Humans will never understand each other

[Belial]

Exactly. You're lying to yourself, no matter how you slice it.

In short...huh?

[Zamfir]

I'm actually not seeing how that amounts to "lying to yourself". The person knows smoking is bad for them, would like to quit because they know it is (quite truthfully) bad for them, but ends up not quitting because of something else. That person knows exactly why they're not quitting or not going to quit.

That's not really how addictions work, though. When push comes to shove and the urge is coming strong, you easily tell yourself a good reason why you shouldn't quit, or at least not right now. Even when you also know that you'll regret it later on, etc.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

Exactly. You're lying to yourself, no matter how you slice it.

In short...huh?

Not smoking is the right thing to do. *takes a drag off of the cigarette* People shouldn't smoke. *puff puff* You'd have to be an idiot to ignore the health risks! *ffffffffffffff* Ahhhh, man, that's good.

Either you or the person you're talking to is being lied to.

I'm not saying it's not a little bit understandable (a lot of my friends who smoke urged me, sometimes with threats of violence, not to smoke), and perhaps this is the one exception that my posit doesn't apply to very well, but it is hypocritical in the sense that a lie is being told.

[maybeagnostic]

...but it is hypocritical in the sense that a lie is being told.

What's the lie? Smoking really is unhealthy and if I were to smoke a cigarette that wouldn't change this fact OR my knowledge of this fact. I would be ignoring my own advice (hypocrisy) but what I said still isn't a lie.

[Dauric]

I'm actually not seeing how that amounts to "lying to yourself". The person knows smoking is bad for them, would like to quit because they know it is (quite truthfully) bad for them, but ends up not quitting because of something else. That person knows exactly why they're not quitting or not going to quit.

That's not really how addictions work, though. When push comes to shove and the urge is coming strong, you easily tell yourself a good reason why you shouldn't quit, or at least not right now. Even when you also know that you'll regret it later on, etc.

Question: Does the lie about why not to quit 'right now' actually count as a lie about the hazards of taking up the addiction in the first place?

The other question I'd have is: Is it really hypocrisy to warn others from the path one has taken with foreknowledge of the results? The smoker has experienced the effects of smoking and the difficulty in quitting, and tells another while in the throws of their addiction "Do not make the same choice I did, you will regret it." I'm not sure it really counts as hypocrisy.

[JBJ]

Hypocrisy isn't saying one thing and doing another. It's pretending to hold a belief that you don't actually hold.

The smoking thing is a bad example. I can smoke a cigarette and tell you that smoking is bad, and that's not hypocrisy. I honestly know and believe that smoking is harmful. It would be hypocrisy for me to say smoking is good for you while knowing full well that smoking is actually bad. Another example; If I go to church and claim to be a Christian while not actually believing in God, that is hypocrisy. I am both saying and doing the things I publicly exclaim, but I don't actually believe in God, therefore I am a hypocrite. So, MJ is correct. Hypocrisy and honesty are mutually exclusive, but saying "Correct" to the "Say X, Do Y" before was incorrect, and probably got things a bit off track.

[Mighty Jalapeno]

...but it is hypocritical in the sense that a lie is being told.

What's the lie? Smoking really is unhealthy and if I were to smoke a cigarette that wouldn't change this fact OR my knowledge of this fact. I would be ignoring my own advice (hypocrisy) but what I said still isn't a lie.

I think this is one of those discussions that's just going to devolve into people arguing over the definitions of common words, so I'm going to agree to disagree before that vein in my head starts going all wibbly.

ETA: And thanks, JBJ.

[Zamfir]

I'm actually not seeing how that amounts to "lying to yourself". The person knows smoking is bad for them, would like to quit because they know it is (quite truthfully) bad for them, but ends up not quitting because of something else. That person knows exactly why they're not quitting or not going to quit.

That's not really how addictions work, though. When push comes to shove and the urge is coming strong, you easily tell yourself a good reason why you shouldn't quit, or at least not right now. Even when you also know that you'll regret it later on, etc.

Question: Does the lie about why not to quit 'right now' actually count as a lie about the hazards of taking up the addiction in the first place?

The other question I'd have is: Is it really hypocrisy to warn others from the path one has taken with foreknowledge of the results? The smoker has experienced the effects of smoking and the difficulty in quitting, and tells another while in the throws of their addiction "Do not make the same choice I did, you will regret it." I'm not sure it really counts as hypocrisy.

No disgreement there. I just wanted to make the very specific point that addicitions do usually involve some forms of deceiving yourself. It's not as if people are addicted because they made a calm trade-off between the advantages and disadvantages, and concluded that they had good reasons to keep smoking.

[Dauric]

I think this is one of those discussions that's just going to devolve into people arguing over the definitions of common words, so I'm going to agree to disagree before that vein in my head starts going all wibbly.

Awww, but that's the best part of these discussions!

[quantumcat42]

This whole argument is a weird subversion of the usual is-ought problem. Saying "People don't do X" and then doing X is lying; saying "People shouldn't do X" and then doing X is hypocrisy. It's possible to have overlap, but not necessary.

[Ghostbear]

I think (if I'm interpreting correctly) the disconnect here is that Mighty Jalapeno sees the person saying "Don't smoke, only dumbasses smoke" as lying to themselves, because they'll likely say "Well, I'll quit... next week" and thinking their case is different. While others are just seeing "Don't smoke, only dumbasses smoke" as being a true statement to make to others, and not indicative of the smoker's internal reasoning for themselves. If that makes any sense.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.

[Radical_Initiator]

I'm actually not seeing how that amounts to "lying to yourself". The person knows smoking is bad for them, would like to quit because they know it is (quite truthfully) bad for them, but ends up not quitting because of something else. That person knows exactly why they're not quitting or not going to quit.

That's not really how addictions work, though. When push comes to shove and the urge is coming strong, you easily tell yourself a good reason why you shouldn't quit, or at least not right now. Even when you also know that you'll regret it later on, etc.

I've been in that situation. From my perspective, yes, I can come up with a nice, neat reason to keep doing what I'm doing (as regards the addiction), and I can say that this is my rationalization for it, but I know, without a doubt, that it's just a rationalization, and that the addiction will kill me if I continue. It seems more like the rationalization is an attempt at self-delusion, but not actually deluding yourself into believing it. On the other hand, I have only my own experience, and maybe I'm not looking at it from an objective viewpoint.

[Dauric]

I think (if I'm interpreting correctly) the disconnect here is that Mighty Jalapeno sees the person saying "Don't smoke, only dumbasses smoke" as lying to themselves, because they'll likely say "Well, I'll quit... next week" and thinking their case is different. While others are just seeing "Don't smoke, only dumbasses smoke" as being a true statement to make to others, and not indicative of the smoker's internal reasoning for themselves. If that makes any sense.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong though.

I think that the problem is somewhat loose definitions of lying and hypocrisy, as well as rather flexible scenarios that liberally dance across those shifting definitions, and in that regard Jalapeno's tact of getting out before we see his forehead vein explode is probably the wisest option.

---

To be somewhat more on the initial tangent of the validity of Cracked articles in N&A: There's a lot of 'comedy garbage' on Cracked, but occasionally you can run across a few nuggets of trivia that are actually quite good. This can probably be said about most sources of information, so I'm not really inclined to discount an article on Cracked just because it's on Cracked. In general I'd say the regulars around here are pretty good at weeding the wheat from the chaff, so on the XKCD boards at least I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

[Radical_Initiator]

and in that regard Jalapeno's tact of getting out before we see his forehead vein explode is probably the wisest option.

Awww, you're no fun anymore.

To be somewhat more on the initial tangent of the validity of Cracked articles in N&A: There's a lot of 'comedy garbage' on Cracked, but occasionally you can run across a few nuggets of trivia that are actually quite good. This can probably be said about most sources of information, so I'm not really inclined to discount an article on Cracked just because it's on Cracked. In general I'd say the regulars around here are pretty good at weeding the wheat from the chaff, so on the XKCD boards at least I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

This is actually something that hit me about early responses. We shouldn't be in the business of dismissing articles or information based solely on the source. Unless it's Fox News.

[Shivahn]

People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

It's really just a case of extended attribution error. People attribute their own failures to situations and others' to personality flaws.

When I'm late, it's because the car wouldn't start and then traffic sucked, but everyone else should've left earlier in case they had traffic.

People really think that? I mean, sure I understand people saying those things when arriving late to work to attempt to deflect blame. I've said I was late because of a traffic when really I was at a deli where the person who took my order forgot about me for 30 minutes and I am too non-confrontational to bring it up, but I really knew I should have left the deli earlier or gotten her attention and reminded her what I ordered.

That example was made up and hyperbolic, but it is a real psychological phenomenon where people blame others' personalities or actions for things that befall them, ignoring context and situational stuff, while often attributing situational issues to their own failings.

For pretty simple and powerful examples, how many people do you know that would admit they'd probably be members of the Nazi party if they were born in Germany in 1920? Or think that they would refuse to inherit slaves if they were born in the prewar American south? Without some special circumstances, most of us would support the Nazis and own slaves. History tells us this, but we in general like to imagine that it's not so.

It happens in lesser situations too - we heavily criticize those who don't call an ambulance at a crime scene, saying that they're obviously flawed, but most of us would do the same thing, unless we constantly train ourselves to react differently. And the people who are in those situations don't consider themselves flawed, they will always justify it with situational stuff. "You had to be a Nazi, otherwise you'd be in danger," "We were helping the slaves, they'd be dead if we just freed them," "I thought someone else had called the ambulance, I didn't want to tie up the 911 operators."

And a lot of times, there are little nuggets of truth in the situational explanations.

In short, when other people fuck up, it's taken to be a moral fault of theirs, but most of us would probably do the same thing in many situations.

[Dauric]

and in that regard Jalapeno's tact of getting out before we see his forehead vein explode is probably the wisest option.

Awww, you're no fun anymore.

"But it's my only line!"

[Jave D]

Exactly. You're lying to yourself, no matter how you slice it.

In short...huh?

Not smoking is the right thing to do. *takes a drag off of the cigarette* People shouldn't smoke. *puff puff* You'd have to be an idiot to ignore the health risks! *ffffffffffffff* Ahhhh, man, that's good.

Either you or the person you're talking to is being lied to.

Only if I say that last bit, "man, that's good." As a smoker myself, I agree that you'd have to be an idiot to ignore the health risk, and I agree that people shouldn't smoke. Yet I smoke. I'm an idiot who does what I should not. So there's no lying involved here... just brutal, all-encompassing honesty.

Now I'm going to go be an idiot. I mean, aside from on the internet.

[Weeks]

but using virgin as an insult is both dickish and an ad-Hominem.

Hey sourmilk, you have valid criticism but I'll just stand over here being a dick.

Oh hai

From the few Christina H articles I've read, they're pretty good, and likely the best Cracked has to offer, low-profile humor notwithstanding.

[Zcorp]

People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

It's really just a case of extended attribution error. People attribute their own failures to situations and others' to personality flaws.

When I'm late, it's because the car wouldn't start and then traffic sucked, but everyone else should've left earlier in case they had traffic.

People really think that? I mean, sure I understand people saying those things when arriving late to work to attempt to deflect blame. I've said I was late because of a traffic when really I was at a deli where the person who took my order forgot about me for 30 minutes and I am too non-confrontational to bring it up, but I really knew I should have left the deli earlier or gotten her attention and reminded her what I ordered.

That example was made up and hyperbolic, but it is a real psychological phenomenon where people blame others' personalities or actions for things that befall them, ignoring context and situational stuff, while often attributing situational issues to their own failings.

This is a observed behavior relates to Locus of Control. People in western cultures, and specifically the United States, generally exhibit an internal locus of control when it comes to success and a external locus of control when it comes to failure. The opposite has been observed to be true in eastern cultures, and specifically Japan.

[Роберт]

This is a observed behavior relates to Locus of Control. People in western cultures, and specifically the United States, generally exhibit an internal locus of control when it comes to success and a external locus of control when it comes to failure. The opposite has been observed to be true in eastern cultures, and specifically Japan.

Just reading your summary here made me feel a lot smarter/more understanding of certain cultural issues. Following the link now. Thanks.

[kiklion]

People critique those they like by their intentions - frequently assuming the best possible intentions - rationalising away observed differences between assumed intentions and observed actions. People critique those they dislike in the opposite fashion.

It's really just a case of extended attribution error. People attribute their own failures to situations and others' to personality flaws.

When I'm late, it's because the car wouldn't start and then traffic sucked, but everyone else should've left earlier in case they had traffic.

People really think that? I mean, sure I understand people saying those things when arriving late to work to attempt to deflect blame. I've said I was late because of a traffic when really I was at a deli where the person who took my order forgot about me for 30 minutes and I am too non-confrontational to bring it up, but I really knew I should have left the deli earlier or gotten her attention and reminded her what I ordered.

That example was made up and hyperbolic, but it is a real psychological phenomenon where people blame others' personalities or actions for things that befall them, ignoring context and situational stuff, while often attributing situational issues to their own failings.

I understand that it was just and example, however I meant my response to be more general. When I had to pay a fee for paying a credit card late, it was a fine for my own forgetfulness, not some arbitrary money making scheme on the CC companies imagination. Or if I did poorly on a test, it's because I didn't know the answers, not that the test was faulty.

Furthermore, every time I heard someone arguing otherwise, that the banks steal money from people with fees, a teacher hates them so puts questions on a test that weren't covered, a manager is out to get them and gives them too many/too few shifts/low raises etc I always thought they did it just to fit in. That they said what they expected others to say, even though they really understood that they knew of the fees ahead of time, they didn't prepare for the test and that managers hands are tied by higher ups decisions.

This is just one more piece of evidence of how I do not understand most people I come across and probably never will.

[Zcorp]

I understand that it was just and example, however I meant my response to be more general. When I had to pay a fee for paying a credit card late, it was a fine for my own forgetfulness, not some arbitrary money making scheme on the CC companies imagination. Or if I did poorly on a test, it's because I didn't know the answers, not that the test was faulty.

Unless the test was faulty or the CC company was abusing their power.

Furthermore, every time I heard someone arguing otherwise, that the banks steal money from people with fees, a teacher hates them so puts questions on a test that weren't covered, a manager is out to get them and gives them too many/too few shifts/low raises etc I always thought they did it just to fit in. That they said what they expected others to say, even though they really understood that they knew of the fees ahead of time, they didn't prepare for the test and that managers hands are tied by higher ups decisions.

All of these things can and do happen.

This is just one more piece of evidence of how I do not understand most people I come across and probably never will.

Really it seems like you are just as irrational as these people you seem to interact with. All of the things above happen in the real world. That said, they don't happen as often as people claim they do. But dismissing anyone that blames anything on factors besides their own behavior is just as wrong as someone who always blames them on outside factors.

[addams]

I had a falling out with a close friend over stuff like this. I claimed that Bush had good intentions but that he was making mistakes. He declared that I was an idiot for seeing Bush as anything other than a demon hellbent on sucking the lifeblood of the US (or a puppet of another hellspawn).

Oh, and he claimed I was an idiot for even trying to bring up any type of criticisms about any righteous infallible heroic heroes like Mandela, MLK, or Harvey Milk. Never mind the manipulation and the lies, if it was for a good cause the ends always justifies the means!

Hi; I feel like jumping into this conversation. I think that I understand you. Maybe.

Little Bush II was not an evil man. He was like a zero. A place holder. Zeros are important, but, zeros are nothing.

There is no infallible hero. Why would you criticize your friends heros?

Harvey Milk? Why would you pick on him? MLK? Yeah. He smoked. I heard that is what killed him. He went outside to smoke and well.?.

Some people get catapulted into the spotlight. Other people stumble into the spotlight.

All those High Minded Ideals are dangerous. People that think like that attract attack. Why?

From both sides. Why?

Get Famous was never on my 'To Do' list.
Someone in this forum typed famous people fart sunshine and rainbows.
What do you think?

[Zcorp]

MLK? Yeah. He smoked. I heard that is what killed him. He went outside to smoke and well.?.

Some people get catapulted into the spotlight. Other people stumble into the spotlight.

All those High Minded Ideals are dangerous. People that think like that attract attack. Why?

What is wrong with smoking?

People that fight for any values system -especially equality/justice- are attacking the well-being, or perceived well-being of others. The others being those profit off of the inequality, who also often happen to have a significant amount of power. To create a more equal society we have to bring down the top and raise the bottom, those at the top don't often appreciate that and frequently attack those that wish to create equality.

There are various other reasons as well, especially in the case of Milk and MLK, but that is one of them.

[addams]

MLK? Yeah. He smoked. I heard that is what killed him. He went outside to smoke and well.?.

Some people get catapulted into the spotlight. Other people stumble into the spotlight.

All those High Minded Ideals are dangerous. People that think like that attract attack. Why?

What is wrong with smoking?

People that fight for any values system -especially equality/justice- are attacking the well-being, or perceived well-being of others. The others being those profit off of the inequality, who also often happen to have a significant amount of power. To create a more equal society we have to bring down the top and raise the bottom, those at the top don't often appreciate that and frequently attack those that wish to create equality.

There are various other reasons as well, especially in the case of Milk and MLK, but that is one of them.

Yeah. The profit thing. That is why I am in favor of the people inside the prisons to be the owners of the prisons. The People. Right?
(I know; Not all the People are in prisons, but;...)
Well; Then, just, raise the bottom.
Who would bitch about that?

Edit: What is wrong with Smoking? Well; That is a thread all of its own, somewhere.

[Zcorp]

Yeah. The profit thing. That is why I am in favor of the people inside the prisons to be the owners of the prisons. The People. Right?
(I know; Not all the People are in prisons, but;...)
Well; Then, just, raise the bottom.
Who would bitch about that?

Edit: What is wrong with Smoking? Well; That is a thread all of its own, somewhere.

I don't have a clue what you are trying to say here.

[ShootTheChicken]

Zcorp, meet addams.

[kiklion]

Zcorp, meet addams.

I am almost certain he is a robot.

[ShootTheChicken]

I am almost certain he is wisest of us all.

[quantumcat42]

Reading an addams post is a wonderfully transcendent experience. Enjoy it.

[Ghostbear]

Even more so when you read it and realize you actually sort of understand it. It's an odd feeling.

[fizzgig]

I am almost certain he is wisest of us all.

I am almost certain he is a she.

[CorruptUser]

I had a falling out with a close friend over stuff like this. I claimed that Bush had good intentions but that he was making mistakes. He declared that I was an idiot for seeing Bush as anything other than a demon hellbent on sucking the lifeblood of the US (or a puppet of another hellspawn).

Oh, and he claimed I was an idiot for even trying to bring up any type of criticisms about any righteous infallible heroic heroes like Mandela, MLK, or Harvey Milk. Never mind the manipulation and the lies, if it was for a good cause the ends always justifies the means!

Hi; I feel like jumping into this conversation. I think that I understand you. Maybe.

Little Bush II was not an evil man. He was like a zero. A place holder. Zeros are important, but, zeros are nothing.

There is no infallible hero. Why would you criticize your friends heros?

Harvey Milk? Why would you pick on him? MLK? Yeah. He smoked. I heard that is what killed him. He went outside to smoke and well.?.

Some people get catapulted into the spotlight. Other people stumble into the spotlight.

All those High Minded Ideals are dangerous. People that think like that attract attack. Why?

From both sides. Why?

Get Famous was never on my 'To Do' list.
Someone in this forum typed famous people fart sunshine and rainbows.
What do you think?

1) Ever see the movie "Milk"? Harvey Milk was "stopping" the very riots he was creating. And later, turned into a machine politician. But hey, the ends justify the means...
2) MLK was running a racket with Malcolm X, or at least had the effect of one, of playing good cop bad cop. Malcolm X would scare people, and then MLK would offer a somewhat less scary alternative. Deception is OK when it's for human rights and all. Also, plagiarism.
3) Mandela was a leader of a militant organization. Depending on who you were, he was a terrorist leader or a freedom fighter (I see him as both). He was not the 'African Gandhi'.
4) Speaking of Gandhi, Gandhi was racist (at least when younger) and also in many ways foolish. Nonviolence works when your oppressor is seeking slaves (or equivalent), which is what the British wanted. It does not work when your oppressor is willing to commit genocide.

I believe all 4 were a 'net positive' for the world, but that doesn't mean I think that they were perfect in every way. And that's the problem; if someone is 'good' you can't ever criticize anything they did, and if someone is 'evil' you can't ever compliment anything about them.

[addams]

I had a falling out with a close friend over stuff like this. I claimed that Bush had good intentions but that he was making mistakes. He declared that I was an idiot for seeing Bush as anything other than a demon hellbent on sucking the lifeblood of the US (or a puppet of another hellspawn).

Oh, and he claimed I was an idiot for even trying to bring up any type of criticisms about any righteous infallible heroic heroes like Mandela, MLK, or Harvey Milk. Never mind the manipulation and the lies, if it was for a good cause the ends always justifies the means!

Hi; I feel like jumping into this conversation. I think that I understand you. Maybe.

Little Bush II was not an evil man. He was like a zero. A place holder. Zeros are important, but, zeros are nothing.

There is no infallible hero. Why would you criticize your friends heros?

Harvey Milk? Why would you pick on him? MLK? Yeah. He smoked. I heard that is what killed him. He went outside to smoke and well.?.

Some people get catapulted into the spotlight. Other people stumble into the spotlight.

All those High Minded Ideals are dangerous. People that think like that attract attack. Why?

From both sides. Why?

Get Famous was never on my 'To Do' list.
Someone in this forum typed famous people fart sunshine and rainbows.
What do you think?

1) Ever see the movie "Milk"? Harvey Milk was "stopping" the very riots he was creating. And later, turned into a machine politician. But hey, the ends justify the means...
2) MLK was running a racket with Malcolm X, or at least had the effect of one, of playing good cop bad cop. Malcolm X would scare people, and then MLK would offer a somewhat less scary alternative. Deception is OK when it's for human rights and all. Also, plagiarism.
3) Mandela was a leader of a militant organization. Depending on who you were, he was a terrorist leader or a freedom fighter (I see him as both). He was not the 'African Gandhi'.
4) Speaking of Gandhi, Gandhi was racist (at least when younger) and also in many ways foolish. Nonviolence works when your oppressor is seeking slaves (or equivalent), which is what the British wanted. It does not work when your oppressor is willing to commit genocide.

I believe all 4 were a 'net positive' for the world, but that doesn't mean I think that they were perfect in every way. And that's the problem; if someone is 'good' you can't ever criticize anything they did, and if someone is 'evil' you can't ever compliment anything about them.

There are no infallible heroes, just, vectors for memes.
For more harmony within the friendship discuss the ideas not the people.
Do you like the meme or not?

But; Gossip is so much fun. Even about dead guys that we never knew.