Consent to talk
Можно высказать опыт разговоров. In a network, it increases enormously - accumulating thousands of interviews, so unwittingly agreed rules - when it makes sense to spend time talking, and when - no. It has no relation to the assessment of the interlocutor as a fool, or even how. Another very clever, but it makes no sense to speak. This is not related to an agreement. Sometimes you and I agree, but it makes no sense to speak.
It has no relation to amenities - some flattering, and expresses the utmost respect, but it makes no sense ...
has sense to talk, and even very important to do that when people fully understand what you say, his objections or additions to this exhibit, he could easily replicate your logic, continue. Give some nontrivial consequences in your same logic, that you overlooked. Refuting your point view or disagreeing with her, and then saying something different, expressed some quite new and unexpected ideas - no matter whether you agree with these ideas. C such a person just makes sense to speak.
makes sense to say if the person understands you well, is able to tell yourself your idea and makes a their non-trivial objections to it.
makes sense to say, if a person like you would not really understand, but objected, saying something very unexpected and interesting He obviously has his own theory, or on this occasion that you do not know, or is the land of extraordinary vision, which allows him to look at this subject original.
makes sense to talk when a man knows perfectly well and in detail all the facts on the topic of conversation, and all views expressed. Even without a one new word, he simply and clearly has a well-known material.
That's all. Typically, a different situation. People - as is evident from his opposition - did not realize that you said you objected to something of their own, only apparently associated with your words, the objection is trivial, not realizing that all trivial thoughts long passages are summarized in the books and they have already written three layers replies are not able either to understand what you said, nor make something interesting. In this case, regardless of the state debate (for example, you hit the enemy just substitute and has an excellent argument to knock stuffing out of him) should stop talking. In general, any duration explanations will not help anything. It does not matter whether the other person is smart. That's his thing, clever in the case when the adverse conditions of a long conversation also did not help. If the conversation made sense and at least five days and two hundred comments peeped out the sun - the source would be revealed quickly enough one of the above above parameters, which makes sense to continue the conversation. If any of these symptoms are not noticeable - not necessarily think that the other person is bad and stupid. Maybe he's extremely clever, and it does not hold you to understand the novelty of his words and the way he redefined the word. It does not matter. This means that you yourself have not yet hold out and speak with that person need not.
Why is the factor of mind does not have life-giving actions and smart people do not understand, etc.? Because the concept of mind - respect. That is smart - it's not "green" and "long" is not in itself, but compared to someone else. Let's say you see someone's assessment: that's what a clever man, oh, what. Will you go see - People a trivial, flat, certainly not clever. But for someone who appreciates it so - clever. Who's a clever one, another - durakovat.
The same applies to books. Worth I read - is defined in much the same.
The only exception may be the learning situation. The interviewee is not interesting, but honestly reported what he wanted to learn. Then the conversation ceases to be the talk of equal interest in each other people and if you want you can begin to teach. Or not to start.
Of course, some people with whom we can speak, do not want to talk to you. This is normal.
And, of course, talking about talking, not about gossip. Gossip so nice to chat with someone - what have the talk?
We live in a world of smart professionals. This - distressing fact is rarely taken into account. Any vahlaki, confused fish-sausage - is a social bottom, we are dealing with it and some rare. Disappointing here is this. All completely idiotic opinions that widely disseminated and cause severe nausea - are supported and distributed smart, sane professionals, often people with a scientific degree, teachers, successful managers, etc. For example: all that crazy idiocy, which refers to the criticism of historical chronology - finds support people who - if they see them in a familiar environment - otherwise how clever and erudite, and not name. This is just an example. About Synergetics, Gödel's theorem, theory strings, the concept of the intelligentsia and others speak at the same level.
That is: all the nonsense that surrounds us is not stupid. It is made "smart" people.
And then there is heavy solutions. Or bend my head and agree to listen to a deafening stupidity - on the grounds that it speaks to people as intelligent and professional in some another area. Either do not bend your head and cease to communicate, if the person - idiot. Never mind that the PhD, professional or some other regalia, it's his problems.
Or is there some more out?
0 comments:
Post a Comment