In case your second reply is a result of concern about my lack of reply, I’m only giving the thread time to breathe to allow MagsJ to respond to her categorical defeat.
edit: Before submitting this post, there were developments since I started writing it so I’ll leave the following provisionally tabbed out while I address the developments at the end of this post - as what I’ve tabbed out may no longer fully apply after all and so should be ignored for now in favour of skipping to the end of this post for MagsJ. There’s stuff for Mowk in between, mind.
[tab]That would be the honourable thing for her to do, so I do not expect her to do so - as honour in defeat requires humility, and even in the face of incontrovertible evidence and logic from all sides and by all involved she’s yet to show any sign of learning from incontrovertible evidence and logic.
That is not to say she won’t come around, which is what I hope for even if I do not expect it. The act of doing so will be the same as learning, but this does not rule out the possibility of her replying further to continue to dig her own grave - the same cowardice that we saw in her last response to me.
This leaves at least 3 possible paths for her that deeply define who she is as a person:
- to admit being wrong and learn from incontrovertible evidence and logic: showing integrity, honour, honesty, humility, and a lack of cowardice.
- to cease replying: showing deception through her slinking off - as well as cowardice, and a lack of integrity, honour, honesty and humility.
- to continue replying in denial of the truth: showing a severe lack of intelligence or at least pathological emotional issues expressed through stubborn denial, as well as cowardice, and a lack of integrity, honour, honesty and humility.[/tab]
Mowk, you haven’t said anything wrong or inoffensive, don’t worry. I think any “drawing and quartering” has likely come to an end.
Yes, integrity is easier for me than humility, though note what I said about things that “you have to work on force your conscious concentration, and that can make you even better at them than if you don’t have to think about them.” - I do take what you said as the compliment that you intended.
I can’t deny that I am applying all the theory of moderation in practice to one particular person: in line with the thread being about one person as well as the generalities that can be gleaned from their bad example. I’ve even admitted a little savagery in my directness and lack of holding back within reason. Whilst “you can lead a horse/you can show them a mirror/etc.”, firm, overly assertive insistence can bring a certain urgency to a deeply important issue that can otherwise be ignored with potentially indefinite procrastination. There have been protestations from, e.g. phyllo, about my approach suggesting something simplistically sinister, which is undeniably a common thing to encounter on the internet, but I think there are interesting truths about teaching and even parenting psychology where approaches like mine are effective under particular circumstances - even to the point that bystanders who are usually not parents or teachers themselves might doubt the competence of the methods being used. I’m fine with how I’ve approached things, and while I suspect much of it has been me “winging it” and understanding it myself more in hindsight than foresight, I’ve not felt wrong in either foresight nor hindsight - coming from someone who, in your words, exemplifies integrity.
In case anyone was wondering, I’d improve the P2 in my syllogism to something like (A∈C)∧((¬A)∉C) therefore re-writing the conclusion as (B∈C)∧((¬B)∉C) - just to be clearer about what the ∃ was supposed to be doing when technically it wasn’t adding anything to the logic. The conclusion remains that same: all people who prefer to show humility (and none who avoid it) are preferable for positions of power.
I don’t think that’s a character fault at all, never mind being a good or bad fault.
The fact that you wonder whether you have anything valid to contribute shows in itself that you are thinking about valid things to contribute.
I’m reminded of the Ben Folds Five song “Jane”, though the lyrics are little more exaggerated than what you’re saying about yourself: “You worry there might not be anything at all inside. That you worry should tell you that’s not right”.
There’s no imperative for you to come up with something valid at any given point - it would be worse to try and force it and contributing invalidity. Saying that, however, the act of attempting to write a response can help transform the invalid into the valid because writing forces you to straighten out your thinking - you don’t have to post it. It’s something I do from time to time, before deleting what I’ve written and considering what I realised as a result of trying to formulate my thoughts into an argument. My account is older than pretty much everyone else who still contributes to this forum, and I’ve a markedly low post count to show for it - because I only post when I’ve something valid to contribute, that I’m able to fully form (that and a couple of periods of lengthy hiatus ). I like to think that this increases the density of quality in my contributions. Silence is always valid when it’s contemplation, so in that sense, your struggle wondering if you have anything valid to contribute is a positive sign. You can contribute validity whenever it’s time, and think about what makes the invalid valid in between.
No doubt. And you develop that working style in line with your experiences, and what works for you can likewise evolve you as a person.
I can’t change the latter, but apparently I’m part of the former even if not in a professional capacity - which you can only take however you will in line with your ongoing evolution as a person.
I think I see what this is about. I am not in favour of bullying and do not intend to bully.
You will recall that:
“I fully accept that too much humility can be counterproductive as the programme you watched rightly pointed out. It can be abused by others, it can be used as a mask for self-loathing and perhaps bottle up passive aggression - like all things it’s not an absolute good, I’m sure you can agree with me here? Perhaps this is in part why you’re so averse to it? My point of course is that when done rightly, it’s indispensible to the best leadership and authority, and when ignored will lead to poor leadership, being ineffectual and unfit for authority as we have recently witnessed.”
Would you say “exercising humility ain’t going to stop that bullying” if you replaced your use of the word “humility” with that “neohumility”, which Pareena Lawrence defined as “a new view of humility, neohumility, humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world.” in the journal you helpfully provided in an earlier post of yours?
Might exercising “humility without weakness and transformed to fit the business world” stop that bullying?
Given what we’ve both provided so far about the incontrovertible value of humility - your papers and my logic - throwing humility out altogether and projecting a lack of need for such things may appear to be an effective or at least reflexive counter against the example you gave of being bullied in the workplace, but in doing so you also throw out the incontrovertible value of what we might as well now refer to as neohumility.
The reflexive counter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater may be an understandable initial resort, but this does not necessitate that the baby remains thrown out with the water. A re-introduction of neohumility could very well be the next evolution of such a person in light of its incontrovertibly proven value as follows:
As Carleas and I were saying, there exists costly signalling and “anything that’s costly is honest”. If anything, a bully is attracted to someone who is suspected to be hiding a fear of e.g. showing humility, but someone who projects humility without fear of hiding it is no target for bullying. Ironically workplace bullying can worsen from any initial acts of self-protection that merely “cover up and deny”, but it cannot happen to someone who is projecting a costly form of signalling without fear - as the costly is honest. This is why those who flaunt luxury are not taken to be unable to become rich even if they made themselves poor through the sacrifice! The most convincing points are made with full disclosure of their potential weaknesses - because their strength can withstand even their own critique placed right beside them, and it reminds everyone else that every counterpoint must likewise acknowledge its weaknesses too if it is to stand up honestly in opposition.