other peoples anxiety

Post Reply New Topic

Sure there is. People do it all the time, altering definitions to suit their perspective. Given the opportunity, people will usually choose the version of reality that favors them most.

In this instance, given a choice between resilience mostly being an internal strength that people build for themselves (which requires personal responsibility and hard work), and resilience mostly being something that's provided by external resources and given or denied to people (which blames everyone else except the self, and requires nothing of the self, cos it's society's fault), the preferable choice would be that it's external, cos the solution requires nothing of the individual.

By painting "resilience" as a negative thing, you absolve yourself of the need to aspire to it, in the spirit of "anything I'm not good at is stupid".



Sure there is. People do it all the time. Selective observation. Cherry-picking. Even stuff you see with your own eyes can be colored by bias or simply misunderstood due to insufficient or incomplete information. It is also possible and common to use accurate information to come to erroneous conclusions, due to insufficient understanding.

Combine that with the desire to see preferential outcomes, and it's pretty easy to make any picture into the picture you want it to be, with a few small alterations.



This is just more "no, you!" - Am I misreading you? Or am I merely disagreeing with you?

Seems to me we're both "insisting" on a definition of resilience. The thing is, we agree on the baseline definition which you quoted from external sources - what we disagree on is the additional stuff you've layered onto those initial definition, like it being "very much outsourced".

Which I'd still like to know more about - how "resilience" is "outsourced", per se.

I do not disagree with your own view -- for it wasn't even fully there yet.
Like yes, NTs do not necessarily had it easier or harder or all that self discipline and all that crap. But in my own view, it's so limited that it could be more but I'm not seeing it.

Rather I disagree of your own disagreement of what resilience cannot be or should be along with whatever you're calling it "where do you get these narratives from?".
Yes, resilience can be outsourced and it can be something someone has. So? It's nature and nurture. And then proceed to call me vague or whatever.

Yes, I acknowledge that resilience can be a good thing for everyone. So?
And I get how you're disagreeing about my views at that very trait until you claimed that I don't know what resilience even is.

Which is an utterly pointless endeavor to be honest. What does all of this terms and wording had to do with the realities of other people's anxieties?

Does debating about the definition itself would help learn of what the nature of other people's anxieties are?
No. I'm no longer seeing the point of this exchange if this is where the direction goes. You're the one who can keep disagreeing and not seeing anything other than what you wanted.

So yeah, it is a "no, you!" indeed.

Actually, the way we define and describe the world around us has a great deal to do with the anxiety we experience.

You call this a "pointless endeavor" - but why? By calling it a "pointless endeavor" you frame the situation differently, than if you called it a "frustrating experience", for example.

It's like calling something an "impossible task" vs a "difficult task". A difficult task could still be accomplished, but an "impossible" task isn't even worth bothering with. Simply labeling a task as "impossible" or "pointless" is enough to absolve one of needing to interact with it in the first place - while a task that is merely "difficult" might still be expected to be done.

It is absolutely possible, and common, for language to shape how we think and act - in reality. It's not merely waxing philosophical and being pedantic - it has actual practical applications, and repercussions. It can reinforce one's own perceptions, even if they're mistaken, into believing that which is not true.

As relates to SFBUM, if one goes through life using the worst language to describe "life", just plain old life, then "life" starts to feel like it really is the worst thing, cos you've defined it that way. If you see everyone as "dips**ts" and "spiders" and "roaches", then that's what the world is - even if they're just "people".

Just the act of re-labeling everyone around you as a possible "violent felon gang member who's having sex with the boss", is enough to be exhausting, cos even if NOBODY around you is ANY of those things, you've still put yourself on permanent high-alert being afraid of it, just cos you stuck the label on it, whether it deserved it or not.

So yeah, the words we use - and the way we define them - have real-world practical consequences.

I know what you mean, OP. Sometimes people seem like emotionless machines to me.

I guess most people are just better at regulating their emotions or understanding them, have actual support systems, and are better at dealing with changes.

But i am pretty sure the one who was charged with manslaughter and talked about it calmly is not a "normal" person. Most people would hide that, at least.

Or they would keep insisting they are being accused of something they did not do or they'd go on a tangent about how it was self defense. Those things do sometimes happen to innocent people or people who've been very unlucky in life & got caught up in a bad situation they couldn't handle. Acting nonchalant about that is very worrisome.