Why Do People Refuse To Practice Social Skills?
09 Jun 2025, 6:59 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
VioletKnight wrote:
Either you're not understanding what I'm saying or willfully misinterpreting it, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former, but either way it means there's not much point in continuing to debate with you.
I often hear this asserted whenever someone's position isn't given the unconditional merit they feel it deserves. It's really just an ad-hominem that relies on discrediting the person rather than addressing the points and merits of the reasoning. Rather than it being that I find your position uncompelling, it must be that I either don't get it, or must intentionally be acting contrarian in some way.
And anyways, I still don't see anyone answering the question I've asked more than once. I would think y'all would be happy to answer, since it assumes you're right.
So, again, lets assume you're right. Natural talent is real. Some people are just born talented. In what way is this fact useful? Either I have natural talent, in which case, I have natural talent, so there's nothing for me to do or worry about, cos I've got natural talent - or - I don't have natural talent, in which case acknowledging the existence of natural talent in no way benefits me, since I don't have natural talent.
It may answer why people with natural talent refuse to practice social skills - they have natural talent, and don't need to practice, supposedly. But what about everyone else who doesn't have natural talent. They're the ones that need the practice, since they're not naturally talented. So why don't they want to practice?
Not really willing to give you the benefit of the doubt anymore since it feels like you're just being antagonistic now, either because we're not agreeing with you or because I'm not willing to put up with you trying to twist words.
This:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Pretty cool how the research is supposedly both inconclusive, and also agrees with you.
is not at all what I said, anything like what I said, nor what I meant or anything being implied. And that's only the most recent example of your misinterpreting, cherry-picking and twisting what I've been saying. You've been doing it starting with your third reply to me. I was simply calling out what you were doing and telling you that I do not want to engage with you any further if you continue. I'm not attacking you and never have, in fact I was trying to be as polite as I could about it. You, however, started trying to discredit starting with your second reply and have become increasingly more aggressive (an blatant) in your approach, so if you're looking for informal fallacies look to your own replies.
If you wish for me to address any other questions you may ask then first dispense with the misinterpretations and actually respond to what I'm saying.
09 Jun 2025, 2:49 pm
VioletKnight wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Pretty cool how the research is supposedly both inconclusive, and also agrees with you.
is not at all what I said, anything like what I said
You literally said:
VioletKnight wrote:
I've seen more that concludes natural talent exists, but as a whole the scientific community is divided.
^The scientific community is divided, but it also concludes that it exists.
How is that not both "inconclusive", but also in your favor?
Also, you're still just engaging in personal attacks.
Threatening to withhold further conversation unless I jump through some arbitrary hoops is just a means to try to assert control.
I suspect your attempts to "meet in the middle", masquerading as politeness, were little more than attempts at receiving consensus without having to earn consensus. It's essentially a form of "anchoring", where someone tries to establish a definite point from which to maneuver.
Yes, I have been discrediting your points. That's how debate works. If someone say something inaccurate, you point out that it is inaccurate, and how, and why.
Anyways, I'll ask again.
Let's say you're totally right and natural talent exists. How is this fact of any practical use? To what end is it worth constantly bring up? What's the takeaway?
09 Jun 2025, 3:44 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
I understand that many of us struggle with social skills, yet some of us seem prone to flinching away from any sort of social interactions that might lead to improving our social skills?
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Yeah it does take practice
You've gotta keep oiling the cogs and all that
I think if you stay out of life for a while it's hard to find your way back in
Especially these days with everything changing so fast
_________________
We have existence
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 32,927
Location: Right over your left shoulder
09 Jun 2025, 4:11 pm
babybird wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I understand that many of us struggle with social skills, yet some of us seem prone to flinching away from any sort of social interactions that might lead to improving our social skills?
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Yeah it does take practice
You've gotta keep oiling the cogs and all that
I think if you stay out of life for a while it's hard to find your way back in
Especially these days with everything changing so fast
100%.
It's definitely harder every time I go through a period of burn-out and withdrawal, but the alternative is to just extend the withdrawal period, which doesn't really help anything.
_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing. —Malcolm X
Real power is achieved when the ruling class controls the material essentials of life, granting and withholding them from the masses as if they were privileges.—George Orwell
09 Jun 2025, 5:59 pm
uncommondenominator wrote:
VioletKnight wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
Pretty cool how the research is supposedly both inconclusive, and also agrees with you.
is not at all what I said, anything like what I said
You literally said:
VioletKnight wrote:
I've seen more that concludes natural talent exists, but as a whole the scientific community is divided.
^The scientific community is divided, but it also concludes that it exists.
How is that not both "inconclusive", but also in your favor?
Also, you're still just engaging in personal attacks.
Threatening to withhold further conversation unless I jump through some arbitrary hoops is just a means to try to assert control.
I suspect your attempts to "meet in the middle", masquerading as politeness, were little more than attempts at receiving consensus without having to earn consensus. It's essentially a form of "anchoring", where someone tries to establish a definite point from which to maneuver.
Yes, I have been discrediting your points. That's how debate works. If someone say something inaccurate, you point out that it is inaccurate, and how, and why.
Anyways, I'll ask again.
Let's say you're totally right and natural talent exists. How is this fact of any practical use? To what end is it worth constantly bring up? What's the takeaway?
Let's take a look at that quote you're misinterpreting, and bold, italicize and underline the important parts you're neglecting.
VioletKnight wrote:
I've seen more that concludes natural talent exists, but as a whole the scientific community is divided.
This does not mean:
uncommondenominator wrote:
The scientific community is divided, but it also concludes that it exists.
It means that the majority of the research that I've seen concludes that it exists and some conclude that it's a myth. Like I said in previous posts. So, as a whole, the scientific community is divided - meaning that not all individual scientists and research teams agree on the matter as there are those that conclude that it does exist and those that conclude that it doesn't. The scientific community is made up of all the individual scientists.
An example that may help: This forum is a community made up of all the individual users, who do not always agree with one another on everything. If a topic is made asking a question and 75% of users give one answer (we will call this Answer A) while 25% give a different answer (we will call this Answer B) then more of the users assert that Answer A is correct, but the community as a whole is divided.
Does this help? Do you understand now?
09 Jun 2025, 10:10 pm
Division is not indecision. If 75% of people believe A, and 25% of people believe B, then the group as a whole clearly favors A over B, even if the decision isn't unanimous.
No matter how you try to edit it to sound, you're still saying that it's both uncertain, but also leans more towards what you believe. Y'know, cos 75% believe one thing, and 25% believe another thing, so there's "division". But the majority of that "division" also agrees with you.
It's like saying "we don't know which cookie people like more", and then showing a graph where 75% of people favor chocolate chip, while 25% like oatmeal raisin. Even though there's a division, one is clearly favored over the other.
I'll ask again. I'll assume you're right. Natural talent exists. How does this help anything? What is one supposed to do with this fact? How does that help someone improve? In what way is this meant to enable or empower someone?
It's like starting a conversation about how to make money, but people just keep pointing out that "some people are born rich", or trying to have a conversation about improving health or fitness, and just saying "some people are naturally fit". That's cool, but still doesn't offer any practical help on the matter for the majority of people who aren't born blessed with a boon like that, as to how to practice and improve.
09 Jun 2025, 11:29 pm
uncommondenominator wrote:
Division is not indecision. If 75% of people believe A, and 25% of people believe B, then the group as a whole clearly favors A over B, even if the decision isn't unanimous.
No matter how you try to edit it to sound, you're still saying that it's both uncertain, but also leans more towards what you believe. Y'know, cos 75% believe one thing, and 25% believe another thing, so there's "division". But the majority of that "division" also agrees with you.
It's like saying "we don't know which cookie people like more", and then showing a graph where 75% of people favor chocolate chip, while 25% like oatmeal raisin. Even though there's a division, one is clearly favored over the other.
I'll ask again. I'll assume you're right. Natural talent exists. How does this help anything? What is one supposed to do with this fact? How does that help someone improve? In what way is this meant to enable or empower someone?
It's like starting a conversation about how to make money, but people just keep pointing out that "some people are born rich", or trying to have a conversation about improving health or fitness, and just saying "some people are naturally fit". That's cool, but still doesn't offer any practical help on the matter for the majority of people who aren't born blessed with a boon like that, as to how to practice and improve.
No matter how you try to edit it to sound, you're still saying that it's both uncertain, but also leans more towards what you believe. Y'know, cos 75% believe one thing, and 25% believe another thing, so there's "division". But the majority of that "division" also agrees with you.
It's like saying "we don't know which cookie people like more", and then showing a graph where 75% of people favor chocolate chip, while 25% like oatmeal raisin. Even though there's a division, one is clearly favored over the other.
I'll ask again. I'll assume you're right. Natural talent exists. How does this help anything? What is one supposed to do with this fact? How does that help someone improve? In what way is this meant to enable or empower someone?
It's like starting a conversation about how to make money, but people just keep pointing out that "some people are born rich", or trying to have a conversation about improving health or fitness, and just saying "some people are naturally fit". That's cool, but still doesn't offer any practical help on the matter for the majority of people who aren't born blessed with a boon like that, as to how to practice and improve.
In a case where a consensus matters, a division is indeed an indecision. And you're still misinterpreting and misunderstanding, but I don't know how else to explain it to you. My points haven't changed at all, despite what you've claimed in a few of your replies. I've been saying the exact same thing, in different ways, the entire conversation.
And you really want an answer to your question that badly despite not even trying to pretend to care about what I'm saying? Refer back to my first reply to this thread. It answers questions that were asked by the first post in the thread, which is really all it needs to do here. But, I'll humor you a bit. How does this help? Having a reason, an answer to why something is happening, can provide comfort and peace of mind. Knowing that you've done all you can and that it's not your fault helps. Plus, if you know that you're naturally talented at something you can capitalize on that talent and make it benefit you. What is one supposed to do with this fact? Accept it so that you can move on and not dwell on it. Use it to your advantage. How does that help someone improve? It helps them know where to focus their efforts and helps with planning a future. If you know you're naturally good at something, that something makes the most sense to pursue. Knowing the things you can improve and the things that you can never improve should help keep one from wasting any more effort on the later and getting no results and instead focus on the former. In what way is this meant to enable or empower someone? First, not everything needs to "enable or empower someone". Sometimes, facts are just facts. They're not always pleasant, but that doesn't change them. After being told "you can do anything you put your mind to" when you're young it's hard to accept the reality that you can't, but that doesn't change the fact either. Second, if you're insistent on this empowering somebody, refer back to my answers to the previous questions.
Now, I've answered your questions like you asked. So do as I ask and dispense with the misinterpretations, actually respond to what I'm saying. Or, just agree to disagree and leave it alone. Because, I'm sorry if this is rude but I need to be frank, you're a difficult person to deal with and seriously draining on my social batteries. I really don't like arguing with people, but I'm not going to lie about my views just to avoid conflict either.
10 Jun 2025, 1:14 am
funeralxempire wrote:
babybird wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I understand that many of us struggle with social skills, yet some of us seem prone to flinching away from any sort of social interactions that might lead to improving our social skills?
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Has anyone here gotten good at something without practising it?
Well, why would one expect social skills to work differently?
If you have poor social skills, more social interaction is the only path towards improvement.
Yeah it does take practice
You've gotta keep oiling the cogs and all that
I think if you stay out of life for a while it's hard to find your way back in
Especially these days with everything changing so fast
100%.
It's definitely harder every time I go through a period of burn-out and withdrawal, but the alternative is to just extend the withdrawal period, which doesn't really help anything.
It's a lot of pressure as well
_________________
We have existence
10 Jun 2025, 7:23 pm
VioletKnight wrote:
Having a reason, an answer to why something is happening, can provide comfort and peace of mind. Knowing that you've done all you can and that it's not your fault helps.
So it's a cope and an excuse. It's not that you weren't trying hard enough, or doing things wrong, or gave up - it's just that you weren't born a wizard like all the other natural wizards.
VioletKnight wrote:
Plus, if you know that you're naturally talented at something you can capitalize on that talent and make it benefit you. What is one supposed to do with this fact? Accept it so that you can move on and not dwell on it. Use it to your advantage. How does that help someone improve? It helps them know where to focus their efforts and helps with planning a future.
This is only of use if you actually have natural talent. Or, if your natural talents are actually useful. Suppose I have no natural talents. How do I use that to my advantage? How does one capitalize on natural talent they don't have? It only seems to empower people who already have natural talent - who don't even need empowering, cos they have natural talent.
VioletKnight wrote:
Knowing the things you can improve and the things that you can never improve should help keep one from wasting any more effort on the later and getting no results and instead focus on the former.
That's quite an on/off switch, going from things that can be improved, to things that can never be improved, with no middle ground. It sounds like it's being implied that only people with natural talent can improve, and if you don't have natural talent, it's impossible and not even worth trying.
VioletKnight wrote:
First, not everything needs to "enable or empower someone".
True, but this is a support site, regarding a question of skill building. Being supportive or empowering seemed the things to do - and more useful then trying to put a smile on excuses to not try.
VioletKnight wrote:
Sometimes, facts are just facts.
I thought the scientific community was "undecided"? So now it's "undecided", but also a fact? Wild.
VioletKnight wrote:
They're not always pleasant, but that doesn't change them.
True - but sometimes the unpleasant truth is they didn't try very hard, and gave up. Parading around the existence of natural talent in the manner above is a means of normalizing the notion that results should be easy, and if they're hard, it's not worth it.
VioletKnight wrote:
Now, I've answered your questions like you asked. So do as I ask and dispense with the misinterpretations, actually respond to what I'm saying. Or, just agree to disagree and leave it alone. Because, I'm sorry if this is rude but I need to be frank, you're a difficult person to deal with and seriously draining on my social batteries. I really don't like arguing with people, but I'm not going to lie about my views just to avoid conflict either.
I cannot "dispense" with a behavior I am not engaging in.
I stand by what I've said.
Yesterday, 12:01 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
So it's a cope and an excuse.
A reason, not an excuse. If I had meant "excuse" I would have said "excuse".
uncommondenominator wrote:
This is only of use if you actually have natural talent. Or, if your natural talents are actually useful. Suppose I have no natural talents. How do I use that to my advantage? How does one capitalize on natural talent they don't have? It only seems to empower people who already have natural talent - who don't even need empowering, cos they have natural talent.
uncommondenominator wrote:
That's quite an on/off switch, going from things that can be improved, to things that can never be improved, with no middle ground. It sounds like it's being implied that only people with natural talent can improve, and if you don't have natural talent, it's impossible and not even worth trying.
You clearly did not refer back to my initial reply to this thread as instructed. Because you're obviously missing some context. Or still willfully misinterpreting in order to instigate. Again.
uncommondenominator wrote:
True, but this is a support site, regarding a question of skill building.
It's also a discussion site. The question at the start of the thread was asking "why". It was not asking for support nor empowerment. It was asking for a reason, an explanation.
uncommondenominator wrote:
I thought the scientific community was "undecided"? So now it's "undecided", but also a fact? Wild.
Again: You clearly did not refer back to my initial reply to this thread as instructed. Because you're obviously missing some context. Or still willfully misinterpreting in order to instigate. Again.
In fact, that statement could easily be the perfect response to your entire reply.
uncommondenominator wrote:
I cannot "dispense" with a behavior I am not engaging in.
You've been engaging in the behavior pretty much this entire conversation, and still are.
uncommondenominator wrote:
I stand by what I've said.
I also stand by what I've said. Over and over again now. So, you must be agreeing to disagree then?
Yesterday, 2:53 am
A reason just explains a correlation. "The reason I was late for work is I got a flat tire" When it becomes a justification for a difference in treatment, or a lessening of consequence, it becomes an excuse. "The reason I was late for work is I got a flat tire, so please don't penalize me for it."
In this instance, "The reason I'm not improving is cos I lack talent" is a reason, but "I won't improve because I lack talent, so don't even expect me to try" is where it proceeds to shift from "reason" to "excuse".
So, still sounds like an excuse to me. The world is full of people who don't have natural talent, yet try and succeed anyways.
Similarly, claiming that I must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic is also an excuse - for the fact that your arguments have been uncompelling. It's also an ad-hominem attack, aimed at me personally, rather than my reasoning.
On topic, and related - the thing about practice and improvement is, it requires the individual to be vulnerable. As you're learning, you're going to make mistakes. You're going to feel awkward or silly or foolish. You are going to get things wrong. You are likely to be criticized and corrected. All of these things are necessary and important - and all of these things are situations that the average person prefers to avoid.
Autistic individuals tend to already feel vulnerable, and possibly hypersensitive, making all of those experiences feel even worse. Kinda makes people "nope" out real fast.
In that same token, natural talent, or a lack thereof, gets used as an excuse to not have to try, as a means of avoiding all of those unpleasant experiences.
There's also the fact that improvement usually requires the involvement and participation of someone who knows more than you do about the thing you're trying to improve on. Unless you have magic talent, not many people improve on their own, until after they've achieved a certain skill level. Learning from youtube or google isn't the same as having an actual experienced person actively in the room to give you feedback, and let you know if you actually have it right or not, or guide you in a better direction.
In fact, without that external guidance, most people don't even have the skill to tell if they've improved or not. All you know is you're not where you want to be, even if it's an unreasonable expectation, which you also wouldn't know without external help and feedback.
But that would also require them to be vulnerable, as they'd be making all those mistakes in front of someone, and being awkward in front of someone, and literally having them judge them. And I suppose that's part of the problem, too.
It really doesn't matter what you call it - natural talent, inherent ability, magic mojo - it's really just semantics as to what you attribute it to, but it doesn't really alter the outcome.
In this instance, invoking "natural talent" as the answer to everything, basically just shuts the conversation down. Mystery solved, lack of natural talent, moving on, nothing to see here, no need to expect anyone to practice or anything.
To that end, I'm not even saying that people with exceptional ability don't exist - merely that it's more nurture than nature. While I may agree to disagree on the source of such things, I will not extend the same luxury to the notion that "natural talent" is a valid excuse to not even try, or to stop trying, or to not be held accountable for one's self. Propagating the notion is essentially to teach learned helplessness.
Yesterday, 3:43 am
uncommondenominator wrote:
A reason just explains a correlation. "The reason I was late for work is I got a flat tire" When it becomes a justification for a difference in treatment, or a lessening of consequence, it becomes an excuse. "The reason I was late for work is I got a flat tire, so please don't penalize me for it."
In this instance, "The reason I'm not improving is cos I lack talent" is a reason, but "I won't improve because I lack talent, so don't even expect me to try" is where it proceeds to shift from "reason" to "excuse".
So, still sounds like an excuse to me. The world is full of people who don't have natural talent, yet try and succeed anyways.
Similarly, claiming that I must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic is also an excuse - for the fact that your arguments have been uncompelling. It's also an ad-hominem attack, aimed at me personally, rather than my reasoning.
On topic, and related - the thing about practice and improvement is, it requires the individual to be vulnerable. As you're learning, you're going to make mistakes. You're going to feel awkward or silly or foolish. You are going to get things wrong. You are likely to be criticized and corrected. All of these things are necessary and important - and all of these things are situations that the average person prefers to avoid.
Autistic individuals tend to already feel vulnerable, and possibly hypersensitive, making all of those experiences feel even worse. Kinda makes people "nope" out real fast.
In that same token, natural talent, or a lack thereof, gets used as an excuse to not have to try, as a means of avoiding all of those unpleasant experiences.
There's also the fact that improvement usually requires the involvement and participation of someone who knows more than you do about the thing you're trying to improve on. Unless you have magic talent, not many people improve on their own, until after they've achieved a certain skill level. Learning from youtube or google isn't the same as having an actual experienced person actively in the room to give you feedback, and let you know if you actually have it right or not, or guide you in a better direction.
In fact, without that external guidance, most people don't even have the skill to tell if they've improved or not. All you know is you're not where you want to be, even if it's an unreasonable expectation, which you also wouldn't know without external help and feedback.
But that would also require them to be vulnerable, as they'd be making all those mistakes in front of someone, and being awkward in front of someone, and literally having them judge them. And I suppose that's part of the problem, too.
It really doesn't matter what you call it - natural talent, inherent ability, magic mojo - it's really just semantics as to what you attribute it to, but it doesn't really alter the outcome.
In this instance, invoking "natural talent" as the answer to everything, basically just shuts the conversation down. Mystery solved, lack of natural talent, moving on, nothing to see here, no need to expect anyone to practice or anything.
To that end, I'm not even saying that people with exceptional ability don't exist - merely that it's more nurture than nature. While I may agree to disagree on the source of such things, I will not extend the same luxury to the notion that "natural talent" is a valid excuse to not even try, or to stop trying, or to not be held accountable for one's self. Propagating the notion is essentially to teach learned helplessness.
In this instance, "The reason I'm not improving is cos I lack talent" is a reason, but "I won't improve because I lack talent, so don't even expect me to try" is where it proceeds to shift from "reason" to "excuse".
So, still sounds like an excuse to me. The world is full of people who don't have natural talent, yet try and succeed anyways.
Similarly, claiming that I must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic is also an excuse - for the fact that your arguments have been uncompelling. It's also an ad-hominem attack, aimed at me personally, rather than my reasoning.
On topic, and related - the thing about practice and improvement is, it requires the individual to be vulnerable. As you're learning, you're going to make mistakes. You're going to feel awkward or silly or foolish. You are going to get things wrong. You are likely to be criticized and corrected. All of these things are necessary and important - and all of these things are situations that the average person prefers to avoid.
Autistic individuals tend to already feel vulnerable, and possibly hypersensitive, making all of those experiences feel even worse. Kinda makes people "nope" out real fast.
In that same token, natural talent, or a lack thereof, gets used as an excuse to not have to try, as a means of avoiding all of those unpleasant experiences.
There's also the fact that improvement usually requires the involvement and participation of someone who knows more than you do about the thing you're trying to improve on. Unless you have magic talent, not many people improve on their own, until after they've achieved a certain skill level. Learning from youtube or google isn't the same as having an actual experienced person actively in the room to give you feedback, and let you know if you actually have it right or not, or guide you in a better direction.
In fact, without that external guidance, most people don't even have the skill to tell if they've improved or not. All you know is you're not where you want to be, even if it's an unreasonable expectation, which you also wouldn't know without external help and feedback.
But that would also require them to be vulnerable, as they'd be making all those mistakes in front of someone, and being awkward in front of someone, and literally having them judge them. And I suppose that's part of the problem, too.
It really doesn't matter what you call it - natural talent, inherent ability, magic mojo - it's really just semantics as to what you attribute it to, but it doesn't really alter the outcome.
In this instance, invoking "natural talent" as the answer to everything, basically just shuts the conversation down. Mystery solved, lack of natural talent, moving on, nothing to see here, no need to expect anyone to practice or anything.
To that end, I'm not even saying that people with exceptional ability don't exist - merely that it's more nurture than nature. While I may agree to disagree on the source of such things, I will not extend the same luxury to the notion that "natural talent" is a valid excuse to not even try, or to stop trying, or to not be held accountable for one's self. Propagating the notion is essentially to teach learned helplessness.
I know what the difference between a reason and an excuse is. Again, had I meant "excuse" then I would have said "excuse".
And no, I am not claiming that you "must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic" as an excuse. I am pointing out the behavior that I am witnessing from you. You have been engaging in ad hominem and other fallacies while pointing the finger at me and claiming that I am. You have been misinterpreting and trying to twist my words for pretty much this entire conversation. You call my arguments uncompelling, but you have had at least two people here calling yours such. I have tried several times to meet you in the middle while you have remained antagonistic and intent on arguing. You have made it very clear that you are going to stubbornly stick to your own views regardless of anything I say. And you're certainly never going to change mine with the way you're going about things.
So, that said, the only options I'm seeing are 1. we agree to disagree, which just means that we acknowledge we will not be convincing each other of anything and stop arguing, or 2. we just keep arguing forever. Personally, I am in favor of 1 because, as I said before, you are very draining on my social batteries. Arguing is exhausting.
Yesterday, 8:11 pm
VioletKnight wrote:
I know what the difference between a reason and an excuse is. Again, had I meant "excuse" then I would have said "excuse".
And no, I am not claiming that you "must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic" as an excuse. I am pointing out the behavior that I am witnessing from you. You have been engaging in ad hominem and other fallacies while pointing the finger at me and claiming that I am. You have been misinterpreting and trying to twist my words for pretty much this entire conversation. You call my arguments uncompelling, but you have had at least two people here calling yours such. I have tried several times to meet you in the middle while you have remained antagonistic and intent on arguing. You have made it very clear that you are going to stubbornly stick to your own views regardless of anything I say. And you're certainly never going to change mine with the way you're going about things.
So, that said, the only options I'm seeing are 1. we agree to disagree, which just means that we acknowledge we will not be convincing each other of anything and stop arguing, or 2. we just keep arguing forever. Personally, I am in favor of 1 because, as I said before, you are very draining on my social batteries. Arguing is exhausting.
And no, I am not claiming that you "must intentionally be acting obstinate and antagonistic" as an excuse. I am pointing out the behavior that I am witnessing from you. You have been engaging in ad hominem and other fallacies while pointing the finger at me and claiming that I am. You have been misinterpreting and trying to twist my words for pretty much this entire conversation. You call my arguments uncompelling, but you have had at least two people here calling yours such. I have tried several times to meet you in the middle while you have remained antagonistic and intent on arguing. You have made it very clear that you are going to stubbornly stick to your own views regardless of anything I say. And you're certainly never going to change mine with the way you're going about things.
So, that said, the only options I'm seeing are 1. we agree to disagree, which just means that we acknowledge we will not be convincing each other of anything and stop arguing, or 2. we just keep arguing forever. Personally, I am in favor of 1 because, as I said before, you are very draining on my social batteries. Arguing is exhausting.
It's a bit hypocritical how you refusing to change your mind is perfectly acceptable, but me refusing to change my mind makes me "stubborn".
It's also a bit entitled to expect me to stop standing on my hill just cos you're tired of standing on yours. How you choose to allocate your social battery is not my responsibility. Claiming that it's somehow my fault that you choose to keep interacting with me sounds very much like a "look what you made me do!" type of gaslight.
Anyways, there's a 3rd option as I see it. I can simply nod and smile, and carry on talking about social skills.
And on the topic of social skills, another reason people don't like to practice, in particular when first starting out, is that there are a lot of mundane fundamentals you have to learn and practice, for quite a while, before you can move on to the actual stuff you want to learn. It's one of the reasons people feel like they're not making progress. Like Daniel-san and Mr Miyagi. For a while, it just feels like you're doing stupid mundane repetitive nonsense, and you're not really learning anything or making any progress. But you really are - you just didn't know it.
Just cos you're not where you think you should be, doesn't mean you haven't made real and meaningful progress. Learning high-level skills without a solid foundation of basics is a structure doomed to collapse. Learning how to sing powerfully without first learning how to breathe right or having practiced strengthening the neck and throat muscles first is a good way to damage your voice, or make yourself faint. Learning complex sword techniques without first learning proper stances and hand discipline is a good way accidentally cut off parts of your own body.
So, if you're trying to learn a skill by diving straight into the deeper end of the pool, rather than starting at the beginning, odds are yes, you will probably fail to improve in a satisfactory way. If you try to go it alone and self-teach, even with the aid of videos and books and all the research in the world, but no actual person on-hand to guide or correct you, there's a good chance you won't improve the way you wanted to.
Notice how even the best performers and athletes in the world still have trainers and coaches?
Another reason people fail is they conflate passage of time with time spent practicing. Someone will take an hour-long lesson once a week, and then never practice in between lessons, and then after a year say "I've been studying trombone for a year, and have hardly learned anything" - when in reality they haven't been studying trombone for a year, they've spent maybe 52 hours learning, spread across the year.
Compared to someone who practices for an hour EVERY day. That's 365 hours of practice. Vs 52. Is it any wonder one of them is doing better than the other? One of them is practicing 7x more - big surprise that one of them is 7x better after a year. It takes about 100 hours of good meaningful practice, to get "somewhat ok" at something. That's like 2 hours a week, for a year. Or 4 hours a week for 6 months, maybe - cos there is a limit to how far that can be compressed. If you're trying to master something in a month by doing it 8 hours a day, you will probably burn yourself out.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Using movies to develop social skills |
29 Mar 2025, 11:26 pm |
| Coping Skills & Different Dozens |
19 Apr 2025, 10:25 am |
| Balancing the demands of difficult physical skills |
22 May 2025, 11:33 am |
| Social Security |
22 Apr 2025, 8:42 pm |
