October 22, 2011
People who dominate.
People who are dominated.
Who belongs in which group? Think about the people you know and how they relate to you or to others. Many people fall into both groups in their interactions with different people. In charge, subordinate, superior, smarter, older, younger, indifferent. Wives, husbands, siblings, students (except for what directly affects their grade), children.
Not listening is aggressive. I do not need you, I do not have to regard you as equal.
Not listening is passive aggressive. I do not find you worth listening to, but I don’t want to say so openly. Or, I am being discounted by you, so I will retaliate quietly, by ‘not hearing’ what you say whenever I think I can get away with it.
I’m not putting friends in either group, you see, because that is how you know someone, whether they’re related to you or not, is your friend. They listen to you. They accept that what you say is valid. They act with what you say as a factor in their decisions.
People who listen are the people you want in your life.
Do you listen?
June 25, 2011
This would work far better for me if it were Guittard, or Droste, or Lindt…uh, okay. I’ll stop thinking about it now.
June 4, 2011
If only he knew what I really wanted (ignoring that fact that most of us live in a nebula of vague wants, not clear and specific star-points).
If I have to tell him to say he loves me, it loses all its meaning (men don’t seem to think talking about feelings is as important as women do).
Men are so different from women (and women are different from men) (and you are different from me) (and everyone is different from everyone else)
We are also all the same. We all want to be shown that people respect us, like us, love us… we all want to feel connected.
So, hey, why not go out on a limb here and tell people what you need, and ask them what they need, and then start being kind to each other !
June 4, 2011
And now for the final three comics in Non Sequitur’s week long exploration of Argumentative Reasoning (first three here) or: why we have so many problems understanding facts.
Wouldn’t it be brilliant if politicians and media were required to state facts clearly, without spin? And cite their sources, and list consequences of the advocated actions? Of course, it would be so boring to most people that no one would pay any attention.
June 1, 2011
Argumentative reasoning is a hot topic just now.
Essentially it is the idea that we make our decisions based on immediate, unconscious emotional reaction; then, equally unconsciously, we select arguments or proofs that support our emotional bias.
As far as I can tell, this idea explains all of the global warming controversy in this country. If people actually looked at the facts… well, let’s not get optimistic.
Cherry-picking evidence is the great boon of the internet. Instead of being alone in your head, you can click away until you find myriads of like-emotioned people to support any ol’ whacky premise you can devise. And plenty of political groups who are pretending to agree with your views so they get your votes.
What would happen if people actually analyzed the track records of the people they vote for? But then, I keep wondering why any woman would support fundamentalists, of any religion. Do they really think their whole purpose of living is to be a slave? Domestic servitude, domestic prostitution,and a brood-mare to boot. What sane person would *choose* that life for themselves and their daughters? And yet, women follow fundamentalism and its political arms, such as the tea party.
I cannot see a good argumentative reasoning for that. Which, of course, exposes my confirmation bias. But I will keep trying. I want to understand how people come to the conclusions they do, and what would convince someone their life is *systematically* without any value.
If the tea party got into control, how long do you think women would be allowed to hold public office, let alone have the vote?
Humor can sometimes open a crack in a closed mind. With that faint, wistful, wishful hope, here’s three comics from Non Sequitur: