|
Post by swankivy on Mar 4, 2011 23:30:28 GMT -5
The Good Side
Are you more like Dax or more like Weaver when it comes to people getting on your good side? In other words, do you like and trust people until they do something bad, or do you feel neutral or negative toward them until they do something good?
|
|
|
Post by blondiviolette on Mar 5, 2011 1:22:44 GMT -5
I guess I am a bit of both. If I don't know someone and haven't talked to them properly or very breifly but didn't get any sense of their personality/who they are from that, I wouldn't immediately say I 'liked' them but would probably trust most people enough that they aren't going to do something horrible but not a trust that is a bond type of trust of course. Then again there are people you immediately feel that bond and connection with even if you don't know them well so it differs...With people I know more then I would like and trust them until they did something bad. Sadly as humans we all know the potential for people's personalities to turn to bad is a strong possibility in any relationship so I'm aware that this can happen and sometimes does happen and am not naive in the sense of thinking everyone or myself is doll-like and pristine and that circumstances/personalities/friendships have the power to change. The neutral part is there for the most part with acquaintances or strangers. Negative if they give off an odd/suspicious/untrustworthy vibe or it is a crappy day. I don't try to get people on my good side, I take everyone as they come and however they come to me. I figure in this world if you have to play up and pander to anyone to get into their good books then it's a waste of time.
|
|
Kearin Dai Peregryth
Guest
|
Post by Kearin Dai Peregryth on Mar 5, 2011 2:18:34 GMT -5
I tend to like people fairly quickly and easily, and in that sense they "get on my good side" very easily and don't tend to lose it very easily. And if they do, regaining it isn't particularly hard.
However, I don't trust people nearly as much as I like them, and am generally outright refuse to do anything that would put me under their power unless I have truly gotten to understand that person (as much as any person can understand another, anyway)
Though anybody that has high charisma loses a LOT of trust respect points; partially because I am prejudiced against that method of persuasion, and partially because I cannot tell how they are manipulating the people around me and thus I am terrified of them. (Which feeds into reason one)
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Mar 5, 2011 11:10:23 GMT -5
I think I'm a little bit of both as well... and neither. Basically when I first become aware of someone I get the feeling (though I don't know for sure) that I'm picking up on personality clues that align them with things I've observed in many others before them. From there I already have an opinion on whether I will like them or not and whether I will trust them or not. Afterward I will be pretty positive toward the ones I think I can trust. And I will be basically positive or neutral to the ones I think I cannot, until they do something discourteous or distasteful that I had felt was inevitable all along. From then on I feel validated in being openly guarded or even negative because I knew my instinct was right and it wasn't just my imagination or paranoia.
I guess I feel as though I give them the chance to be human but "lay still and small" and "wait to get big and jump in the way" if they turn monster. Does that analogy make sense to any of you? The inflated ego of a house cat.
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Mar 5, 2011 11:17:34 GMT -5
Though anybody that has high charisma loses a LOT of trust respect points; partially because I am prejudiced against that method of persuasion, and partially because I cannot tell how they are manipulating the people around me and thus I am terrified of them. (Which feeds into reason one) I think I know what you mean here, but I've always called it "being loud" rather than high charisma. The type of person that enters a crowd with their hands above their heads and immediately begins shouting to get everyone to turn their way. The type of person that smiles all the time, except when they smile it doesn't make you feel happy or "glowy", it makes you feel like a predator is sizing you up.
I've never liked overly [overtly?] boisterous people with covert intentions. I feel like they are desperately trying to prove something unimportant and will step on anyone to do so.
|
|
Kearin Dai Peregryth
Guest
|
Post by Kearin Dai Peregryth on Mar 5, 2011 11:30:32 GMT -5
I don't think that's QUITE what I mean, SHO, but probably related at least to some degree. (Perhaps as a subset?) I mean charisma as in they are able to take charge of a group of people easily... even/especially when those people don't know them. They have a strong force of will that is exerted externally, and people tend to do what they want unless they already have a good reason not to. Something like that, anyway.
The power that these people hold is terrifying to me, especially since I can't really tell what they're doing.
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Mar 13, 2011 19:18:07 GMT -5
I don't think that's QUITE what I mean, SHO, but probably related at least to some degree. (Perhaps as a subset?) I mean charisma as in they are able to take charge of a group of people easily... even/especially when those people don't know them. They have a strong force of will that is exerted externally, and people tend to do what they want unless they already have a good reason not to. Something like that, anyway. The power that these people hold is terrifying to me, especially since I can't really tell what they're doing. Are you saying that even when a group of people (strangers or otherwise) are thrust together, by choice or even not by choice, and they have a common goal, and leadership and direction falls to someone, someone that didn't ask for it, you choose to not trust that person because the others do?
|
|
Kearin Dai Peregryth
Guest
|
Post by Kearin Dai Peregryth on Mar 16, 2011 0:08:46 GMT -5
I mean that anybody with that kind of power earns automatic distrust from me, as it is something I am utterly incapable of combating in most situations. Other sources of power are held in check by other people better, but charisma can easily lead huge numbers of people... for good and, quite often, for ill.
And since I do not believe that there are any external threats that would require any mass-mobilization that exist within this universe, with the singular exception of other humans, charisma is something I believe leads to significantly more problems than it solves. After all, larger communities might decrease the frequency of war, but they drastically increase the death toll during them.
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Mar 19, 2011 3:48:22 GMT -5
And since I do not believe that there are any external threats that would require any mass-mobilization that exist within this universe, with the singular exception of other humans... I guess that would depend on what you mean by mass.
What about like with mobilizing people to gather supplies and get to safety ahead of a tsunami, hurricane, forest fire, tornado, typhoon, or in the aftermath of any of those things as well as earthquakes, mudslides, floods, massive black outs, Black Friday sales, train derailments, hazardous chemical spills, etc.? The unifying voice of a charismatic personality to get all the "sheeple" to stop panicking, broadcasting the worst, and possibly hurting each other and move them to life saving productivity.
|
|
|
Post by kearin on Mar 19, 2011 18:00:02 GMT -5
Ah, but here's the biggest issue... you can prepare for those kinds of disasters quite well without any charismatic leaders. The threats are almost always well known beforehand, and if people were willing to simply PREPARE beforehand they would be dealt with a thousand times more effectively.
And, even if the death toll from those disasters did increase due to a lack of charismatic leaders, I think the overall level of loss would still be much MUCH lower than that from the increased sizes of inter-country warfare that charismatic leaders allow.
|
|
|
Post by SHO! on Mar 21, 2011 4:04:05 GMT -5
Ah, but here's the biggest issue... you can prepare for those kinds of disasters quite well without any charismatic leaders. The threats are almost always well known beforehand, and if people were willing to simply PREPARE beforehand they would be dealt with a thousand times more effectively. Well on another planet, in a different reality that is great. However here, most people do NOT prepare or plan ahead and when disaster hits there is usually a jumble of confusion until someone takes over and provides a singular direction.
How can you say the threats I mentioned are almost always well known beforehand when the world is currently looking at the aftermath of one of those threats that came as a shock and wiped out many people? You can pick and choose from the disasters I named and see examples of them EVERY year that caught people unaware and left them dizzy and lost until others came in to aid. I cannot recall one year of my life that there wasn't a tsunami, tornado, earthquake, flood, mudslide, hurricane, outbreak, blizzard, forest fire, or heat wave that caught people off guard, caused multitudes of deaths, and required a centralized will to get back in order.
|
|
|
Post by customdesigned on Mar 26, 2011 14:54:13 GMT -5
"Tit for Tat" (cooperate initially until betrayed, then respond to the last action of the opponent) was shown to be the superior strategy for non zero sum games in terms of average payoff. Weavers strategy might minimize worst case losses, however.
|
|