and it has been -20°C for weeks? ->"Hey, you needn´t put on two coats anymore. One is enough."
Is "It´s 5°C outside" the response to my proposal "Let´s go have swim in the ocean"?-> "No, I think it´s too cold."
Am I going to drive to work and grabbing for the ice-scratcher? -> "Hey, you won´t need it."
Etc. etc.)

Whether you say its 5 degrees outside or its cold outside....the receipient knows that you are talking about the tempreture outside and that it is cold....they process it and acknowledge it.....they dont have to agree with it.

 

[quatona]

Please show how the person in the two secenarios didnt receieve the message that she was fat.

I can´t know how a particular person perceives a message. That is the very problem I am trying to point out.

If I say to the Christian that all non believers are going to hell, both he and the non believer would process the words and have receieved the message.

Well, to a non-believer it isn´t a message, in the first place. He knows no hell. If the person hasn´t even heard about hell before, the sentence communicates nothing.
If I have heard it before it is zero information. It adds nothing to what I already knew.

So why did you make the thread asking for the reaction towards "I will pray for..."? You were not sure which message it communicates to the person, right? You wanted to communicate something beyond reporting the mere fact (in the subtext you meant it as some sort of consolation, but you noticed that some persons receive a completely different message).

Whether you say its 5 degrees outside or its cold outside....the receipient knows that you are talking about the tempreture outside and that it is cold....they process it and acknowledge it.....they dont have to agree with it.

No, if e.g. we are at the north pole or in Sweden in winter, it can´t mean "It´s cold".
What I am talking about is not whether they agree or disagree. I am trying to show that such an information in itself is useless if taken for just what it says. We are - always and necessarily - communicating and assuming subtexts. This is where the message lies.

 

[RavenPoe]

Saying it's 5 degrees celcius would mean nothing to me, I run on farenheit and have no idea how cold that is. The message is delivered, but it is not received.

No one will receive any message at all if they decide to plonk you or not have any respect for anything you have to say. That is one reason why society finds tact important

 

[KCDAD]

I can´t know how a particular person perceives a message. That is the very problem I am trying to point out.




Well, to a non-believer it isn´t a message, in the first place. He knows no hell. If the person hasn´t even heard about hell before, the sentence communicates nothing.
If I have heard it before it is zero information. It adds nothing to what I already knew.

So why did you make the thread asking for the reaction towards "I will pray for..."? You were not sure which message it communicates to the person, right? You wanted to communicate something beyond reporting the mere fact (in the subtext you meant it as some sort of consolation, but you noticed that some persons receive a completely different message).




No, if e.g. we are at the north pole or in Sweden in winter, it can´t mean "It´s cold".
What I am talking about is not whether they agree or disagree. I am trying to show that such an information in itself is useless if taken for just what it says. We are - always and necessarily - communicating and assuming subtexts. This is where the message lies.

I wanted to argue with and say that when water gets crunchy and you can see your breath it is cold. Wouldn't matter where you are from... cold is cold. However, I was just recently reading about Victor the wild boy of Averyon who loved being naked in the outdoors during winter and didn't feel the cold at all like we are acclimated to.
Still... irregardless of whether it is "colder" than usual or "unbearable" or "comfortable" I will stick with the "if you can see your breath it is cold" definitition.

 

[TheMissus]

I wanted to argue with and say that when water gets crunchy and you can see your breath it is cold. Wouldn't matter where you are from... cold is cold. However, I was just recently reading about Victor the wild boy of Averyon who loved being naked in the outdoors during winter and didn't feel the cold at all like we are acclimated to.
Still... irregardless of whether it is "colder" than usual or "unbearable" or "comfortable" I will stick with the "if you can see your breath it is cold" definitition.

Meh. If I can see my breath, that's my cue to grab a sweatshirt. Cold to me means wind or snow.

 

[xMinionX]

Funny you mention that. I work with autistic children at a residential school, and they show an amazing tolerance for cold weather. Some of the older boys are still choosing to wear shorts outside, and I'm told will do so until it's dangerously cold outside (and even then the staff have to intervene and put the shorts in storage). It's believed by many that Victor of Averyon was a child with autism, so I'm not surprised he liked the cold. It was probably a sensory thing for him (as with our kids).