Yesterday, I brought up a video during a conversation that had impacted my understanding of people many years ago. I was talking with my mother and sister. I’ve always had the feeling that we each found the other’s temperament a little ‘off putting’.
If you have 20 minutes to give the video below, it may help you to understand others better. That odd, ‘off balance’, feeling we can have even with people we love (and/or like) might have an explanation. [The video is quite entertaining too!]
People are FAR more than their temperaments, but our temperaments are quite a baseline measure of how we approach life.
The varying approaches of individuals are fascinating, often maddening, to us. It’s nice to consider that we aren’t just ‘doing it wrong’. We may be approaching everything with different expectations.
I think this guy (Mark Gungor) pretty much nails down the ways we vary by temperament.
I was a person from “Fun Country” sitting in the same room with my sister, from “Peace Country” and my mother, from “Perfect Country”. [BTW… I married a man from “Control Country”.]
If asked, I believe we would all admit that we’ve had moments when our understanding of each other was strained. Recognizing our differences at the elemental temperamental level gives me a better plan for making myself understood to them… and behaving more patiently while trying to understand them.
So, I ask, “Might our temperaments cause misunderstanding?”
I think so. Enjoy!
Tag: understanding
One-liner Wednesday 11-2-22- About Wisdom
“In youth we learn; in age we understand.” ~ Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach
https://lindaghill.com/2022/11/02/one-liner-wednesday-almost-the-scariest-halloween-ever/
SoCS – 10-22-22 What are We Talking About?
Your Friday prompt for Stream of Consciousness Saturday is “bowl.” Use it as a noun or a verb—use it any way you’d like. Enjoy!
A bowl is a round container with a concave surface. You can eat soup or salad out of it. Wait… I’ve eaten salad out of square containers. Are they square bowls or not bowls at all? If they’re considered square bowls, either they don’t fit the definition of a bowl, or the bowl definition doesn’t allow for exceptions. I’m so confused!
Our language is fragile and often inaccurate, but communities, and on a larger scale, cultures have something more… common understanding. Language plays a role though. A common language is an essential core to human relationship cohesiveness. Last I checked, the U.S. has never ‘officially’ assigned any ‘official’ language. Whew… that’s a bit overdue. U.S. citizens have had a ‘common understanding’ (forever) that it’s likely, maybe, probably, English but foreigners from countries that have their own designated ‘official’ language might be afraid that their language is against the law here or something. Ugh… I’m getting more confused!
Well, at least we can agree on the time, right?
Wait…we have Daylight Savings Time, Regular Time, Mountain Time, Central Time, and who could forget “Time to make the donuts”.
Never mind.
There is, after all, consensus on our good ole American food choices.
Everyone I know loves a stack of pancakes for breakfast… or griddle cakes… or flapjacks… or hot cakes. Give me a break! Aren’t those the same thing? I think they are. So, the breakfast isn’t different, but it’s called a different name according to where you’re eating it. I wonder if your grandma made you pancakes in Connecticut and mailed them to Texas if they’d taste different under the Texas label of flapjacks? Even harder, at what point in their journey does the name change. If the plane crashed halfway to Texas, when the package from grandma is recovered, WHAT’S IN IT? Does it depend on where the crash site is, or does it depend on what region of the country the person who recovers the package is from?! I GIVE UP!
Happy Saturday Everyone! Do whatever you wish, I don’t want to know!
Here’s a clip from Good Morning Vietnam offering a coherent English lesson. Enjoy!
https://lindaghill.com/2022/10/21/the-friday-reminder-and-prompt-for-socs-oct-22-2022/
Sunday Poser- 5/22/22
This is a great question.
I’ve found that each of us bring our own mindsets into everything we do. No one is without pre-decided biases, but many seem to believe that they can operate ‘bias-free’. Those people are just lying to themselves.
Like viewing art, people see what they see through their own hearts and minds. That’s fine. Appreciating quotes is the same for some.
BUT… if the creator of a quote is well known that author’s meaning is easier to decipher. There’s an undeniable ‘flavor’ to the person’s intended meaning. If I am presenting a quote, who said it is the heaviest part.
The author of any quote carries far more clout for me than the words dangling without context. I don’t care to ‘dream up’ meaning when there’s truth to be discovered.
Like catchy headlines absorbed alone, there’s little truth or meaning without knowing what/who inspired them.
https://lifeafter50forwomen.com/2022/05/22/sunday-poser-81/
Fandango’s Provocative Question #163- Semantics
There are so many tangents this question can produce. It’s taken me a long time to work out my thoughts toward the briefest and least complex answer to the exact question.
There’s a whole intellectual course of study on “semantics”. Our human ability for language, as remarkable as it is, has its own ‘minefields’. There are cultural divides when it comes to understanding each other, as well as many nuances in defining our most human complex concepts. I simply cannot keep up with modern efforts at redefining once widely held understandings!
Here’s my thought process on the question (It is thoroughly a scientific method examination of the language not a judgement on the concepts we’re using.)
A previous discussion I had with our friend Fandango, produced an interesting difference in our understanding of this language. As many emotionally charged topics do, I think that we each jumped back and forth from the meaning of words into the endless quagmire of the meaning of a higher Truth. A darn dangerous leap for sure! I don’t think either of us claimed we were ‘correct’ and left the discussion on the understanding that we were simply “talking past each other”.
Do you believe that atheism is a set of religious beliefs or is a religion in any sense? If so, why? If not, why not? Or, do you have no opinion on the matter or just don’t care one way or the other?
My answer is: Yes, it’s a religious belief and I’m not sure whether it could be called a ‘religion’. Atheism’s ‘believers’ (Making a definitive conclusion on an unprovable concept is a belief.) certainly ‘take on’ some of the qualities of religious people (certainty, easily offended by disapproval, somewhat organized) but it doesn’t really have tangible tenants. So, I’ll claim unsure on that.
As for my opinion that atheism is a ‘religious belief’? It comes down to my understanding that it’s a position, belief, or claim within (and regarding) the topic of religion. That, in my world, is a ‘religious belief’.
The example I used to explain a similar dynamic was the concept of politics. One simply cannot have an opinion on politics that isn’t-by default- a ‘political opinion/belief’. An apolitical person, with no opinion on politics, is the opposite of one who is political. In the same way, an agnostic person (who doesn’t want to enter into a religious discussion) is the true opposite of holding a ‘religious belief’.
It seems an unpleasant, unfriendly, conclusion made only according to my understanding of the semantics because an atheist basically wants to be anything but religious. Saying that technically-when applying the rules of language- their position is a ‘religious’ one, obviously would inspire push back and reaction. No offense is intended. It’s only an opinion with reasons. 😉
One of my statements during the discussion that inspired this wonderful question bears repeating… “No one has the power to offend or change you, if you don’t give it to them.”
https://fivedotoh.com/2022/03/30/fandangos-provocative-question-163/
FOWC-Float- “Why?”
Today’s word is “float.”
If I could influence the world, I’d give everyone the ability to float above the constant barrage of smaller details, conflicts, crises, to ‘see’ the Big Picture of forces in this world. By Big Picture I mean, the possible consequences and the baseline importance of actions and their long-term implications.
The only way this is accomplished is by being that little kid who answers every explanation with “Why?”.
Have you noticed how difficult it is to ask questions these days?
That discomfort makes me immediately ask “Why?”
“Why are you mad that I ask questions? “.
“Why are you calling me a ‘conspiracy theorist’ when I examine stuff more closely than you?”
“Are you suggesting conspiracies don’t exist? or are you telling me that your certainty is all I need? or are you lacking imagination and don’t understand the need for questions?”
“Why?”
“How would conspiracies ever be discovered if people couldn’t or wouldn’t imagine them?”
“If you won’t talk to me, and share your ideas, how will I figure things out?”
“Do you think I want bad things to happen or am I ruining your too busy day?”
“Why?”
Einstein said, “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.”
“Isn’t that the definition of the “Big Picture”?
“Doesn’t that mean the details are not as good as a broad understanding?”
“How can people understand without asking questions?”
“Why shouldn’t I ask them?”
“Why are some people packaged and dismissed for superficial reasons like race, political affiliation, and length of schooling?”
“Aren’t we all people?”
“Don’t we all have brains and concerns and value?”
“Why are my questions less important than your conclusions?”
“Why?”
IMHO- the name calling and labeling of people for their ideas and questions should stop. The people, who do that, are just creating, and dwelling upon, distracting details and holding us all back from understanding.
We’re all in this together folks. ❤
The Silenced Minority
There’s a division in the United States, of which, most people are unaware. It isn’t based upon race,wealth, or religion…it is logistical in nature. Country,or if you prefer, rural vs city. If you have lived your whole life in one or the other place, your priorities and principles are “at odds” with the other. There is only stereotypical evidence by which we judge folks from the opposite location and THIS is a dangerous and divisive truth, indeed.
A “city” friend of mine recently suggested that “Joe and Jane Country” are the primary obstacle to disarming criminals. That clinging to our guns is unhealthy for all. This person is obviously ignorant of rural existence. What I find most disheartening is the weight city dwellers have on public policies and opinion. Their numbers alone indicate to me that country folk will have little to bargain with as the minds and hearts, of the loudest voices, decide our future. Ignorance is one step from tyranny when opposing regards are silenced.
Alarmed would be too strong a word, at this point, but concerned and thoughtful I would say is my “state of mind”. I could make a case in favor of gun ownership, but I fear those who would listen would be the equivalent to the proverbial “preaching to the choir.”
This post is a plea for an adult, thoughtful discussion on the growing divide that may be at the core of the gun debate. Liberals claim to conscientiously speak for minorities. Country life is endangered by city policies on many levels. CAN ANYONE HEAR US?
Sillyfrog's Blog 