Reply
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Reply

On a personal note...

Community Guru
Irene B Member Since: Feb 17, 2015
1 of 6

Have you ever been in a conversation with someone and thought they were talking a load of nonsense and then just put in a few facts because it just so happened to be a topic you actually know quite a bit about? And then, the next minute, have this person attacking you? Not physically, of course, but verbally? This is a defense mechanism, I believe, designed to try and make you out as an idiot while trying to preserve their 'mastery' of the topic. 

 

These people, in my opinion, belong to the group of 'a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing'. 

 

In many cases, I have noticed people tending to hang on every word these people say, simply because they have the knack of espousing their bulldust so convincingly. Many times their followers will join in the attack. Usually, because their knowledge of the topic is limited to whatever the heck this person has been telling them. "He.she said it so it has to be true...I read it on facebook so it has to be true..." - that type of thing. 

 

It reminds me of the time my ex-mother in law was gossipping about someone (second-hand gossip, mind you). I asked her why she was telling me this and had she actually spoken to the said person about it? Was she sure what she was telling me was true? Her answer was "where there is smoke there is a fire."

 

I took a long sip of tea and said: "I want to ask you a question."

"Sure," she said.

"OK. So if I went and told every Tom, Dick Van Dyke, and Harry that your youngest daughter was a prostitute selling her services in the town square every night, and everyone I told the story to told it to someone else, would it be true?"

She was shocked! "NO!" she emphatically declared.

"Ah...you see?" I said, "But according to you, where there is smoke, there is a fire..."

 

Needless to say the ex-mom-in-law never tried gossipping when I was around again...

 

But once more, another example of someone with limited knowledge trying to sound 'in the know' with limited information. And people believe the shizzle. 

 

Oei vei.

 

What is the world coming to?

 

Community Guru
Scott B Member Since: Nov 20, 2015
2 of 6

Irene B wrote:

What is the world coming to?

 


It's funny because the seeds of this have not changed since time immemorial. People have always gossiped. People have always worried about what others think of them. People have always wanted to be part of the "in crowed". The only difference between 2019 and 1919 or 1819 is our ability to reach more people with the aforementioned "human condition" nearly instantly. Where gossip, bullying, shaming, etc., was a local thing for someone as late as the early 2000's, it is now spread instantly to a global population AND preserved digitally for all to relish a 100 years from now. The only saving grace is that people's attention spans are extremely short and there is always someone else with a new "scandal" ready to take the previous victim's place. Rinse and repeat.

 

On of my favorite authors is Tolstoy. Go and read War and Peace or Anna Karenina. These were published more than 100 years ago. You will see all the same traits then that you describe now. Hell, Anna was a Soap Opera long before the term ever existed. If Russia had fiber back in the day, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from now.

 

  

Community Guru
Bill H Member Since: Aug 18, 2017
3 of 6

"This is a defense mechanism, I believe, designed to try and make you out as an idiot while trying to preserve their 'mastery' of the topic."

 

Sure, it can be a defense mechanism, but it can also be other things. Narcissism comes to mind, but the one that is most difficult is a "universal frame of reference." That is, a frame of reference that the speaker/writer believes applies in every situation to everyone. I participate in an online forum dominated by left-wing millenials (I am neither), and encounter statements such as "The baby boomers ruined the country for everybody else," and "Every CEO cheats," and "All business owners are slave drivers." The worst ones are kineejerk partisans, who cannot conceive of their preferred party doing anything wrong, or the other party doing anything right. Next-worst are the armchair psychiatrists. "He's a pathological liar," "She's paranoid," etc.

 

I was fortunate. In 1968 as a vocal music major in college I was singing a piece by Rachmaninoff, and my teacher repeatedly stopped me to tell me I was interpreting the song incorrectly. I was following the composer's expression marks, and asked him by what right he could say I was wrong. His reply was devastating: That's what Rachmaninoff told me.

Community Guru
Irene B Member Since: Feb 17, 2015
4 of 6

" That's what Rachmaninoff told me."

 

Love it!

Community Guru
Richard W Member Since: Jun 22, 2017
5 of 6

Scott wrote: 

If Russia had fiber back in the day, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from now.


It took me a good few seconds to understand this. At first I thought you meant moral fibre or bran!

 

It's probably a "divided by a common language" thing. In Britain, cable TV is less common, and not referred to as "fibre". You did mean cable TV, didn't you?

Community Guru
Scott B Member Since: Nov 20, 2015
6 of 6

Richard W wrote:

Scott wrote: 

If Russia had fiber back in the day, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from now.


It took me a good few seconds to understand this. At first I thought you meant moral fibre or bran!

 

It's probably a "divided by a common language" thing. In Britain, cable TV is less common, and not referred to as "fibre". You did mean cable TV, didn't you?


Actually, no. I was referring to fiber optics as the backbone of the Internet. So in  other words if Russia had an Internet back in Tolstoy's day and therefore communication was immediate far and wide beyond one's local town. I should have just said Internet but for some reason decided to be a tech geek about it!

TOP SOLUTION AUTHORS
TOP KUDOED MEMBERS