Posted by alexandra_k on January 5, 2006, at 21:01:55
In reply to Re: I read it differently » alexandra_k, posted by JenStar on January 5, 2006, at 20:09:04
> Well, it's an interesting question!
:-)
Thanks for posting :-)
> I believe there's a difference between a descriptor like "manipulative" and one like "sack of ****."yes. you will find the first description in the clinical literature wheras you will not find the second... ;-)
> It's a slippery slope issue to assume that ALL self-descriptions are incorrect if they are not positive ones.
I never said or meant to imply that all negative self (or other) descrtiptions are incorrect. I think... That is where the point comes in that some truths... Can be uncivil.
I'm less worried about 'objective' truth regarding ascriptions of intention (which is an interesting topic though something of a can of worms) than I am interested in the utility or pragmatic value of negative descriptions of intention, however...
> "Manipulative" is a word that can be used clinically to describe certain behaviors, while "sack of ****" is a phrase that would mostly be used to denigrade or demean, without giving a clear idea of any behaviors.
What behaviours are described as manipulative?
Do these behaviours OBJECTIVELY have something in common...
Or is all that these behaviours have in common the point that other people typically respond to those behaviours BY FEELING MANIPULATED?You might worry about my considering 'manipulated' to be a feeling...
Lets suppose you say 'someone is doing that in order to manipulate another person'
How are you likely to feel in response to that description of their behaviour?
Indignant
Frustrated
Annoyed
Etc.
If someone tells you 'that person is a little manipulative' then do you respond by being warmly disposed to that person or by being cautious of them?Description...
May seem like a anal semantic technical point...
But when YOU are the person being described...
When it is YOUR BEHAVIOUR that is being described...The difference between negative and positive descriptions surely seems to be more than a mere technical point.
And...
When you consider whether you are likely to feel well disposed or ill disposed to someone in virtue of the descriptions you adopt then the descriptions you adopt has consequences for your emotional responses and your behaviours that are further reaching than a mere technical point.
> From the way Deneb describes her behavior to us, I have to agree that she is correct in the way she labels some of her behaviors, assuming that she is being truthful.
So either she is manipulative or she is a liar?
Truth only comes into it if you assume that people have direct and infallible access to their own intentions. Current consensus in psychodynamic theorising and cognitive psychology (and even behaviourist psychology so much as one is allowed to talk about intentions) is that mental states (including intentions) may be different from the way the person reports them to be.
That is true for you
True for me
True for DenebThat does not make us into liars...
Interpreting ones own intentions (and the intentions of others) is a matter of INTERPRETATION and multiple interpretations are possible. And the principle of charity (which I choose to adopt as much as I possibly can) dictates that one should always assume good intent (or at least the absence of malevolent intent) insofar as possible.
Why?
Because the consequences of that... The world is seen through a positive rather than negative lens and the world seems like a fairly nice place rather than a fairly horrid place... And the consequence of that is I am likely to feel happier and well disposed to others whereas if I am too ready to adopt negative interpretations I am more likely to feel sad and bitter and resentful and ill disposed to others.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:595104
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20060102/msgs/595627.html