|
| Thread: Why is it... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
posted April 11, 2011 09:01 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What annoys me most about males isn't the fact they can't show thier emotions (although some do) its the ones that can't admit when they are wrong and apologise. Does that make you less of a man to say sorry and admit your human!! That seems to be the norm in all countries.
My explanation would be something like this: When we say something substantial, we normally don't say it in a "it could be like this... possibly... maybe... I'm not really sure" way, but more like "it IS like that, understand?" This requires quite an investment of self-confidence and personal prestige so admitting that you are wrong after that could be pretty hard. It actually boils down to admitting that you don't really know what this is about, which could be perceived as mumbling, which does not make you the most authoritative figure, especially if it becomes your way of life. In social situations this is hardly an advantage and when women are involved - even less so. You just almost always prefer something which revolves around the image of the alpha male or the closest available competitor. Biology.  I for one often hate admitting that I'm wrong but when the evidences are overwhelming, I do it and I'm completely honest with it. And that's why I never do it more than once. The second time would be a hypocrisy.
But anyway, this is not what the topic is about. 
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 09:04 PM |
|
|
The overwhelming irony of talking about men that refuse to admit they're wrong in the OSM.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 09:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Crying in most cases is girlish indeed, it means that you can't handle the immediate situation and prefer to "bypass" it.
We would all be better off if less people would pretend they CAN handle the immediate situation.
By the way, I think chewing nicotine gum is way more girlish than crying now and then. 
|
|
selcy
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 09:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
By the way, I think chewing nicotine gun is way more girlish than crying now and then.
Jolly its probably not a good idea to put a gun in your mouth  .
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 10:07 PM |
|
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 10:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
We would all be better off if less people would pretend they CAN handle the immediate situation.
You are not implying that nobody can handle such immediate situations, are you?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2011 10:32 PM |
|
|
|
I'm implying that a lot less situations actually can be and are handled as people try to suggest. Whether you really can handle a situation or not doesn't depend on whether you cry or not.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 10:56 AM |
|
|
|
That entirely depends on the person and any generalization here would be incorrect. And crying usually means that you are not focusing on the problem but on the impact that it has on you. Again, I'm not talking about marginal scenarios.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 11:22 AM |
|
|
I agree that it depends on the person - however, it was you who was generalizing, if you read back your posts.
Since crying is a function of the body, and cried tears are chemically different from the tears used to keep the eyeballs moist, crying clearly has a purpose.
Scientifically this purpose remains unclear.
Quote:
And crying usually means that you are not focusing on the problem but on the impact that it has on you.
I think that this is turning the problem around. I would say that there is acorrelation between the gravity of the problem and the ability to focus on it on one hand as opposed to being overwhelmed by the impact it has. My guess would be, that if a person is indeed overwhelmed, crying is supposed to help.
Example: After a routine examination your doctor tells you, you have cancer in an early to advanced stage. Clearly, the impact on you is pretty massive, while focussing on the problem isn't necessary within the next day, nor will you be able to handle the problem just by focussing on it.
Crying would be a pretty natural reaction, I suppose - and one that I'd guess would help you to get over the immediate impact and focus on the actual handling of the problem.
(I add this in brackets: I'm sure, most of the women WILL cry in such a situation, while most of the men won't, thinking that crying would be girlish and you have to take these things "like a man", probably imagining people saying, wow, that guy took it well. I think, "taking it well" is completely irrelevant as opposed to "handling it well", and how someone manages to handle it and lives on with it... if anything, I'd believe that those who cry can handle it better.)
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 11:30 AM |
|
|
Crying does not necessarily have to have a purpose, or maybe a better word is, advantage.
Whatever the cause is, can be a random factor that's likely to happen within our environment, due to a part which haven't changed.
It can be a sideeffect from something, which is an advantage.
It can be from a part, which is resistant to mutations all together.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 11:37 AM |
|
|
|
Like I said, I'm not talking about marginal scenarios. As for the cancer example, crying won't help anything as what you need is further medical assistance - if there is a chance - not to be sorry about yourself. And even if they tell you "sorry mate, you are dying in 6 months, nothing we can do about it" crying is again pretty pointless - what are going to change? Or "handle"?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 11:45 AM |
|
|
Crying is obviously something you don't do on purpose or voluntarily - it would be part of body reactions, like faster pulse rate in the event of a shock -, so whether it's pointless or not isn't the question. Not to mention the fact, that not all we do does have a point, and even if we are in very dire straits not everything we do we do with the purpose of solving the problem. Not to mention the fact that no matter WHAT we do in such a situation, EVERYTHING may be pointless, since we can't make sure that whatever we do has the desired effect.
Secondly, I would say it is highly unlikely that a function like crying has no purpose - in that case it is very likely that we would have lost that ability already.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 12:06 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 12:07, 12 Apr 2011.
|
|
Involuntary reactions are not what we are discussing (or at least this is my impression), obviously you can't talk about controlling the uncontrollable. If someone is susceptible to bursting into tears as a reaction to the proper stimulus, then he/she is, end of story. I'd say this is about scenarios when you can controls yourself and your choice whether to do it or not.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 01:02 PM |
|
|
Let's assume, as a simple working hypothesis, that the more effort you put in controlling an urge to cry the stronger the urge you CAN control. In practise this means, that a comparatively small pain - shallow knife cut, small burn, headache, or, for different stimuli, bad (school) test result, hearing that a beloved one has a small accident - is comparatively easy to control, while the heavier stuff needs more and more effort.
Question: While it makes sense to control the minimum stuff, isn't there a point somewhere, when A LOT more effort is needed to control the urge (which will keep you from focussing on the problem at hand) than simply give in to the urge and be done with it, or, in other words, when crying not only is easier, but the better way to finally focus on the problem at hand as well?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 01:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Like I said, I'm not talking about marginal scenarios. As for the cancer example, crying won't help anything as what you need is further medical assistance - if there is a chance - not to be sorry about yourself. And even if they tell you "sorry mate, you are dying in 6 months, nothing we can do about it" crying is again pretty pointless - what are going to change? Or "handle"?
If you cry there at the doctors side, you will at the least have less stress on your shoulders.
IT WILL HELP.
Now, getting completely collapsed in crying, and then becoming a attenion snow, and then cry without a reason, that is the point where you are suppose to not do it.
So let me say it again: Crying helps you, A LOT. There is a reason you start crying like a river when your properly let go of something that has been a large thorn in your side for quite the time.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 04:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
That in today's society, it is considered weak to show pity, sorrow, depression or remorse?
Why do people feel pressured into acting like the "Strong man" or the "Invincible protector"?
Why is it deemed wrong or awkward to cry in public?
Because some people are too weak to do anything that would make others view them as weak. Others want to portray a "nothing can hurt me" image.
Crying is not viewed as weak by all Americans or by many cultures in the world.
Crying is a natural expression of an emotion. When someone close you dies for example it is quite natural to cry. It is not normal for an adult to cry over things like not getting their way however.
There is something seriously wrong with a person who is unable to cry even in front of people who deeply care about them. Such a person has issues with intimacy.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 09:55 PM |
|
|
I dont really know why showing emotions is considered weak.Aint emotions the big difference between animals and humans?
As a kid,I never understood the fact why people hid emotions like love,anger or despair?The fear of humiliation?
Funnily,if hummuliation or embarresment are emotions aswell,then people hide their emotions because of emotions.
Thus the all "Beeing cool" standard is based on stereotypes.
Imo,"The Cool phenomen",based on the neverending pride of the human race,is what makes communities today full of bs.I might be biased,maybe under the effect of rage now,but it is the main reason I hate western society.Morals are devalued to mere words.If you care to help people in need,you are considered weak.I wonder when they will come up with the idea that thinking about morals is weak aswell.
Listening to slow music?If somebody,a stranger for ex,heard that.He/she would call you gay.
Why do people even care when a school shooting happens?Is it not the fruit community created? Taking a gun,killing others cuz its "Cool"?
Acting against the terror inflicted by bullying in school,in universities?
Ironic huh?
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 12, 2011 10:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I dont really know why showing emotions is considered weak.Aint emotions the big difference between animals and humans?
no, you should watch animals more closely. it might be something pretty rare, but not so long ago, I saw a dog crying, he looked very sad.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted April 13, 2011 12:37 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 00:39, 13 Apr 2011.
|
Quote:
Let's assume, as a simple working hypothesis, that the more effort you put in controlling an urge to cry the stronger the urge you CAN control. In practise this means, that a comparatively small pain - shallow knife cut, small burn, headache, or, for different stimuli, bad (school) test result, hearing that a beloved one has a small accident - is comparatively easy to control, while the heavier stuff needs more and more effort.
Question: While it makes sense to control the minimum stuff, isn't there a point somewhere, when A LOT more effort is needed to control the urge (which will keep you from focussing on the problem at hand) than simply give in to the urge and be done with it, or, in other words, when crying not only is easier, but the better way to finally focus on the problem at hand as well?
This entirely depends on whether you allow the emotional side of some problem to affect you or not and how strong is your "emotional involvement" in any of a given number of situations (say, as many as life can supply). Not everyone feel the same "urge" and thus not everyone can be told to "let it go". For situations when this "urge" is overwhelming, it depends on whether you can allow yourself to give in immediately or not. If it's an emergency, then drowning into your sorrow or whatever will not help anyone so the control is a must. If it's not and you have a very good reason - that's quite different from "my life is pathetic because I failed on the last exam" cases because you can't really allow yourself to go emotional for all the disappointments that you generously encounter on daily basis as this will render you unproductive and is quite likely to depress the other people who give a damn about you - then I guess nobody can blame you for crying.
Quote:
If you cry there at the doctors side, you will at the least have less stress on your shoulders.
What stress? The certainty is not stressful. At least for me but honestly I can't really tell how I will react if they tell me that I'll die in X days/months/years. At this point I find the thought curious but that's now.
|
|
Jabanoss
Promising
Legendary Hero
Property of Nightterror™
|
|
posted April 13, 2011 12:40 AM |
|
|
Zenofex lives in some bad neighborhoods where he will be beaten if he is ever found crying... 
____________
"You turn me on Jaba"
- Meroe
|
| |
|
|
