(ok so disclaimer: this isn't about any of the big issues like homophobia and all that sort of close-minded. this is just the mildly infuriating.)
alrighty! so do you guys know those people who are so stubborn once they've decided something that they literally won't accept anyone trying to explain the situation to them?
yeah, they're very frustrating!
i was just having a conversation with one of such people because they said they were watching a TV show and someone said something wrong about word origins and they're supposed to be pretty much an expert on words. (TV Person said "bubble" comes from Viking times.) now, the person i saw say something said this was obviously, completely, and utterly untrue; Shakespeare invented the word.
regardless of whether "bubble" is Viking in origin or not, very simple research tells you that "bubble" comes from "burble." so i try to explain to this person that maybe Shakespeare was the first recorded use of the word "bubble" itself (spelled the way it is, not just of definition, if that makes any sense at all) but the word must've had to have come from somewhere else.*
but she just shuts me down. says – straight up – "no." it's almost kind of rude. honestly, i don't think she actually understood what i was saying, but i think it's so unfair that they said they would never listen to the person who said the whole thing again because they messed up once.
it's kinda like the worst of cancel culture in a way (not to get started on cancel culture), and i just think people who are like this are kind of unhealthy? sorta? just like, how could you be so firm in something so trivial that you won't even accept to consider another way of looking at it?**
please tell me if i'm wrong and absolutely crazy, but i am "biting my tongue" so to speak at the moment to not respond.
*Here is a tangent about Shakespeare "inventing" new words
**Here is another tangent about lack of perspective.
alrighty! so do you guys know those people who are so stubborn once they've decided something that they literally won't accept anyone trying to explain the situation to them?
yeah, they're very frustrating!
i was just having a conversation with one of such people because they said they were watching a TV show and someone said something wrong about word origins and they're supposed to be pretty much an expert on words. (TV Person said "bubble" comes from Viking times.) now, the person i saw say something said this was obviously, completely, and utterly untrue; Shakespeare invented the word.
regardless of whether "bubble" is Viking in origin or not, very simple research tells you that "bubble" comes from "burble." so i try to explain to this person that maybe Shakespeare was the first recorded use of the word "bubble" itself (spelled the way it is, not just of definition, if that makes any sense at all) but the word must've had to have come from somewhere else.*
but she just shuts me down. says – straight up – "no." it's almost kind of rude. honestly, i don't think she actually understood what i was saying, but i think it's so unfair that they said they would never listen to the person who said the whole thing again because they messed up once.
it's kinda like the worst of cancel culture in a way (not to get started on cancel culture), and i just think people who are like this are kind of unhealthy? sorta? just like, how could you be so firm in something so trivial that you won't even accept to consider another way of looking at it?**
please tell me if i'm wrong and absolutely crazy, but i am "biting my tongue" so to speak at the moment to not respond.
*Here is a tangent about Shakespeare "inventing" new words
did he really, though?
okay, so i don't know how valid this opinion is, but i've always been kind of skeptical about the whole "Shakespeare invented [how ever many] words" thing. it just seems kind of unrealistic? like if they were truly new words, then how did anyone ever figure out what they meant? how were they supposed to understand them when they were watching his plays or reading his sonnets (or listening to them; illiteracy rates were probably pretty high then)? did he hand out a list at the beginning of the show? did they review at the end?
or is it so hard to believe that these words already existed, it was just Shakespeare who penned them? i think i remember one theory about how it was probably just slang that he was using, supported by the fact that many people who were of the lower classes (where Shakespeare started, more or less if i remember correctly) couldn't read and/or write, so Shakespeare put their words down, cementing them into history when they could've been lost.
i dunno. haven't done enough research. just a thought.
okay, so i don't know how valid this opinion is, but i've always been kind of skeptical about the whole "Shakespeare invented [how ever many] words" thing. it just seems kind of unrealistic? like if they were truly new words, then how did anyone ever figure out what they meant? how were they supposed to understand them when they were watching his plays or reading his sonnets (or listening to them; illiteracy rates were probably pretty high then)? did he hand out a list at the beginning of the show? did they review at the end?
or is it so hard to believe that these words already existed, it was just Shakespeare who penned them? i think i remember one theory about how it was probably just slang that he was using, supported by the fact that many people who were of the lower classes (where Shakespeare started, more or less if i remember correctly) couldn't read and/or write, so Shakespeare put their words down, cementing them into history when they could've been lost.
i dunno. haven't done enough research. just a thought.
**Here is another tangent about lack of perspective.
folks need to look around.
hot topic: humanity has a lot of issues with compassion and that sort of thing. i think that a lack of perspective plays a lot into it. ignoring the whole "childhood effects who you are when you're older" conversation, you see depending on where someone grew up, how that shapes their perspective, it's not secret. for me, i was very fortunate and i grew up in an area that educated it's children that there is a whole world beyond what they know and that there are many people different than them. however, i know many places and times were children don't learn the same stuff.
then there's also this whole other conversation i have in my head about the Truth and does it really exist? or at least, why can't we accept there can be facts, but multiple Truths? does that make sense?
i think that cementing in our heads that the world does not revolve around us and that we have to accept that our perspective is not the only one – (which leads into my whole discussion of intent vs. perception, but I'm not going into that) – is so important for us. lack of this creates tension, it's the reason behind too many fights, too many disagreements. not all, no, but the simple ones that you see on TV that make you scream "JUST TALK EACH OTHER!" and you know that if they did that, everything would clear up.
again, i dunno. i don't have a conclusion. just a thought.
hot topic: humanity has a lot of issues with compassion and that sort of thing. i think that a lack of perspective plays a lot into it. ignoring the whole "childhood effects who you are when you're older" conversation, you see depending on where someone grew up, how that shapes their perspective, it's not secret. for me, i was very fortunate and i grew up in an area that educated it's children that there is a whole world beyond what they know and that there are many people different than them. however, i know many places and times were children don't learn the same stuff.
then there's also this whole other conversation i have in my head about the Truth and does it really exist? or at least, why can't we accept there can be facts, but multiple Truths? does that make sense?
i think that cementing in our heads that the world does not revolve around us and that we have to accept that our perspective is not the only one – (which leads into my whole discussion of intent vs. perception, but I'm not going into that) – is so important for us. lack of this creates tension, it's the reason behind too many fights, too many disagreements. not all, no, but the simple ones that you see on TV that make you scream "JUST TALK EACH OTHER!" and you know that if they did that, everything would clear up.
again, i dunno. i don't have a conclusion. just a thought.
tisonlychaos wrote:
hot topic: humanity has a lot of issues with compassion and that sort of thing. i think that a lack of perspective plays a lot into it.
then there's also this whole other conversation i have in my head about the Truth and does it really exist? or at least, why can't we accept there can be facts, but multiple Truths?
then there's also this whole other conversation i have in my head about the Truth and does it really exist? or at least, why can't we accept there can be facts, but multiple Truths?
You know, I wrote a little blurb addressing something along these lines just earlier this week! I was in a lecture where we discussed perspective and truth. It's a little lengthy, but it was a practical lesson for me, and I hope you can take something from it too.
Lib wrote:
I have a bad habit of getting hung up in disputes that I acknowledge are pointless, but still give my time and energy to them, trying to change or dismantle disagreements. I had a solid lesson in English today that sort of turned a light on in my head. We were reading Nietzsche, "On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense"
"[the Intuitive Man] suffers more intensely [and frequently], since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the Stoical Man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortune!
This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in happiness. He wears no quivering and changeable human face, but a mask with dignified, symmetrical features. He does not cry; he does not even alter his voice. When a real storm cloud thunders above him, he wraps himself in his cloak, and with slow steps he walks away from beneath it."
Our professor explained it as,
"The Stoic Man takes a Line of Flight. He doesn't agree or disagree with the storm, he removes himself from it. He refutes the dichotomy of 'right' or 'wrong', he doesn't even accept the precedent of the 'storm', which can represent an emotional, illogical argument. Nietzsche proposes we aren't living our lives 'right or wrong', but 'healthy or sick'. He asks, do you want to live sick with anger?' Stop talking about the things you hate. Stop standing in the storm. Take a line of flight, and simply pass out from under it. You're going to roll your eyes because I'm going to apply Nietzsche to Bugs Bunny. You see how Elmer Fudd is constantly chasing him? Bugs doesn't really fight, nor does he allow himself to be caught. He deceives until Fudd foils himself. When you run away from something, you enable the structure of the Chaser and Chased to exist. Reject that dichotomy and refuse that precedent altogether."
"[the Intuitive Man] suffers more intensely [and frequently], since he does not understand how to learn from experience and keeps falling over and over again into the same ditch. He is then just as irrational in sorrow as he is in happiness: he cries aloud and will not be consoled. How differently the Stoical Man who learns from experience and governs himself by concepts is affected by the same misfortune!
This man, who at other times seeks nothing but sincerity, truth, freedom from deception, and protection against ensnaring surprise attacks, now executes a masterpiece of deception: in misfortune, as the other type of man executes his in happiness. He wears no quivering and changeable human face, but a mask with dignified, symmetrical features. He does not cry; he does not even alter his voice. When a real storm cloud thunders above him, he wraps himself in his cloak, and with slow steps he walks away from beneath it."
Our professor explained it as,
"The Stoic Man takes a Line of Flight. He doesn't agree or disagree with the storm, he removes himself from it. He refutes the dichotomy of 'right' or 'wrong', he doesn't even accept the precedent of the 'storm', which can represent an emotional, illogical argument. Nietzsche proposes we aren't living our lives 'right or wrong', but 'healthy or sick'. He asks, do you want to live sick with anger?' Stop talking about the things you hate. Stop standing in the storm. Take a line of flight, and simply pass out from under it. You're going to roll your eyes because I'm going to apply Nietzsche to Bugs Bunny. You see how Elmer Fudd is constantly chasing him? Bugs doesn't really fight, nor does he allow himself to be caught. He deceives until Fudd foils himself. When you run away from something, you enable the structure of the Chaser and Chased to exist. Reject that dichotomy and refuse that precedent altogether."
Disagreements like those are very frustrating. You aren't being "crazy" at all. I can't confirm or deny the etymology of "bubble" myself, but I can say, it's totally natural to struggle between wanting to set something straight, and not wanting to devote your energy to a meaningless argument. There are people who will argue for argument's sake. They don't consider a disagreement to be against a fact or opinion, but against themselves. They're sensitive to opposing perspectives and can take them personally. I definitely don't know if that's the case with your friend, but it's important for us to choose our battles carefully, and acknowledge some of them just aren't worth fighting. Sometimes avoiding a disagreement is as simple as dropping an "Interesting perspective!"
Yes, I know what you mean. That kind of stuff gets on my nerves too. When people just directly contradict someone with no courtesy or etticute or seeming to consider how their tone will make the other person feel (or even sometimes seemingly deliberately trying to get under their skin and anger them)...that kind of stuff just ticks me off.
Sometimes I have to remind myself that the other person is just probably legit trying to start an argument, and I shouldn't give them what they want. Often, even then, I still get drawn into it.
In that example, like you said, both things can be true. Shakespeare can both have invented the word and also it can also be derived from the older word.
Although, yeah, I agree that Shakespeare was probably often using words and phrases that were slang or common in his time...that explaination just makes more sense that the common idea that people get told which is that he invented all the sayings and words that his plays managed to capture in writing first.
But just the fact that someone can't see that either explaination might be right, and admit that...anyway, I know what you mean. For someone that likes people to get along (me), I find things like that really annoying.
I guess this turned into a vent session of its own lol.
But yeah...it's like how people quote things to Benjamin Franklin that he wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac which were really older bits of folk wisdom that he put in his almanac because they were catchy and popular sayings at the time.
Ok. Anyway. Yes. lol
Sometimes I have to remind myself that the other person is just probably legit trying to start an argument, and I shouldn't give them what they want. Often, even then, I still get drawn into it.
In that example, like you said, both things can be true. Shakespeare can both have invented the word and also it can also be derived from the older word.
Although, yeah, I agree that Shakespeare was probably often using words and phrases that were slang or common in his time...that explaination just makes more sense that the common idea that people get told which is that he invented all the sayings and words that his plays managed to capture in writing first.
But just the fact that someone can't see that either explaination might be right, and admit that...anyway, I know what you mean. For someone that likes people to get along (me), I find things like that really annoying.
I guess this turned into a vent session of its own lol.
But yeah...it's like how people quote things to Benjamin Franklin that he wrote in Poor Richard's Almanac which were really older bits of folk wisdom that he put in his almanac because they were catchy and popular sayings at the time.
Ok. Anyway. Yes. lol
i wouldn’t say it’s necessarily the same occurrence as cancel culture; at least not from my experience with it
anyhow, there’s definitely some people who seem to choose to be close-minded and state that their opinion is a fact; everybody else is simply wrong. so, i do think you’re right - the idea that everybody else is wrong and even refusing to listen to their perspective of actual facts seem a bit absurd to me
in case you want advice, i think you should ask yourself if this is a repetitive behavior for said person and figure out if it affects you that negatively every time. perhaps you could talk to a mutual friend about it or as harsh as it sounds, bring it up with her; say that it makes you feel a certain type of way that she refuses to listen to what you have to say, even if those things are correct facts
anyhow, there’s definitely some people who seem to choose to be close-minded and state that their opinion is a fact; everybody else is simply wrong. so, i do think you’re right - the idea that everybody else is wrong and even refusing to listen to their perspective of actual facts seem a bit absurd to me
in case you want advice, i think you should ask yourself if this is a repetitive behavior for said person and figure out if it affects you that negatively every time. perhaps you could talk to a mutual friend about it or as harsh as it sounds, bring it up with her; say that it makes you feel a certain type of way that she refuses to listen to what you have to say, even if those things are correct facts
You are on: Forums » Smalltalk » Close-minded People
Moderators: Mina, Keke, Cass, Claine, Sanne, Dragonfire, Ilmarinen, Darth_Angelus