Tired of having your Ideals Challenged?

[Drakkith]

Like most topics, I feel each of us has a different view of what "Challenging Authority" and "Questioning Authority" means, and we are probably misunderstanding each other greatly.

 

[Buckleymanor]

If you always go around challenging authority, then you are never unable to learn. If you never question authority, then you can never learn either.

If I was to challenge authority I would use the word able.

 

[micromass]

If I was to challenge authority I would use the word able.

Thanks! Corrected

 

[DiracPool]

It's never stupid to challenge authority.

Unless its a cop and you're drunk or the papal inquisition...

 

[Buckleymanor]

Like most topics, I feel each of us has a different view of what "Challenging Authority" and "Questioning Authority" means, and we are probably misunderstanding each other greatly.

We have to be very carefull and respectfull to get the best results from people.
Misunderstandings and misinformortion cause much harm.
The problem is challenging and questioning authority both overlap.It's sometimes hard to ask a question without being challenging.

 

[TurtleMeister]

Andre's example of the Tenerife airport disaster reminds me of another air crash involving a challenge to authority (or lack of challenge). In the crash of Air Florida flight 90, the captain dismissed the copilots concern that an instrument panel indication was wrong, prompting the copilot (who was at the controls) to doubt his own judgement and continue with the takeoff roll.

Copilot: "God, look at that thing. That don't seem right, does it? Uh, that's not right."
Pilot: "Yes it is, there's eighty."
Copilot: "Naw, I don't think that's right. Ah, maybe it is."

Although the above transcripts seem to indicate an instrument failure as the cause of the crash, it was actually pilot error. They failed to switch on the ice protection systems prior to takeoff. However, had the copilot challenged the captains authority and aborted the take off (which he had time to do), the accident could have been avoided.

 

[Evo]

Like most topics, I feel each of us has a different view of what "Challenging Authority" and "Questioning Authority" means, and we are probably misunderstanding each other greatly.

Yes, if we go by dictionary definitions, the verb "question" would mean to ask, usually for clarification. The verb "challenge" would mean to dispute the truth or validity of something.

As I said previoulsy, IMO, it's ok to question authority, for example if you don't understand or think there is a problem. Then, if you still think there is a problem after you've been given an explanation, you may feel you have enough information against that answer to then challenge the information. I think micromass summed it up well enough that I don't need to repeat what he said.

To members, let's not go off topic with specific examples of issues where there was confusion over something that was happening, that's not what the OP is referring to. We could go all over the place filling this thread with examples for and against decisions and outcomes.

 

[jim hardy]

Is this like some type of Luciferian disorder to dissent against authoritative and controlling beings?

Who knows? It's a matter of degree. How easily are you set off? How hard do you push? Do you feel a "need to win" ? Do others tell you to 'lighten up' ?
Only you know those things. We can't diagnose here, and I'm not qualified even if it were permissible. It is with some trepidation i post this quote, taken from this link:

http://www.billcphd.com/quotes.php?quote_id=228

Reason i am uneasy is it sounds new-age
but i kept a copy of Eric Hoffer's "Passionate State of Mind" in my top desk drawer for twenty years. He's not 'new-age'.
It helped me through many difficult "office politics" situations.
This short essay is based on two quotes from that little book of aphorisms.
So here goes:

Rudeness

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."​

~ Eric Hoffer

These days, when so much attention is being paid to bullying in school, as well as, dealing with difficult people in the workplace and at home, I suggest we take this opportunity to reexamine the concept of rudeness by way of a quote by philosopher Eric Hoffer. What I love about this quote (although I would change it to read, "the weak person's imitation of strength" because we know that rudeness isn't limited to a specific gender) is that it allows us to see beneath the bluff and bluster of rudeness to what is really driving this sort of behavior, weakness and fear. And at the same time, it allows us to examine its opposite, strength and confidence.

In fact, I believe that this labeling of rudeness as "the weak man's imitation of strength" is one of the best ways to look at, and then deal with this type of behavior. For example, if we were to examine how most people react to rudeness, we would very likely see some version of a fight or flight reaction. People tend to either feel threatened and pull back, or "fight fire with fire" and become rude themselves. Unfortunately, neither of these reactions is particularly effective. When we pull back, the rude person feels more powerful while we feel powerless. In a sense, they are rewarded for their rude behavior because it has had the desired effect. On the other hand, reacting by becoming rude ourselves rarely works because they then see us as the difficult person and begin to defend the very behavior we want them to change.

Of course, for those of you who are familiar with my "Top of the Mind" philosophy, you know that any fight or flight behavior comes from the lower 20% of the brain and is almost always reactive in nature. This is certainly the case with rudeness. People who are rude to others often fear rejection or at the very least expect that others won't like them and/or won't see what they have to say as valuable. Therefore, when we can see the person who is being rude as "frightened" versus "mean, obnoxious," and/or "a bully," we minimize the negative effect they have in our lives. Plus, we access the clear, confident, and compassionate part of who we are (which means we are accessing the upper 80% of our brain).

There is a quote I use in almost all of my seminars that says: "Resentment is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die" (by Malachy McCourt). Most people would agree that resentment is a very common reaction to people who are being rude, and yet, I am confident that most people would also agree that this reaction rarely results in any sort of satisfactory outcome. In fact, what often happens is that we continue to run the problematic interaction over and over in our minds and thus continue to "poison" our system with stress-related hormones. The quote that follows this "resentment/poison" perspective very nicely is "Compassion is the antitoxin of the soul. Where there is compassion, even the most poisonous impulses become relatively harmless." (also by Eric Hoffer). Therefore, if resentment is the poison, compassion is the anti-toxin and thus can allow us to detoxify any reaction we have to anyone who is being rude.

In order to have this sort of power, however, we must be able to access the clear, confident, creative part of our brain and change our interpretation of other's rude behavior from problematic, annoying, and intimidating to weak and frightened. This shift in perspective then allows us to access the sort of compassion that will give us the strength to continue on free from the effect of fear and anxiety.

In fact, given all this information, we could change the quote to "Rudeness is the frightened person's reaction to their fear of rejection." Not only does this come closer to the truth, it keeps us from responding to rudeness with a pejorative judgement of our own. Instead, we can access our compassion which we now know is an antidote or "anti-toxin of the soul" and move into life free of the poison of resentment.

Take care and God bless, Dr. Bill

Here's another to ponder:

However much we guard ourselves against it, we tend to shape ourselves in the image others have of us. It is not so much the example of others we imitate, as the reflection of ourselves in their eyes and the echo of ourselves in their words.

you might ask your 'authorities' how it is they perceive you.old jim

 

[AlephZero]

Copilot: "God, look at that thing. That don't seem right, does it? Uh, that's not right."
Pilot: "Yes it is, there's eighty."
Copilot: "Naw, I don't think that's right. Ah, maybe it is."

Yup, the old airline pilots' joke still hasn't completely gone away.

Q: What's the difference between a copilot and a duck?
A: Ducks can fly.

 

[micromass]

Andre's example of the Tenerife airport disaster reminds me of another air crash involving a challenge to authority (or lack of challenge). In the crash of Air Florida flight 90, the captain dismissed the copilots concern that an instrument panel indication was wrong, prompting the copilot (who was at the controls) to doubt his own judgement and continue with the takeoff roll.

Copilot: "God, look at that thing. That don't seem right, does it? Uh, that's not right."
Pilot: "Yes it is, there's eighty."
Copilot: "Naw, I don't think that's right. Ah, maybe it is."

Although the above transcripts seem to indicate an instrument failure as the cause of the crash, it was actually pilot error. They failed to switch on the ice protection systems prior to takeoff. However, had the copilot challenged the captains authority and aborted the take off (which he had time to do), the accident could have been avoided.

Of course, nobody is saying that it is never ok to challenge authority.

This is not a choice between "always challenge" and "never challenge". Neither of these choices are ok.
Clearly, the copilot should have challenged the pilot if he thought the pilot was wrong. But the copilot shouldn't always challenge the pilot, cause most of the time the pilot is correct about things.

Like I said, you should only challenge authority whenever it is necessary to do so.

 

[Tenshou]

In such a situation you would be very much better off either taking a different approach, or simply not pushing the question once you realize they can't give you the answer you seek. This to me is not "challenging authority" so much as it is arguing with someone. They may happen to be in a position of authority, but that fact in itself doesn't mean you are challenging them. In my opinion at least.

Of course the old rule of "It's not what you say it's HOW you say it" still applies. You may be asking valid questions, but how you say it or when you ask may be considered as rude and inappropriate.

I am an impolite person, by nature, don't blame me for my natural inquisitions, my innate curiosity. You wouldn't blame a person with down syndrome who couldn't tie their shoe could you? Why blame a person who is some what impolite?

You seem to be unable to see a difference between "challenging authority" and "questioning authority".

For examples, when you are in scientific circles, there will always be authorities who know more than you and who have more experience than you. Do you always challenge them? Say that they are wrong? No, you listen to what they have to say and accept it. Of course, you should also think critically and judge whether their words were correct or not. Only if they were wrong, then you challenge them.

If you always go around challenging authority, then you are never able to learn. If you never question authority, then you can never learn either.

And authorities are usually wrong? Please. So that means that you consider most prominent math and physics textbooks to be usually wrong? Your parents are usually wrong? All of these are authorities.

Sorry about that, forgive my semantics confusion. I just, have always heard to not question or challenge authority and associated the two, Seeking answers by challenging and questioning what is the "root" system, I just want to understand like any human would, that is why I believe the school system is killing natural curiosities, dulling the mind. Again, forgive me for the confusion.

We have to be very careful and respectful to get the best results from people.
Misunderstandings and misinformortion cause much harm.
The problem is challenging and questioning authority both overlap.It's sometimes hard to ask a question without being challenging.

Neigh, disinformation, is worse then misinformation, yet you are right about the questioning and challenging. Just the way I was brought up.

Yes, if we go by dictionary definitions, the verb "question" would mean to ask, usually for clarification. The verb "challenge" would mean to dispute the truth or validity of something.

To members, let's not go off topic with specific examples of issues where there was confusion over something that was happening, that's not what the OP is referring to. We could go all over the place filling this thread with examples for and against decisions and outcomes.

They both ask why, I guess it really does matter they way in which something is said, no?
outcomes are proof enough for me, it is the way we learn, from other mistakes, but that isn't what the thread is about. That would be nice to keep examples off though.

Who knows? It's a matter of degree. How easily are you set off? How hard do you push? Do you feel a "need to win" ? Do others tell you to 'lighten up' ?

Here's another to ponder:
you might ask your 'authorities' how it is they perceive you.

old jim

I would like to say that I am a "Patience Person", but I do not know. I find it hard to believe that with all of these reflected ideals, meaning that it is difficult to correct my self when I am around people who find it easy to get angry easily.

 

[Drakkith]

I am an impolite person, by nature, don't blame me for my natural inquisitions, my innate curiosity. You wouldn't blame a person with down syndrome who couldn't tie their shoe could you? Why blame a person who is some what impolite?

Hmmm. We could go very deep into this subject, but I think it's fair to say that a person with down syndrome literally cannot comprehend tying a shoe. You however have a much much greater control over yourself. You just don't want to change. I assume you don't even see any reason to. This is very common. One of the absolute hardest things for a person to do is to change the way they think and act.

The fact that you even asked this question tells me that you either don't understand, or don't care about the way other people think. I don't think the issue here has anything to do with challenging authority, I think you're just a rude and impolite person who has never truly given a thought about how others feel and think. If so, then please realize that while difficult, changing yourself would greatly lessen any conflicts with people you may be having. If I am incorrect...then I'm incorrect. It is difficult to know for sure based on a few posts.

You said earlier that you had been in a leadership position, but people didn't like you in that position. I find it extremely rare that someone is disliked JUST because of a position they are put in. Usually it's because they already disliked that person and now they are in charge of them. However, even in the case of someone being disliked, they can still be an effective leader many times. It's just a little harder. The act of actively changing yourself to become a better leader usually brings about a way of thinking that leads to a much greater understanding of both yourself and others, which brings nothing but good things. I've seen several cases where everyone groaned when someone was put in charge, but when they pulled through to become decent leaders those same people stopped groaning.

 

[stofferjj]

I am an impolite person, by nature, don't blame me for my natural inquisitions, my innate curiosity. You wouldn't blame a person with down syndrome who couldn't tie their shoe could you? Why blame a person who is some what impolite?

Really? No, I wouldn't blame a person with downs syndrome for not being able to tie their shoe.
I wouldn't because they may be incapable of doing so, but you can be polite as a sign of respect when with your peers. Its just common social protocol.

 

[Tenshou]

I have spent sometime thinking carefully about what to post as a reply to the below. There is a question to any who read this. What does it mean to be polite in, around or outside of an social situation(context)? I would like to see answers to these questions, so that I can get a feel for what peers believe about social situations and ideal concepts which should/shouldn't be challenged.

Hmmm. We could go very deep into this subject, but I think it's fair to say that a person with down syndrome literally cannot comprehend tying a shoe. You however have a much much greater control over yourself. You just don't want to change. I assume you don't even see any reason to. This is very common. One of the absolute hardest things for a person to do is to change the way they think and act.

The fact that you even asked this question tells me that you either don't understand, or don't care about the way other people think. I don't think the issue here has anything to do with challenging authority, I think you're just a rude and impolite person who has never truly given a thought about how others feel and think. If so, then please realize that while difficult, changing yourself would greatly lessen any conflicts with people you may be having. If I am incorrect...then I'm incorrect. It is difficult to know for sure based on a few posts.

You maybe be right. A person with down syndrome may not be able to comprehend tying a shoe. Also it maybe true that a person can get stuck in their ways, and won't change. Questions are used to understand. The reason this thread was posted so people can gain understanding about why their ideals are challenged and which way is the way to progress( or in my belief, away from decentralization of power, yet there are good things about centralized power and non.). What do you believe is Challenging authority, questioning a persons actions, polite and/or impolite? When is it proper to question a persons opinion? What does it mean to put a persons knowledge into question, to you? no professional opinion(knowledge) needed.

Really? No, I wouldn't blame a person with downs syndrome for not being able to tie their shoe.
I wouldn't because they may be incapable of doing so, but you can be polite as a sign of respect when with your peers. Its just common social protocol.

Same goes for you, what do you think about a polite person, meaning what makes a person polite? can this same circumstance make them insane? what do you define as being polite? What is respect to people of a peer group? What can you define as a "social protocol"? does this have anything to do with being accepted?

 

[Drakkith]

Tenshou, your questions are simply too broad for me to answer in a forum post. Entire books have been written on everything you're asking and I simply don't know enough to even begin to explain my opinions.

 

[Tenshou]

Tenshou, your questions are simply too broad for me to answer in a forum post. Entire books have been written on everything you're asking and I simply don't know enough to even begin to explain my opinions.

Then why attempt to abase me on a few simple post I have written? This forum post is simply here to pique you and all the others participants (anyone on this forum in general) interest in such a serious social topic. Authority and Culture(Social Context). Although, I did know you couldn't not answer these questions, just state simple opinions on it like everyone else has tried.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then why attempt to abase me on a few simple post I have written? This forum post is simply here to pique you and all the others participants (anyone on this forum in general) interest in such a serious social topic. Authority and Culture(Social Context). Although, I did know you couldn't not answer these questions, just state simple opinions on it like everyone else has tried.

I don't think this is fair at all. Drakkith has given you good advice but your questions based on that are impossibly broad. If someone recommends beng polite do you think it's fair to ask them to outline every parameter for how to decide what exact type of behaviour is the best option? Rather than getting bogged down in this I suggest that you pick some specific examples that you can receive feedback on e.g. "yesterday I challanged X over Y like this, was it polite?"

 

[Tenshou]

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. Did you read my first post prior to that? I asked anyone to give simple input on what they, they think about what is impolite/polite regardless/irregardless of the social context because apparently I did something rude, and (always) do something rude, based on a few post. I was not just asking Drakkith, yet I was asking anyone who was willing to answer(relay some input on) what they think about Authority and Culture(Social Context), or here, if this is succinct enough: what do they think about centralized forms of rule? where do "I" stand next to the authority? In other words. I just want to see peoples input, personal thoughts about this "broad" topic, and if it is to much to ask do you think this should be moved to the humanities bulletin board?

 

[pongo38]

Tenshou: There is more than one way of dealing satisfactorily with any situation such as you describe. Two different approaches are represented by a model from cricket (UK) or similar bat and ball games - I don't know much about other games. The person batting can either confront the bowled ball head on and return the ball more or less in the opposite direction to the incoming ball; or, they may carefully deflect the ball, using its momentum to change its path slightly. Personally, I have seldom found that confrontation succeeds. I have had more success with getting alongside a difficult person, traveling with them, understanding their point of view and taking opportunities as they arise to deflect them away from their chosen path. Not always successful. But neither is confrontation. Can you acknowledge that confronting authority, good as it may be sometimes in the right place, is not the only way to achieve anything? Perhaps you could amplify your response by indicating to readers the situations where confronting authority has been clearly successful, and situations where an unforeseen undesirable outcome occurred.

 

[phion]

This reminds me of a classroom conversation I witnessed in the fourth grade regarding a discussion about World War 2 and Nazi Germany (yes I remember that far back). I remember our teacher describing the conditions of the holocaust and what he thought it meant to be a communist, and where all geographically the war took place. Then I remember very distinctly what occurred next; our teacher decided to call on us to see what we thought... and a girl raised her hand and said, "Hitler was very rude!".



EDIT: It was the 6th grade.

 

[Tenshou]

Tenshou: There is more than one way of dealing satisfactorily with any situation such as you describe. Two different approaches are represented by a model from cricket (UK) or similar bat and ball games - I don't know much about other games. The person batting can either confront the bowled ball head on and return the ball more or less in the opposite direction to the incoming ball; or, they may carefully deflect the ball, using its momentum to change its path slightly. Personally, I have seldom found that confrontation succeeds. I have had more success with getting alongside a difficult person, traveling with them, understanding their point of view and taking opportunities as they arise to deflect them away from their chosen path. Not always successful. But neither is confrontation. Can you acknowledge that confronting authority, good as it may be sometimes in the right place, is not the only way to achieve anything? Perhaps you could amplify your response by indicating to readers the situations where confronting authority has been clearly successful, and situations where an unforeseen undesirable outcome occurred.

This is true. There is always the best way for achieving algorithmic efficiency. I mean going about something in such a way that is satisfactory for each individual situation. I do understand, I think, but everyone has been in a situation in which they didn't understand the commanders reasons for doing such a thing, and if they never had the audacity, the nerve to ask why, then why did they not ask? Everyone has spotted and efficient way of going about something better then person in charge, at least at one point in time and they choose to stick to the accustomed ways.

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways, their ideals which have been in the group for "as long as one can remember, it has been this way". I do not know about you, but the United States was built this way, challenging (becoming enlightened through questions) what had been established because it didn't work, it is built on the dynamic transmogrification, grotesque perversion of what established thoughts were. Everyone has been in the situation in which the person has challenged an authority figure, or at least asked a question directly/indirectly about this persons actions.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What do you think you're going to accomplish challenging authority? You have to learn to get along with your peers and learn to obey those above you. Unless you're trying to recreate the French revolution or become the next Che Guevara, just learn to do what you're told to do because you're the one with the most to lose. There is a difference between questioning authority and challenging it. For most people the latter is just a sign of immaturity, stubbornness, pampered upbringing, or maybe all three together. The people of whom you speak were some of the greatest political minds in history; the common man on the other hand has to know his place.

 

[Jorriss]

Challenging authority just to challenge authority is childish.

 

[Tenshou]

What do you think you're going to accomplish challenging authority? You have to learn to get along with your peers and learn to obey those above you. Unless you're trying to recreate the French revolution or become the next Che Guevara, just learn to do what you're told to do because you're the one with the most to lose. There is a difference between questioning authority and challenging it. For most people the latter is just a sign of immaturity, stubbornness, pampered upbringing, or maybe all three together. The people of whom you speak were some of the greatest political minds in history; the common man on the other hand has to know his place.

What makes man common, certainly not science, something like this coming from a person who wish to be netwon!? "It is this, at its most basic, that makes science a humane pursuit; it acknowledges the commonality of people's experience." J.C Polanyi

What made them so great, they were just no different than the common man, aw hell they were the common man. Gods are put on pedestal while man are put in the place of Gods(forgive my witty and figurative speech). Immaturity, I shall admit to. I am not done growing, not done changing, questioning what I wish to become and where I want to go, the journey of 1 thousand miles was started long ago and I don't think I have honestly taken the first step. I wouldn't not mind being a El Che like figure, I do some military theory in my spare time (´∀｀)♡ . Revolution are meant to change the world, think of the Arab Spring (talk about old news).

Challenging authority just to challenge authority is childish.

Jorriss do you not have questions about the people in charge, or are you those type of people who are jaded enough to not care about what is going on around you?

 

[Vanadium 50]

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways

Do you mean why don't other people change their ways?

 

[Tenshou]

Do you mean why don't other people change their ways?

Why would I want other people to change their ways I mean all people(groups). inclusive to me or not. Does this mean the person is ahead of their time? or what, because as a once great astronomer once said "Yet, the Earth does move..."

 

[Drakkith]

This is true. There is always the best way for achieving algorithmic efficiency. I mean going about something in such a way that is satisfactory for each individual situation. I do understand, I think, but everyone has been in a situation in which they didn't understand the commanders reasons for doing such a thing, and if they never had the audacity, the nerve to ask why, then why did they not ask?

There are plenty of ways to go about something in a satisfactory way. And how that way meets the definition "satisfactory" is extremely varied. For one thing each person will have different priorities and areas they focus on. Some are focused on doing things the safest way, no matter if it takes 2-3 times longer, or more. Some are focused on getting it done safely and quick, and will not take quite as long in making sure the "one-in-a-million" chance accidents are dealt with before they happen. And some have no concept of safety other than "don't hit yourself with the hammer".

The reason most people don't ask is probably because in the past when they have asked they've been given answers that they may not have liked, and may have tried to change, but were unable to change it. It's pretty pointless to keep asking "why are we doing it this way" when every time you ask you get an answer and there's nothing you can do about it.

Everyone has spotted and efficient way of going about something better then person in charge, at least at one point in time and they choose to stick to the accustomed ways.

I disagree. I think everyone THINKS they have spotted a better way of going about something. I believe they are almost always most certainly wrong. The exceptions to this are when the person is either engaged in something entirely trivial and not worth discussing here, or when the person is actually knowledgeable in their area and can see the bigger picture. I think the latter example happens far less frequently than most people would imagine.

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways, their ideals which have been in the group for "as long as one can remember, it has been this way". I do not know about you, but the United States was built this way, challenging (becoming enlightened through questions) what had been established because it didn't work, it is built on the dynamic transmogrification, grotesque perversion of what established thoughts were.

Because people, as a general rule, abhor change. This is built into us. Change means you have to expend time and effort into doing things you probably don't care about and may cause stress, fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Things such as learning a new program at work, re-doing the steps to a task the new way, etc. And I don't know where you got this idea of the U.S. being built this way. It is my observation that it takes a great tragedy for anything to change. Either tragedy on a national scale, such as natural disasters that lead to sweeping changes in building and safety codes, or more personal ones, of which I cannot remember the example I had...

 

[Tenshou]

There are plenty of ways to go about something in a satisfactory way. And how that way meets the definition "satisfactory" is extremely varied. For one thing each person will have different priorities and areas they focus on. Some are focused on doing things the safest way, no matter if it takes 2-3 times longer, or more. Some are focused on getting it done safely and quick, and will not take quite as long in making sure the "one-in-a-million" chance accidents are dealt with before they happen. And some have no concept of safety other than "don't hit yourself with the hammer".

No matter how much you would like to believe that anyone can see all the possible outcomes to a situation you are wrong. Humans have a hard time gathering perfect information, in the game theoretical sense. I only say that because it is true, the program Buena De Musquite(I hope he can forgive me destroying his name(>_<)). No way is the safest way, unless one person wishes to take all the blame, be this an auspicious, naive fool, they are noble and deserve respect from a people, or group of them. Socrates, for example thought you should question the way the world works. I question in the pursuit of knowledge for I know it will make me happy in the end.

The reason most people don't ask is probably because in the past when they have asked they've been given answers that they may not have liked, and may have tried to change, but were unable to change it. It's pretty pointless to keep asking "why are we doing it this way" when every time you ask you get an answer and there's nothing you can do about it.

So, you are saying if we do not have the prestige, the skill, the strength(?) to change we should not? Are you saying we don't change because we, as humans are simply to weak to do anything about it. So would that not constitute as abuse of their authoritative power?

I disagree. I think everyone THINKS they have spotted a better way of going about something. I believe they are almost always most certainly wrong. The exceptions to this are when the person is either engaged in something entirely trivial and not worth discussing here, or when the person is actually knowledgeable in their area and can see the bigger picture. I think the latter example happens far less frequently than most people would imagine.

If they can see the bigger picture, why won't they explain it in a way such that the person who doesn't shuts-up?I do agree. Sometimes explaining the triviality or something that may be considered trivial is detrimental to understanding the cause and reason for things. Nothing is coincidental, thus has a reason.

Because people, as a general rule, abhor change. This is built into us. Change means you have to expend time and effort into doing things you probably don't care about and may cause stress, fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Things such as learning a new program at work, re-doing the steps to a task the new way, etc. And I don't know where you got this idea of the U.S. being built this way. It is my observation that it takes a great tragedy for anything to change. Either tragedy on a national scale, such as natural disasters that lead to sweeping changes in building and safety codes, or more personal ones, of which I cannot remember the example I had...

This is true, we can't stand change, er more or less, we don't like inconsistent ideals with what has been the base for their previous understanding of ideals, like postulates to prove other postulates. I do agree new doesn't mean improved, nor does it mean efficient, it just means new. I am not sure, this is just a hypothesis but I think this "Luciferian Disorder" is a result from blasé life style, to cloy the life of being on the bottom of the centralized chain of command. I too think that could be possible true. Change happens when people want to go into a new direction, they all get tired of the old style of living and do achieve a new and efficient style of living, change isn't the necessary herald of a great disaster and vice versa.

People are bad enough for thinking they can see every result good and bad, and then take extra time trying to go deeper in what can go wrong. I applaud those who can. If they can see all the bad things that may go wrong, they have one heck of a talent for information sorting and gathering and producing a stunning result.

 

[Drakkith]

No matter how much you would like to believe that anyone can see all the possible outcomes to a situation you are wrong. Humans have a hard time gathering perfect information, in the game theoretical sense. I only say that because it is true, the program Buena De Musquite(I hope he can forgive me destroying his name(>_<)). No way is the safest way, unless one person wishes to take all the blame, be this an auspicious, naive fool, they are noble and deserve respect from a people, or group of them. Socrates, for example thought you should question the way the world works. I question in the pursuit of knowledge for I know it will make me happy in the end.

*scratches head*
What? How does that relate to what I said? Are you just going off on a tangent?

So, you are saying if we do not have the prestige, the skill, the strength(?) to change we should not? Are you saying we don't change because we, as humans are simply to weak to do anything about it. So would that not constitute as abuse of their authoritative power?

No I am not. I'm merely stating the reality for most people in most cases.

If they can see the bigger picture, why won't they explain it in a way such that the person who doesn't shuts-up?I do agree. Sometimes explaining the triviality or something that may be considered trivial is detrimental to understanding the cause and reason for things. Nothing is coincidental, thus has a reason.

Explaining things is hard. I'm serious. Explaining things in a way that almost anyone can understand and accept is nigh-impossible. Most people don't like it when you disagree with them. They get defensive and most people cannot accept things which differ from their opinion, no matter how well you put it or how logical it is. They shrug it off with a "Oh, whatever..." or "Oh please, it'll be fine..." or some other statement if they aren't simply outright hostile to your opinion.

This is true, we can't stand change, er more or less, we don't like inconsistent ideals with what has been the base for their previous understanding of ideals, like postulates to prove other postulates.

I don't know about inconsistent ideals, I think it's as simple as what I said. People just don't like change from the norm.

I am not sure, this is just a hypothesis but I think this "Luciferian Disorder" is a result from blasé life style, to cloy the life of being on the bottom of the centralized chain of command. I too think that could be possible true. Change happens when people want to go into a new direction, they all get tired of the old style of living and do achieve a new and efficient style of living, change isn't the necessary herald of a great disaster and vice versa.

I have no idea what the chain of command has to do with it. Resistance to change encompasses every level in my opinion. It's just that people at the top are actually able to enforce their own change when they want to. That's the key. People will change when they want to. And they typically want to change towards their own ideas, not others. I don't think people get tired of the "old style of living", I think people actually do the opposite. They get stuck in their ways and unwilling to accept new ideas and change. This is why younger people are typically the ones to push for change, and older folks typically resist change with all their might.

 

[Tenshou]

I really want anyone who reads this bulletin to think, and think harder than what these post are talking about, read 4 lines deep between the words and beyond the meaning

No I am not. I'm merely stating the reality for most people in most cases.

Ha, reality. it reminds me of a quotes "Ones persons craziness is another reality" -Tim Burton. Still, reality is subjective and it seems like you do mean that the person could be to weak to do anything about how the situation they are in.

Explaining things is hard. I'm serious. Explaining things in a way that almost anyone can understand and accept is nigh-impossible. Most people don't like it when you disagree with them. They get defensive and most people cannot accept things which differ from their opinion, no matter how well you put it or how logical it is. They shrug it off with a "Oh, whatever..." or "Oh please, it'll be fine..." or some other statement if they aren't simply outright hostile to your opinion.

Completely right! But explaining it isn't the problem, just make the person think. if they do not want to think, then why argue? If you cannot replace a persons opinion with logical, rational statements which clearly depict the way beyond the norm, why is this "conflict" happening? When people do end up producing a logical argument they (the opposing party) tend to deny the rights on the other person, this is going back to my question "does this make them ahead of their time?(the ones who is questioning the norm)" , if so why won't anyone catch up?

I have no idea what the chain of command has to do with it. Resistance to change encompasses every level in my opinion. It's just that people at the top are actually able to enforce their own change when they want to. That's the key. People will change when they want to. And they typically want to change towards their own ideas, not others.

Again, this willingness for the authority to push for the change that they want, why would this power be let to go unchecked? Dissension is the way to democracy, the rule of the people, the decentralized government has rise! I do not know, the stuff seems like you believe that a politically weak adversary don't have the right to voice opinions.

"Resistance to change" as you call it seems like a reason why people don't like some type of foreign ideas.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Dissension is the way to democracy, the rule of the people, the decentralized government has rise! I do not know, the stuff seems like you believe that a politically weak adversary don't have the right to voice opinions.

I feel like you're just coming off a Braveheart marathon.

 

[micromass]

I don't see any valid reason why do you challenged authority. The reason they called authority is because they are superior than normal people.

Nobody is inherently superior than somebody else.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Nobody is inherently superior than somebody else.

*ahem* you seem to be forgetting a mister Jimmy Page

 

[micromass]

*ahem* you seem to be forgetting a mister Jimmy Page

We were talking about people, not gods...

 

[WannabeNewton]

We were talking about people, not gods...

Oh darn so we can't talk about Cantor either