Life is Not Fair

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/one ... o-now-what

What exactly is this woman trying to convey here? What does "Life is not Fair" truthfully mean and why must I accept this? Why is it wrong to fight for justice or to cure disease? By this woman's logic was the civil rights movement wrong? Was trying to fight the "Divine Right of Kings wrong?" Is the attempt to finding the cure for cancer wrong? Isn't this negativity and a negative attitude? I thought we were all supposed to be positive and have a positive attitude. I thought we all could do anything we can set our minds to.

Does this woman acknowledge that positivity is a failed ideology then? If not what is she saying then?

I'm not sure, but I think her idea was that you can't let the reality that life isn't fair totally paralyze your mind and life. I don't see how anyone over the age of 12 can't understand that, though. It seems similar to the Zen idea to accept that life is suffering and yet be content to go on with living anyway.

OTOH, I have seen people use "life is unfair" as an excuse not to care about screwing someone over. I.e. the professor's comment that he can grade however he likes because life isn't fair. He seems to be saying that the student should accept whatever he does without question -- and that's nonsense. If he grades students down because they are black, or he increases grades because of bribes or sexual favors then he would have to face the community's, his employer's, and possibly the judicial system's view of what is and isn't fair. (If he truly believes that he can grade however he likes then he has no reason to hide or lie about doing it those ways.) So, I think that "life isn't fair" is sometimes just moral laziness because the person knows that the counter-party has no power to enforce justice. And if the prof still likes his philosophy, then maybe the student should say that unless he increases her grade she's going to falsely accuse him of sexual assault, because "life isn't fair." Sometimes, life can be as fair as we want to make it for someone else.

Anyway, my view is like the Zen idea -- life isn't fair (actually it's neither fair nor unfair -- it's totally indifferent), but that by itself is no reason to kill myself.

It's similar to the story about saving a beach full of starfish^*: you can't save them all, but that doesn't mean that you should give up and not save the few that you can. And I think that goes to your point about researching diseases, and fighting for civil & human rights.

^*

I think it is not a literal interpretation of the phrase. The author is simply saying that it sucks when bad things happen that are out of our control, and if they are genuinely out of our control (as her first example, cancer, so often is) we have to find a way to accept our inability to control everything and move on with our lives.

I think she means that the key is not becoming so bogged down in frustration that you get stuck and unable to do anything.

I agree with Momsparky.

I do not think the author's piece is intended to refer to those things that people have control over and can change. She is talking about trying to make sense of things you cannot control like cancer or generally difficult circumstances. She is putting it in the context of her particular religious beliefs as well. She does not appear to be talking about things that are beneficial or righteous to change.

She was gently criticizing those who always tell people that there will be a "silver lining," because she does not necessarily believe that bad things happening to good people will turn out OK. They do not, always. (It does not take but a cursory look at the history of humankind to discover this.)

I understand why this is confusing to you in the context of being told to be positive.

Some people are negative to the point where it adversely affects their lives. They become paralyzed by negativity and become afraid to do things they need to do to benefit themselves, and their families, or do not see the point in trying. Putting philosophy aside, for now, that can become a pragmatic, life-skills kind of issue.

Then there are people who are too positive. (Yes even in NT American culture there is such a thing.) They think everything is going to work out in the end, without having to try and/or without being responsible. Think of the fable about the ant and grasshopper, where the grasshopper goes not save food for winter because he feels he can just play all the time and things will work out. Too much positivity can therefore also be a pragmatic issue.

In real life you need balance. You need enough positivity to function without giving up, to improve those things you can. You need enough negativity (which I would interpret more as being able to be realistic) to know that good things will not just be handed to you, and that you have to put forth effort and be responsible. Also you must realize that even with effort and good intents you still may fail.

Mostly you need good judgement to know what you can change and what you cannot. You need the objectivity to understand your own weaknesses, strengths and limitations to know what fights are winnable and which are not. This judgement and objectivity are hard to acquire.

You, momsparky and others on here know how to make things so clear and present these things in plain English. Is this how most people interpret it? I have written papers that momsparky has already seen that cover things like responsibility and attitude. From my point of view, I've always felt like that people promote attitude as though it is the building blocks of reality itself and this was mainstream. I've always felt like Americans acted like a cult with positivity and the positive attitude mantra.

I was negative about my driving and my driving ability until I was given instructions as to how to switch lanes effectively. I was negative going in and my attitude was horrible. By NT logic especially Henry Ford's logic I should've failed. Why did I succeed in this case despite my negativity? Henry's quote is "Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right." Why did this quote fail in my case? Why was the null hypothesis true in this case. The null hypothesis to this is "Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are not right."

I received instruction and it all clicked. My attitude had no correlation in this case. There are those who state that if I even attempt to disprove positivity and the positive attitude mantra. This means positivity is not falsifiable or testable.

http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/ ... ility.html

Is it possible to test Henry Ford's statement and ever prove it false? To me, it seems like this positivity and negativity is a pseudoscience. Am I wrong and if so why am I wrong?

I think the statement, while presented in a very black-and-white way, was not really intended to be so factual, it was more of a generalization.

For example, you could say that all the pragmatics you are learning here on WrongPlanet are due to your continuing to look for answers even if they've been hard to find. From Henry Ford's perspective, you could say this is due to your "attitude." You have not given up in the face of adversity, but keep searching for answers.

I think, also, many NTs confuse positivity and negativity with social skills (how you present yourself, what words you use) when the important part is how you act - and that is because many NT's behaviors are driven by their social skills. You aren't. You might, however, learn to "play the game" so that you are not confusing the NTs around you.

Re: "Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right."

It is falsifiable in the sense that follows"

Let P= You believe you can do something.
(So ~P=You do not believe you can do something.)

Let Q=You are right
(So ~Q=You are not right)

If (P Or ~P) Then Q

So let us analyze this using standard logic.

The first part of this conditional statement is P OR ~P. This part is always true unless you are uncertain. In the end that part does not matter because using standard logic, a conditional statement is always true unless the second part of it is false.

So in regular English, for this statement to be false, it does not matter whether you believe you can do something or you can't (or even if you are uncertain-non standard logic allows this) this conditional statement is false if you are wrong.

Logically, all you have to do is find any instance where a person believes he can do something and doesn't, OR believes he will fail and succeeds anyway, and this quote is proven false. QED!

That said, quotes like this are not expected to withstand logical rigor. They are intended to be motivational. And really Henry Ford was not a philosopher or a scientist anyway. He was a business man who founded Ford Motor Company and was known for using an assembly line technique of mass production and some less savory things like anti-semitism, as well.

My underlying drive is to search for truth behind things and why that is. If I discover something that I think is true when it is not I want to know why. Where am I wrong and why am I wrong. After all of this time I may have an answer to something.

Here is an example. When I went to high school and middle school it was emphasized to the students that if one does not do good in school and go to a good college he will not get a good job. The faculty was saying that college was necessary to obtain a good job.

There was so many who did go to college including myself and did not get a good job. I kept wondering what I did wrong. This is where I went wrong.

I have to define what necessary vs sufficient conditions are.

http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hausman/341/ ... ec-suf.htm

What I did was confused a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.

http://gogmat.com/blog/17-gmat-study-gu ... cient.html

Going to college may be necessary for obtaining a good job but may not be sufficient for obtaining a good job. This means I may have to go to college to obtain a good job but going to college will not guarantee a good job to me. If I understood necessary vs. sufficient conditions during that time I would've handled things a lot better. I would've been able to ask better questions of other people. Why don't elementary, middle and high schools teach things like this?

The thing is these quotes don't motivate me. They don't tell me anything and my natural inclination is to put the logical rigor like you did. What motivates me is logical reasoning, knowing what the correct thing to do is in different situations, knowing what the truth and the underlying reasons to it including life in general, constructive feedback, and logical discussions of different areas.

http://michaelgraham.com/why-theyre-the ... tion-ever/

I think this might shed some light as well. I think I may be conflating positivity with self-esteem. I have been assuming there is one meaning to the terms positivity and negativity. Maybe there are many. I am not sure. Momsparky, mentioned confusing positivity and negativity with social skills. What if I am confusing positivity and negativity with self-esteem as well. I am wondering if some of the arguments I am making like in the paper I wrote entitled "Attitude" on wrongplanet actually is against the self-esteem movement.

I don't think in the way these students think though. I have always questioned my own writing abilities and grammar. Are my writings good or they sub-par? I think I am very good at logic but am I really. For me, I am always 2nd, 3rd, 4th and nth guessing myself until I become paralyzed. My IQ is 98. I think this is considered average on the IQ bell curve. Even with this, has the IQ test been dumbed down over the decades and if it has been what is my true IQ? I am not a genius or a super genius whatsoever. I'm not Albert Einstein. In fact, I know I lack understanding in many more areas than I have understanding in.

How do these students come to believe they're excellent at things that they may not be and objective tests show they are not? For the life of me, I do not understand how these students think if this type of student even exists. I was able to successfully obtain a degree in Information Technology and I took a couple of chemistry courses. I sat their and analyzed, analyzed and analyzed these courses. I was able to obtain A's in them.

I was able to create a game in which I could created an artificial intelligence player for a Tic Tac Toe game. The way I was able to crack this was by reducing the size of the boards and expanding the encoded rules when I increased the size of the board until I had the normal board for Tic Tac Toe. I had to do stuff like this because my social skills was horrible. I didn't know how to ask the instructor the questions I had. I had to work a lot of things out myself?

Why couldn't these students do what I did? I don't understand. When it came to the workplace, it was mostly social. It's not like college or trying to figure out how to code something. What is the underlying difference between me and them? Am I like them in any kind of way? What is the difference between where I went wrong and where these students including some of those in OWS went wrong?

I not find these quotes inspirational, either. There is a type of personality type that does. I don't think Apsie types are usually in this category. It appeals to the emotional side of people, so again not supposed to bear up to logical rigor. I myself tends to find fact and logic more persuasive, but that is how my brain works. It is just hard to understand other types of brains sometimes, but emotional truth is also a kind of truth. For people that operate that way, emotions are more persuasive. If you ask me how people perceive emotions to be true, I probably do not have enough theory of mind to answer other than it is a different type of perception. I am sure there are philosophers who talk of this, though.

I do think you conflate self-esteem with the whole negative/positive thinking thing. You do need self-esteem to function as a healthy human. This means that you need to understand your strengths, weaknesses, and your intrinsic value. If you think you have little value (low self-esteem) then you are underestimating yourself. This leads to "negative thinking." When I say negative thinking, I mean it more as a reference to a type of faulty estimation: Thinking things are worse than they really are, or that your value is less than it really is. To me "positive thinking" is overestimating ones abilities or thinking things are better than they really are. This is not how everyone uses these words. It is how I make sense of it. To me, realistic thinking is the optimal path, which would be accurately assessing value, strengths, weaknesses and situation.

IQ tests are not so much the point, as they are not perfect indicators, especially for aspies. A 98 is in the average range, but you probably have a lot of things unmeasured by this test that are above average. Given that you are are the underestimating end you have a great deal of trouble understanding that there are many people who overestimate their abilities. It is not any harder for them to do this than it is for you to underestimate yourself. It is easy to discount objective measurements, and they tend to be imperfect, anyway. Many people add intangibles into the mix, which is not necessarily inappropriate. It just makes the answers fuzzier, which life is anyway.

I just had a "complete" neuropsych workup including the IQ test. It was fascinating - but while I think it accurately predicted one or two of my strengths, there were areas where I thought the test results had no bearing on my functionality in the real world and was of no real help to me in figuring out how to learn about and manage my weaknesses. (The only test that I thought really represented good information was the test of working memory, at which I do excel, and which was a good predictor of both this strength in the lab and of my working memory IRL.)

In other words: it's a stupid test. Richard Feynman, famous for his Nobel Prize in Physics but also noted lecturer, author, artist and musician, tested in the high normal range. He also came to the conclusion that it is a stupid test.

IMO, it's a little bit like BMI predicting metabolic health: on the extreme ends of the scale, it usually indicates that something is amiss - but even in those cases there are exceptions. Sometimes people are just skinny or fat and there isn't anything else to be read into it - and making gross generalizations about health and body shape doesn't really help anybody.

It was the favorite saying of all the teachers and administrators at the school I went to. I know most people only use it when the issue is life, like they were saying about someone getting cancer or something that really isn't some person's fault, but I heard it so many times when the person was only using it as code for, "I am about to behave sadistically, and you have absolutely no power to stop it." That it really ruined it for me.

The superintendent physically abuses a 45 pound 10 year old? Life's not fair. The shop teacher twists the guide wires on one of the air powered race cars in a heat, so that his favored student wins? Then announces that he did it, and there's nothing anyone can do about it? Life's not fair. A 6 foot 3 inch 250 pound kid attacks a 5 foot 4 inch 110 pound kid, and the small kid uses a Tae Kwon Do move to trip the big bully after trying to walk away three times in front of twenty witnesses? Small kid is paddled and expelled for using a "weapon" (the Tae Kwon Do move) and the bully is not punished at all. Life's not fair. A bus driver nearly dislocates a second grader's shoulder yanking him over the top of the seats and dragging him to the front of the bus? Life's not fair. A teacher tells her class that she has a gun in her desk and isn't afraid to use it, while calling all the students stupid, fat, lazy cows? LIFE'S NOT FAIR.

Wow, it is fascinating. My IQ used to be 78 but someway, somehow it jumped 20 points. What do you all see as my greatest strengths?

One of the failures of the IQ test is that it involves a lot of communication, written and verbal. I am guessing your IQ stayed the same, but your ability to decode what was expected of you improved.

I don't really know you well enough to be able to discuss your strengths. I would say persistence is an asset of yours.

ASDMommy

As an aside, what you describe is called modus tollens.

If (P Or ~P) Then Q

Let's go to your antecedent.

1. (P Or ~P)
2. ~Q
Conclusion: ~(P Or ~P)

Let's use De'Morgan's law to convert ~(P Or ~P)
~(P Or ~P) = (~P and ~~P) = (~P and P) = (P and ~P)

Once we convert it by De 'Morgan's law we have contradiction if I deny the consequent. This means if the consequent is deniable in this case we would have contradiction and proof by contradiction in some cases no matter what the belief is one may still succeed or fail.



All one has to do like you said is find a way to deny the consequent.

I bet you as I better my ability to decode what was expected it will increase even more.