It’s funny when you’re both right AND wrong. I know from experience. I’m a high-ranking chef at a university’s catering business, and I was told by a student employee that her coworker (let’s call him Tom) had been touching crew members too much. Not _that_ type of touch, of course. Just casual ones, like on arms or shoulders. He was always very outgoing at work. Still, I took him to my colleague’s office for a chat and told him that he shouldn't touch anyone without consent. Just handshakes. I said we needed the workers to be comfortable in a good work environment, that he pretty much shouldn't talk about anything other than work and school. How he shouldn't tell his stories because they may be inappropriate to some degree to the other workers; funny to him but not others. I think he’s about 25, give or take. He seemed pretty quiet and silently awkward and uncomfortable during my speech. Answered a question or two with a nod and headshake. The only question he had for me was if anyone reported his touching; I said, "It doesn't matter," but looking back, I bet it made him feel uncomfortable. That day after work, he went skiing and got into an accident. Broke some bones and had to go to the hospital. Suddenly, I didn’t care about his mistakes and flaws. All l could think about was his condition. I realized I may have gone a little too far too. Yeah, I was right about how he should be more filtered at work, and that the casual touching needed to be restricted for his coworkers’ comfort (and for him to be successful), but I shouldn’t have taken him to the office. I shouldn’t have spoken to him the way I did. I shouldn’t have said to his boss (who was in the room with us too), “is there anything you want to add?” That was rude and condescending of me, now that I think of it. Of course Tom never meant any discomfort or tactless harm. He only meant to joke around and have fun with his coworkers. I should’ve shown my patience and understanding toward that. I should've only given him a very brief and gentle talk in the hall, not a lecture in the office with his boss present. He didn't deserve that. He probably felt like a criminal in an interrogation room. Besides, it's perfectly natural to causally touch or tap people *without* it being creepy; maybe Tom deserved a right like that, within reason and limits so he didn't go over them and discomfort anyone. I guess restricting him to handshakes is a bit unfair. He is a not a creep; he's a friendly fellow. When I see him again, I'm gonna tell him I'm sorry for being a bit too tough on him. That I mishandled the situation and could've done better. I think I'm no better than him. He may have "crossed a line," but only unintentionally; I crossed a line more immortally, I guess.
In Tom's perspective; he probably felt singled-out and also felt like a creep for being told not to touch people at work. Cooking is not a one man job, it's usually done in a kitchen with tight spaces and a group, there will be some elbow-rubbing and saying "behind" or "hot-plate" while nudging people to the side, it's a very social job. So when you are giving Tom the speech, you are essentially telling him he's being too social in a social job. Now there also cases of sexual assault that start like this, but like you said, it wasn't done in that way which is understandable. From a Management perspective: you listened to your employees complaints, and got right to the problem to address it. You are right that in order to have a functioning and productive work environment, it's gotta be a safe and respectful environment, or at least try to be. You did as you were trained, and it is better that you did it in private, versus giving him that lecture in public among peers, that would be worse. When Tom injured himself, your empathy kicked in and realized he's not the potential harassment threat you once thought and is just another joe, with a sprinkling of bad luck. As a manager you have to solve problems with your head, not your heart, since you already sold that to the company that gave you your collar. You were probably at one point Tom, but now you are a cog in the wheel, so become the wheel.
@@Heb_N Well, you're right about the being Tom. I _am_ him. _I'm_ the one who messed up at work. I was testing people in the shoes of the chef. I do understand that she was right in some ways, but in some other ways, she was wrong too. Like putting me in the office with her and my boss; that was way too degrading, especially when she asked the other if she wanted to add anything _right in front of me._ That was *_crueI._* And like I said, "it's perfectly natural to causally touch or tap people without it being creepy; maybe Tom deserved a right like that, within reason and limits so he didn't go over them and discomfort anyone." Compromise and limits would've been fine, with coworkers who love me, not an all-or-nothing rule. I am not a creep. I didn't _mean_ to upset anybody. I would've avoided touching if I saw any signs of dislike or discomfort. I do have respect and boundaries for others. But whenever I expressed my side and the chef's faults, commenters on TH-cam would assume I was in denial about my mistakes. Of course I'm not. But that doesn't mean I have no right to be offended by the chef. Being right doesn't automatically excuse being disrespectful. People who make mistakes deserve a little delicacy too. That's how you talk to your teens when they're having a baby. And that is why I pretended to be the chef: to express how I feel without judgment or the "He-trying-to-evade-responsibility" accusation. And as you probably guessed, the skiing accident never happened. I wrote that a year ago, when I was REALLY hurting from the harsh comments and the chef's words. I wanted to pause their judgment so they could stop and think. I mean, I despise the chef, but I wouldn't feel that way if she got into an accident; my cares would go first before disgust. Some of us just need a little more patience---especially when we have ASD.
@@johnrainsman6650 You are not a creep. Having both of you in the office with just the boss talking it out is a better method than just asking you individually, but I understand it being very unpleasant, especially whenever the talk is only against 1 party. These situations happen often in the workplace, where one accidentally oversteps boundaries and the affected becomes upset. Even moreso when working space is limited. I'm a bartender, have managed a few bars, and have dealt with cases like this before. The first thing I don't want you to do is continue to ruminate on that day; it happened, what was said was said, and the sun will set and rise again. That event doesn't define you as a person. I'll keep it brief so I don't bore you: We are all born into different families and environments. Some grew up in jam-packed homes fighting over who gets to use the restroom next, some grew up in big empty homes where the only company they had was themselves and parents that had busy work lives and we're always in and out. Some liked sports and rolling in the dirt, while others liked closing the blinds and cozying up for a movie or games. We all grew up differently, and we all have established different normals (paradox). The tricky social part is navigating around those boundaries. Nobody has a sign on them that displays all the things they like and don't like. It all boils down to communication, not just about the deep stuff, but just overall, mindless banter, small talk, etc. One learns boundaries by listening what others have to say. Also people tend to like those that actively listen to what they have to say! I hope this long wall of text helps. Also don't listen to everyone on the Internet, you'll go crazy from all the differing opinions 😁
@@Heb_N Your long wall of text is fine, don't worry. And anyway, it's not like, through previous communication and expression, I learned who would or would not like being touched. I wouldn't say that up until the office point, any coworkers I interacted with showed signs of shyness or discomfort. I think I would've noticed. No one said or implied anything. In fact, I thought about who might've reported me, and couldn't come up with many options. One particular woman--who I started thinking didn't like me so much--touched _me_ to get my attention at a bar. It may or may not have been her, but if she disliked and reported me, why would contact me there? I get that holding on a to a grudge is unhealthy, but it isn't unnatural either. We really need to stop labeling those who hold on. It's not entirely their fauIt. Time doesn't always heal the wou nd. If it did, we would forgive and move on from what Dan Schneider did a long time ago. It's not always that simple. Efforts and actions matter. And anyway, the chef didn't just disrespect me, she practically made fun of me the next day. She said "How are you?" Like, what? _Of course_ I was not doing well after she made me feel bad in the office. Why would I? What was she thinking? I even gave her an apology letter that I wrote, explaining my mistakes with ASD. It was so self-degrading. She'd filled me up with so much guiIt, I ended up making myself the big Ioser, even worse than she already had. I even wrote how I wanted to "redeem myself." She told me she wasn't trying to "give it to me" while gesturing like an angry person, she was just trying to help me be successful. Well, first, that contradicts itself, since she was kind of firm in the office and asked her colleague if she wanted to add anything to the lecture. Second, the comment implies I'm a big faiIure without her help. I don't like patronzation. It's pretty easy to take a fauIt of yours and turn it into something noble, like she did. And that's the other thing. I can't take her word or trust her judgment, other than the touching thing. Apparently she's pridefuI My coworker had to vent about her. Apparently the chef acted like she was better than everyone else during a service. Her first time, actually. Apparently she was all bossy and explaining where things should be, how they should be done, as if she was the leader, but she hadn't done it there before. I'm gonna believe it, after how she handled my mistakes. And that's the other thing. We shouldn't make teen moms feel like fooIs or sIuts because of their mistake, and the chef shouldn't have made me feel like a fooI because of mine. Also, I'm afraid I don't understand your wording "Having both of you in the office with just the boss talking it out is a better method than just asking you individually."
This is an great video for everyone to view and discuss. Especially considering the aggressive debates that we are likely all to encounter at some point. The more we let go of the need to be right, the better we can think. Fascinating!
Sounds cute but what do you do when you have a conflict of a threat of a nuclear war like it's now in Ukraine. I can be actually like that master. I can relate to Ukranien people or people in the world who hate Putin who doesn't want to just let Ukraine go to NATO as a free country that wants to go there. However I can also relate to people who understand Putin like Donald Trump who said "This man loves his country and he doesn't want to allow NATO's nuclear military to be close to Russia." I can understand people who find the way of capitalism not the happiest solution for people as there are many desperate people working in corporations. However I can see also all the bad stuff in the world of socialism. There is really nothing either right or wrong but there is someone who eventually has to play guilty. There is eventually evil and there is eventually a good.
@@gojakla12 I'm glad you made this statement. I do believe in truth, and falsehood. However the problem is our brain has limited capability to understand what is happening around us. In fact it is literally not possible to understand anything. When we way "I understand this" what really is going on, is that our brain only approximates what is true, and real. You can think of it like having a small computer program in our head, we give it input, and it gives us output. For example, if we want to jump over a small stream, in your mind there is a small program that we give an input of distance. The program then takes that distance and then using other values like our weight, and how far we can jump, and it gives an output to our mind, that says, "yes, you can jump over that stream". So our brains can tell us things, but our brain doesn't know perfectly how much we weigh, also it only has past experience to understand how far we can really jump. So this is how we feel we know something, but knowledge is never absolute. So when we jump, we might cross the steam most of the time. However because of our imperfect knowledge there may be times, when our program told us we could make it, but either the input wasn't good enough, or the algorithm didn't account for enough. Our mind tries hard to be as good at predicting reality as it can, but it may not know everything that needs to be accounted for. For example we may jump over the stream and find the ground on the other side is more slippery then our mind predicted it to be. At that point, after we fall down, our brain will then encounter evidence, that it's methods of calculating the jump needed to include the possibility of unseen mug under the grass on the opposite side of the stream. Some ground may appear stable, but with experience we can find out that there may be slippery mud under the grass that we can't see. Life is full of learning experiences like that. To me, this video shows how two students couldn't get a long, because their algorithms in their heads where calculating the same data differently. So the question is, which one of them was calculating the data the best? To the students only one of the two students should have the best method of determining the best answer. What they didn't expect, is that both ways of thinking, can be useful ways of looking at the problem, and if our real goal is to help our minds to make better predictions, then having a need for one to be right, is in fact the real problem. In order for the two students to end their argument, they would have overcome this emotional dependence of being right. It is only then, that they can proceed to the next step, which is in combining the correct parts of their two beliefs together. That can't happen while they both have this limitation of needing to be right. I would define truth, as how reality really is. And I would define believe as our attempt to predict what reality really is. Our mind is only capable of attempting to predict reality. Even if you had all the computers of the world connected together, running the smartest program, it would not be possible for that computer to be good enough to have absolute knowledge. There is a final point to understand about this. If our knowledge can never be perfect, then how can we be confident of anything? Well perhaps there are times we shouldn't be confident, and times we must be confident. When a person drives a car, they drive in between the lines separating lanes, they never have the dexterity, to drive at the exact middle of the lane. Humans can't be perfect, but we can drive the car well enough to stay safe. Not perfectly safe, but safe enough to the point where car accidents are rare. If we stay within the lines, and drive smoothly, then we are operating within tolerance. We can't expect perfection, but if we can do the right things, with a limited amount of error, then we can accomplish a task, and be confident that we are doing well enough. So as we think in terms of politics and economics and morality, we may have these same input and output programs in our heads that seem to be working great, but if we want to learn like those students, then we will have to let go of winning, in hopes of winning something better, a greater knowledge that comes when hunger to learn becomes stronger then the hunger for the honors of being right. I don't want to make this sound easy, because I don't believe it is. I also don't think we ever fully solve this problem of needing to be right. However we can make great progress against it, through practice. I believe, that the only way to change human behavior is through lots of practice. To quickly change is rare and generally unrealistic. If we try to be better, I believe our brain can learn over time with experience, that it is a worth while path to better rewards. We will see evidence in our lives that our brain is making better predictions, but this will take time for the full cause and effect of our choices to teach us. Who is right or wrong in the terrible war in Ukraine? I feel the whole world has a lot to learn. However, I feel safer living under western beliefs, then under Putin's beliefs. In the story the students were willing to go to their teacher, they were at least willing to do that. Putin is trying to keep together something that seemed like a good idea, but didn't work out so well, and has been on the decline for decades. He may not be willing to believe there is more he needs to learn, and so he may not be willing to even seek an answer. Having too much power is a hazard to the human mind's ability to learn. If people only believe they are right, they may lose the ability to learn from error, because they won't believe they have any errors to learn from. We humans are never free from error. At this point, Putin may not be realistically changeable. He is right to keep his people safe, but is he keeping them safe by forcing them to be what he wants them to be? Could it be that his mistrust of the west is what is causing the dangerous situation in the first place for his people? Europe is getting along better today, then they ever have in history, and I believe it's because power is much more balanced in NATO countries then it has been in history. If I had to choose between to groups of people, and I had to choose one of them. I would likely choose the one that was more likely to be willing to learn. Because at least, there is hope for growth. We will just have to do the best we can, and hope our understanding is good enough to keep us safe.
@@mrnameless7637 Thank you so much sir for your thoughtful reply. I deeply appreciate your honest effort you obviously put into it and I was currious about your approach towards it. I do agree what you said about limitations of our brain with the example as we make a jump somewhere. Since our brain and experience has certain limitations and knowledge we may make a conclusion where we think we know but we don't know absolutely nothing or we know a very little. For example when I remember some of my imature and very young impulsive responses to certain situations in my past I am just laughing at myself what a young and impulsive guy I was who thought he knew but he in fact knew a very little. That's why I always had a big sympathy for teachings of deceased Bob Proctor who was talking about changing paradigms before going after any new goal. People many times sabotage themselves subconciously once they get emotionally involved in any new goal or dream because subconciously they have not been programmed for it so they believe that they are probably not good enough for something. Although in reality they have been just subconciously programmed for certain limitations. That's how we have been subconciusly programmed since we were children throug school and system around us by many things that we have no idea they were just false evidences appearing real so we can serve this system and not evolve our true unlimited potential. Once we let our ego go to our front seat we are done because we are again limiting ourselves with a certain point of view. You have expressed your approach about the current situation in Ukraine from the point of view which sounds very reasonable. However when I think deeply more outside the picture I realize wait a minute... The same people who now do this world wide marketing "pray for Ukraine and pray against Russia" are the same people who have been doing the whole marketing about the covid hogwash for the last two years. Since all these world leading psychopaths (And I am talking about real owners) could see that there has been big part of the population that has been waking up and they refused to live in fear with this covid hogwash vaccine mandates lie they knew they had to come up with something new to spread fear better. Go figure, all of a sudden this whole "apocalyptic disease" is all of a sudden over like a miracle and now everybody should hate Russia and pray for Ukraine. All of a sudden it doesn't matter that people are standing next to each other when they go defend themselves with guns or during the interview because now the main priority is to stop Putin as a new Hitler. This makes you realize what a lying joke this system is and that we have been lied to with this limited thinking since we were born. Watch now this video which had almost 100 K views yesterday and today it has over 200 K views and it's from American saying things from the bigger picture and what do you think about his point of view? Budha would say he is right? I guess yeah because he is right ;-) but I am not sure if I can relate to the fact that Russia has been really out of these owners that he mentions in this video...Is it that real world owners just uses their public puppets like actors who allegedly fight against each other but they have actually all the same purpose? Keep us all in our inner battles of some illusional fights which ARE NOT REAL? th-cam.com/video/sKetfPkhLew/w-d-xo.html
Just remember that sometimes only one thing can be right no matter what your perspective. If you drop something it will fall due to gravity. If you decide to have a different perspective and jump out a five story window... Truth matters. John 14.10
@@kingrobotnik6950 different logic can be functioning inclusive of the system u r intially in too.thats how perspective appears ,be open Edit: truth appears at different level too.🙏
YoursWisely You should try to email a Bigger TH-cam channel like TED.. or something and try to post your video and link your TH-cam channel.. or try to make your videos stick out
Dear sirs, I am the person,who put up the question. Here the meaning of RIGHT is the Right side(on the road) and the LEFT side is WRONG( means INCORRECT) PL remember KEEP TO THE LEFT)
You cant thats the whole point. your actions will always have a negative impact for some people. Because in there mind you are wrong. Politics is a good example
What would happen if another alien civilization thinks is right to kill someone else? But us humans (some) think is wrong. So, which one is right or wrong?
To me, the video doesn't say there is no right or wrong, rather "A point of view is always limited, it is never comprehensive" meaning because we are limited, we can't know the truth fully. Our brain can only do so much, and the time we have to gain experience is limited. So the wise thing to do, is to let go of the need to be right. To me, we humans seem to have a need to want to determine the truth and own it, to help out our ego with it. The video does a good job of showing the more we openly analyze other points of view, the more we discover. So NOT killing someone else would be right. Survival is good, and extinction is bad, and being more peaceful helps with survival. But if it's safe enough, trying to understand the aliens from their point of view could bring wisdom.
bullshit. some belifs make statments of fact about the world... and they need to be tested as such. Perspectives are only as valid as the limits of the one that does the perceiving.
If someone was incapable of perceiving properly due to their circumstance, and therefore a victim of their circumstance, are they not “right” in being in the position they are in? Ever think about that? You didn’t learn anything from the video, you were fixated on being right.
Didn't learn anything from the story.. and then these are the same people that want to teach you about duality.. hot and cold, up and down, right and wrong.. 2+2=5, am I right? My point is that you cannot be right all the time or wrong all the time. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. So many people these days think confusion = wisdom, this is not the case. In this case this is more of a feel good message, also confused for wisdom.
But there really is no such thing as objective right or wrong. There is such thing is right or wrong based on our societies moral principals if thats what u mean
You mean to say the oppresser and oppressed both are right and the murderer and the murdered one are both right? A couple goes to the doctor to get their girl child aborted just because she is a girl is also right, isn't it?
Wrong why If you have 2 opposing view 1 has to be correct Only preferential questions have no answers For example ronaldo or messi who is better As a footballer Who scored more goals prefrably against one another Maybe Messi Thats it Ronaldo or messi who is better looking taller Ronaldo Here is the preferential questions Who is your favorite footballer Ronaldo or messi Mine is Ronaldo Why Thats preference I do like maybe his personality His discipline That dude looks like model but still works hard Thats impressive While messi doesnt have much going for him except football The question may have reasons But you sometimes just like some one and dislike others Maybe there are reasons While as for the other Am i Right Yep Am i not right Yep Am i right Yes Am i not right Yes Are we both right No Your Guru is the one who is the fool here See your logical here If i ask what is 2+2 And you answer me with Hitler life story Then that is not the correct answer well thats why i hate people who try to call themselves wise Why Most of the them are just wordplay If i kill a cereal box Thats me make a cereal killer I kid you i thought it is genius But as wordplay and as a joke They are just fancy ways of doing the the lesser thing And when we see something from the "same" perspective Then see two different things That is where the debate arise i see a elephant You see elephant We both see its head From the exact same point of view And you say its his leg You are wrong Thats established in real word By Topic We argued on Ronaldo and messi up there On what Who is Better Better at what Rapping Football Looks We both argued in the "same" topic Last one was preferential
It’s funny when you’re both right AND wrong. I know from experience. I’m a high-ranking chef at a university’s catering business, and I was told by a student employee that her coworker (let’s call him Tom) had been touching crew members too much. Not _that_ type of touch, of course. Just casual ones, like on arms or shoulders. He was always very outgoing at work. Still, I took him to my colleague’s office for a chat and told him that he shouldn't touch anyone without consent. Just handshakes. I said we needed the workers to be comfortable in a good work environment, that he pretty much shouldn't talk about anything other than work and school. How he shouldn't tell his stories because they may be inappropriate to some degree to the other workers; funny to him but not others. I think he’s about 25, give or take. He seemed pretty quiet and silently awkward and uncomfortable during my speech. Answered a question or two with a nod and headshake. The only question he had for me was if anyone reported his touching; I said, "It doesn't matter," but looking back, I bet it made him feel uncomfortable.
That day after work, he went skiing and got into an accident. Broke some bones and had to go to the hospital. Suddenly, I didn’t care about his mistakes and flaws. All l could think about was his condition. I realized I may have gone a little too far too. Yeah, I was right about how he should be more filtered at work, and that the casual touching needed to be restricted for his coworkers’ comfort (and for him to be successful), but I shouldn’t have taken him to the office. I shouldn’t have spoken to him the way I did. I shouldn’t have said to his boss (who was in the room with us too), “is there anything you want to add?” That was rude and condescending of me, now that I think of it. Of course Tom never meant any discomfort or tactless harm. He only meant to joke around and have fun with his coworkers. I should’ve shown my patience and understanding toward that. I should've only given him a very brief and gentle talk in the hall, not a lecture in the office with his boss present. He didn't deserve that. He probably felt like a criminal in an interrogation room. Besides, it's perfectly natural to causally touch or tap people *without* it being creepy; maybe Tom deserved a right like that, within reason and limits so he didn't go over them and discomfort anyone. I guess restricting him to handshakes is a bit unfair. He is a not a creep; he's a friendly fellow. When I see him again, I'm gonna tell him I'm sorry for being a bit too tough on him. That I mishandled the situation and could've done better. I think I'm no better than him. He may have "crossed a line," but only unintentionally; I crossed a line more immortally, I guess.
In Tom's perspective; he probably felt singled-out and also felt like a creep for being told not to touch people at work. Cooking is not a one man job, it's usually done in a kitchen with tight spaces and a group, there will be some elbow-rubbing and saying "behind" or "hot-plate" while nudging people to the side, it's a very social job. So when you are giving Tom the speech, you are essentially telling him he's being too social in a social job. Now there also cases of sexual assault that start like this, but like you said, it wasn't done in that way which is understandable.
From a Management perspective: you listened to your employees complaints, and got right to the problem to address it. You are right that in order to have a functioning and productive work environment, it's gotta be a safe and respectful environment, or at least try to be. You did as you were trained, and it is better that you did it in private, versus giving him that lecture in public among peers, that would be worse.
When Tom injured himself, your empathy kicked in and realized he's not the potential harassment threat you once thought and is just another joe, with a sprinkling of bad luck. As a manager you have to solve problems with your head, not your heart, since you already sold that to the company that gave you your collar. You were probably at one point Tom, but now you are a cog in the wheel, so become the wheel.
@@Heb_N Well, you're right about the being Tom. I _am_ him. _I'm_ the one who messed up at work. I was testing people in the shoes of the chef. I do understand that she was right in some ways, but in some other ways, she was wrong too. Like putting me in the office with her and my boss; that was way too degrading, especially when she asked the other if she wanted to add anything _right in front of me._ That was *_crueI._* And like I said, "it's perfectly natural to causally touch or tap people without it being creepy; maybe Tom deserved a right like that, within reason and limits so he didn't go over them and discomfort anyone." Compromise and limits would've been fine, with coworkers who love me, not an all-or-nothing rule. I am not a creep. I didn't _mean_ to upset anybody. I would've avoided touching if I saw any signs of dislike or discomfort. I do have respect and boundaries for others.
But whenever I expressed my side and the chef's faults, commenters on TH-cam would assume I was in denial about my mistakes. Of course I'm not. But that doesn't mean I have no right to be offended by the chef. Being right doesn't automatically excuse being disrespectful. People who make mistakes deserve a little delicacy too. That's how you talk to your teens when they're having a baby. And that is why I pretended to be the chef: to express how I feel without judgment or the "He-trying-to-evade-responsibility" accusation. And as you probably guessed, the skiing accident never happened. I wrote that a year ago, when I was REALLY hurting from the harsh comments and the chef's words. I wanted to pause their judgment so they could stop and think. I mean, I despise the chef, but I wouldn't feel that way if she got into an accident; my cares would go first before disgust. Some of us just need a little more patience---especially when we have ASD.
@@johnrainsman6650 You are not a creep. Having both of you in the office with just the boss talking it out is a better method than just asking you individually, but I understand it being very unpleasant, especially whenever the talk is only against 1 party. These situations happen often in the workplace, where one accidentally oversteps boundaries and the affected becomes upset. Even moreso when working space is limited. I'm a bartender, have managed a few bars, and have dealt with cases like this before.
The first thing I don't want you to do is continue to ruminate on that day; it happened, what was said was said, and the sun will set and rise again. That event doesn't define you as a person.
I'll keep it brief so I don't bore you: We are all born into different families and environments. Some grew up in jam-packed homes fighting over who gets to use the restroom next, some grew up in big empty homes where the only company they had was themselves and parents that had busy work lives and we're always in and out. Some liked sports and rolling in the dirt, while others liked closing the blinds and cozying up for a movie or games. We all grew up differently, and we all have established different normals (paradox). The tricky social part is navigating around those boundaries. Nobody has a sign on them that displays all the things they like and don't like. It all boils down to communication, not just about the deep stuff, but just overall, mindless banter, small talk, etc. One learns boundaries by listening what others have to say. Also people tend to like those that actively listen to what they have to say!
I hope this long wall of text helps. Also don't listen to everyone on the Internet, you'll go crazy from all the differing opinions 😁
@@Heb_N Your long wall of text is fine, don't worry. And anyway, it's not like, through previous communication and expression, I learned who would or would not like being touched. I wouldn't say that up until the office point, any coworkers I interacted with showed signs of shyness or discomfort. I think I would've noticed. No one said or implied anything. In fact, I thought about who might've reported me, and couldn't come up with many options. One particular woman--who I started thinking didn't like me so much--touched _me_ to get my attention at a bar. It may or may not have been her, but if she disliked and reported me, why would contact me there?
I get that holding on a to a grudge is unhealthy, but it isn't unnatural either. We really need to stop labeling those who hold on. It's not entirely their fauIt. Time doesn't always heal the wou nd. If it did, we would forgive and move on from what Dan Schneider did a long time ago. It's not always that simple. Efforts and actions matter. And anyway, the chef didn't just disrespect me, she practically made fun of me the next day. She said "How are you?" Like, what? _Of course_ I was not doing well after she made me feel bad in the office. Why would I? What was she thinking? I even gave her an apology letter that I wrote, explaining my mistakes with ASD. It was so self-degrading. She'd filled me up with so much guiIt, I ended up making myself the big Ioser, even worse than she already had. I even wrote how I wanted to "redeem myself." She told me she wasn't trying to "give it to me" while gesturing like an angry person, she was just trying to help me be successful. Well, first, that contradicts itself, since she was kind of firm in the office and asked her colleague if she wanted to add anything to the lecture. Second, the comment implies I'm a big faiIure without her help. I don't like patronzation. It's pretty easy to take a fauIt of yours and turn it into something noble, like she did.
And that's the other thing. I can't take her word or trust her judgment, other than the touching thing. Apparently she's pridefuI My coworker had to vent about her. Apparently the chef acted like she was better than everyone else during a service. Her first time, actually. Apparently she was all bossy and explaining where things should be, how they should be done, as if she was the leader, but she hadn't done it there before. I'm gonna believe it, after how she handled my mistakes. And that's the other thing. We shouldn't make teen moms feel like fooIs or sIuts because of their mistake, and the chef shouldn't have made me feel like a fooI because of mine. Also, I'm afraid I don't understand your wording "Having both of you in the office with just the boss talking it out is a better method than just asking you individually."
This is an great video for everyone to view and discuss. Especially considering the aggressive debates that we are likely all to encounter at some point. The more we let go of the need to be right, the better we can think. Fascinating!
Ikr
Exactly
Sounds cute but what do you do when you have a conflict of a threat of a nuclear war like it's now in Ukraine. I can be actually like that master. I can relate to Ukranien people or people in the world who hate Putin who doesn't want to just let Ukraine go to NATO as a free country that wants to go there. However I can also relate to people who understand Putin like Donald Trump who said "This man loves his country and he doesn't want to allow NATO's nuclear military to be close to Russia." I can understand people who find the way of capitalism not the happiest solution for people as there are many desperate people working in corporations. However I can see also all the bad stuff in the world of socialism. There is really nothing either right or wrong but there is someone who eventually has to play guilty. There is eventually evil and there is eventually a good.
@@gojakla12 I'm glad you made this statement. I do believe in truth, and falsehood. However the problem is our brain has limited capability to understand what is happening around us. In fact it is literally not possible to understand anything. When we way "I understand this" what really is going on, is that our brain only approximates what is true, and real. You can think of it like having a small computer program in our head, we give it input, and it gives us output. For example, if we want to jump over a small stream, in your mind there is a small program that we give an input of distance. The program then takes that distance and then using other values like our weight, and how far we can jump, and it gives an output to our mind, that says, "yes, you can jump over that stream". So our brains can tell us things, but our brain doesn't know perfectly how much we weigh, also it only has past experience to understand how far we can really jump. So this is how we feel we know something, but knowledge is never absolute. So when we jump, we might cross the steam most of the time. However because of our imperfect knowledge there may be times, when our program told us we could make it, but either the input wasn't good enough, or the algorithm didn't account for enough.
Our mind tries hard to be as good at predicting reality as it can, but it may not know everything that needs to be accounted for. For example we may jump over the stream and find the ground on the other side is more slippery then our mind predicted it to be. At that point, after we fall down, our brain will then encounter evidence, that it's methods of calculating the jump needed to include the possibility of unseen mug under the grass on the opposite side of the stream. Some ground may appear stable, but with experience we can find out that there may be slippery mud under the grass that we can't see. Life is full of learning experiences like that.
To me, this video shows how two students couldn't get a long, because their algorithms in their heads where calculating the same data differently. So the question is, which one of them was calculating the data the best? To the students only one of the two students should have the best method of determining the best answer. What they didn't expect, is that both ways of thinking, can be useful ways of looking at the problem, and if our real goal is to help our minds to make better predictions, then having a need for one to be right, is in fact the real problem. In order for the two students to end their argument, they would have overcome this emotional dependence of being right. It is only then, that they can proceed to the next step, which is in combining the correct parts of their two beliefs together. That can't happen while they both have this limitation of needing to be right.
I would define truth, as how reality really is. And I would define believe as our attempt to predict what reality really is. Our mind is only capable of attempting to predict reality. Even if you had all the computers of the world connected together, running the smartest program, it would not be possible for that computer to be good enough to have absolute knowledge.
There is a final point to understand about this. If our knowledge can never be perfect, then how can we be confident of anything? Well perhaps there are times we shouldn't be confident, and times we must be confident. When a person drives a car, they drive in between the lines separating lanes, they never have the dexterity, to drive at the exact middle of the lane. Humans can't be perfect, but we can drive the car well enough to stay safe. Not perfectly safe, but safe enough to the point where car accidents are rare. If we stay within the lines, and drive smoothly, then we are operating within tolerance. We can't expect perfection, but if we can do the right things, with a limited amount of error, then we can accomplish a task, and be confident that we are doing well enough.
So as we think in terms of politics and economics and morality, we may have these same input and output programs in our heads that seem to be working great, but if we want to learn like those students, then we will have to let go of winning, in hopes of winning something better, a greater knowledge that comes when hunger to learn becomes stronger then the hunger for the honors of being right.
I don't want to make this sound easy, because I don't believe it is. I also don't think we ever fully solve this problem of needing to be right. However we can make great progress against it, through practice. I believe, that the only way to change human behavior is through lots of practice. To quickly change is rare and generally unrealistic. If we try to be better, I believe our brain can learn over time with experience, that it is a worth while path to better rewards. We will see evidence in our lives that our brain is making better predictions, but this will take time for the full cause and effect of our choices to teach us.
Who is right or wrong in the terrible war in Ukraine? I feel the whole world has a lot to learn. However, I feel safer living under western beliefs, then under Putin's beliefs. In the story the students were willing to go to their teacher, they were at least willing to do that. Putin is trying to keep together something that seemed like a good idea, but didn't work out so well, and has been on the decline for decades. He may not be willing to believe there is more he needs to learn, and so he may not be willing to even seek an answer. Having too much power is a hazard to the human mind's ability to learn. If people only believe they are right, they may lose the ability to learn from error, because they won't believe they have any errors to learn from. We humans are never free from error. At this point, Putin may not be realistically changeable. He is right to keep his people safe, but is he keeping them safe by forcing them to be what he wants them to be? Could it be that his mistrust of the west is what is causing the dangerous situation in the first place for his people? Europe is getting along better today, then they ever have in history, and I believe it's because power is much more balanced in NATO countries then it has been in history. If I had to choose between to groups of people, and I had to choose one of them. I would likely choose the one that was more likely to be willing to learn. Because at least, there is hope for growth. We will just have to do the best we can, and hope our understanding is good enough to keep us safe.
@@mrnameless7637 Thank you so much sir for your thoughtful reply. I deeply appreciate your honest effort you obviously put into it and I was currious about your approach towards it. I do agree what you said about limitations of our brain with the example as we make a jump somewhere. Since our brain and experience has certain limitations and knowledge we may make a conclusion where we think we know but we don't know absolutely nothing or we know a very little. For example when I remember some of my imature and very young impulsive responses to certain situations in my past I am just laughing at myself what a young and impulsive guy I was who thought he knew but he in fact knew a very little. That's why I always had a big sympathy for teachings of deceased Bob Proctor who was talking about changing paradigms before going after any new goal. People many times sabotage themselves subconciously once they get emotionally involved in any new goal or dream because subconciously they have not been programmed for it so they believe that they are probably not good enough for something. Although in reality they have been just subconciously programmed for certain limitations. That's how we have been subconciusly programmed since we were children throug school and system around us by many things that we have no idea they were just false evidences appearing real so we can serve this system and not evolve our true unlimited potential. Once we let our ego go to our front seat we are done because we are again limiting ourselves with a certain point of view.
You have expressed your approach about the current situation in Ukraine from the point of view which sounds very reasonable. However when I think deeply more outside the picture I realize wait a minute... The same people who now do this world wide marketing "pray for Ukraine and pray against Russia" are the same people who have been doing the whole marketing about the covid hogwash for the last two years. Since all these world leading psychopaths (And I am talking about real owners) could see that there has been big part of the population that has been waking up and they refused to live in fear with this covid hogwash vaccine mandates lie they knew they had to come up with something new to spread fear better. Go figure, all of a sudden this whole "apocalyptic disease" is all of a sudden over like a miracle and now everybody should hate Russia and pray for Ukraine. All of a sudden it doesn't matter that people are standing next to each other when they go defend themselves with guns or during the interview because now the main priority is to stop Putin as a new Hitler. This makes you realize what a lying joke this system is and that we have been lied to with this limited thinking since we were born. Watch now this video which had almost 100 K views yesterday and today it has over 200 K views and it's from American saying things from the bigger picture and what do you think about his point of view? Budha would say he is right? I guess yeah because he is right ;-) but I am not sure if I can relate to the fact that Russia has been really out of these owners that he mentions in this video...Is it that real world owners just uses their public puppets like actors who allegedly fight against each other but they have actually all the same purpose? Keep us all in our inner battles of some illusional fights which ARE NOT REAL? th-cam.com/video/sKetfPkhLew/w-d-xo.html
Just remember that sometimes only one thing can be right no matter what your perspective. If you drop something it will fall due to gravity. If you decide to have a different perspective and jump out a five story window...
Truth matters.
John 14.10
But what if u define falling as 'floating' (in your perspective) then that means that if u drop something it didnt fall. Big brain moment
@@crimmerz2000 but what if something really if floating. This perspective stuff doesn’t stand up in the face of logic dude
@@kingrobotnik6950 different logic can be functioning inclusive of the system u r intially in too.thats how perspective appears ,be open
Edit: truth appears at different level too.🙏
But are you right for saying there's only perspective
Omg only 5k view? This story is great! Lesson learned
We are out of our wits too.. What do you need to do to get more views! ?🤔
YoursWisely You should try to email a Bigger TH-cam channel like TED.. or something and try to post your video and link your TH-cam channel.. or try to make your videos stick out
This message is a sham
You're right.
This should be taught at school!
Knowledge is a point of view, Wisdom is the viewing point - Awesome 👍, How come only 6 k subscribes ?
Because this message is a sham
Because people don't like the truth they like the spin offs
Really thanks
Thank you so much sir for a great lesson for me... Bcz I usually used to too much confined in my own beliefs.. and ultimately it harm me at all
Thank you very much sir....
Great message ♥️
Very Good Story
Dear sirs, I am the person,who put up the question. Here the meaning of RIGHT is the Right side(on the road) and the LEFT side is WRONG( means INCORRECT) PL remember KEEP TO THE LEFT)
Such beautiful messages
Very well done YoursWisely!!!!
But what if I have to determine certain actions being right or wrong. How do I decide that?
You cant thats the whole point. your actions will always have a negative impact for some people. Because in there mind you are wrong.
Politics is a good example
what is the true purpose of life?
What would happen if another alien civilization thinks is right to kill someone else? But us humans (some) think is wrong. So, which one is right or wrong?
Same as the message in the animation, depends on the perspective of the person or alien...
To me, the video doesn't say there is no right or wrong, rather "A point of view is always limited, it is never comprehensive" meaning because we are limited, we can't know the truth fully. Our brain can only do so much, and the time we have to gain experience is limited. So the wise thing to do, is to let go of the need to be right. To me, we humans seem to have a need to want to determine the truth and own it, to help out our ego with it. The video does a good job of showing the more we openly analyze other points of view, the more we discover. So NOT killing someone else would be right. Survival is good, and extinction is bad, and being more peaceful helps with survival. But if it's safe enough, trying to understand the aliens from their point of view could bring wisdom.
very good.
So believing there's no such thing as right and wrong is "right"?...There's no way to avoid the need for truth.
Actually partially true,if someone slaps you without any reason,it is wrong from every angle.That is objective wrong.
Excellent
Thank you Kiran
Nice 👌
There is the danger of this perspective making us amoral.
Last time I used this excuse I went to prison.
the massage is the master love his students and can't say one of them is wrong
theres no good or bad, i know right and wrong.
bullshit. some belifs make statments of fact about the world... and they need to be tested as such. Perspectives are only as valid as the limits of the one that does the perceiving.
If someone was incapable of perceiving properly due to their circumstance, and therefore a victim of their circumstance, are they not “right” in being in the position they are in? Ever think about that?
You didn’t learn anything from the video, you were fixated on being right.
It's 13k now
Nithya shanthi
Didn't learn anything from the story.. and then these are the same people that want to teach you about duality.. hot and cold, up and down, right and wrong.. 2+2=5, am I right? My point is that you cannot be right all the time or wrong all the time. Sometimes you are right, sometimes you are wrong. So many people these days think confusion = wisdom, this is not the case. In this case this is more of a feel good message, also confused for wisdom.
But there really is no such thing as objective right or wrong. There is such thing is right or wrong based on our societies moral principals if thats what u mean
You can align your perspective with the truth
Thats why Good or bad should be looked from God's point of view which is always correct
Ok
This is not realistic as some people are right or wrong as the case may be
You mean to say the oppresser and oppressed both are right and the murderer and the murdered one are both right? A couple goes to the doctor to get their girl child aborted just because she is a girl is also right, isn't it?
Cute story but no empirical evidence 😵💫
Wow
Edit : imaging God or the parent or teacher saying me , 'you both are right', no conflicts for the same in future. Huh.
The teacher is a hypocrite
evil knowledge
A Demon torturing human
As does Demon perspective that is right to do
🙈🙉🙊😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Lol what? Ok.
This is ridiculous and fallacious
Wrong why
If you have
2 opposing view
1 has to be correct
Only preferential questions
have no answers
For example
ronaldo or messi
who is better
As a footballer
Who scored more goals
prefrably against one another
Maybe Messi
Thats it
Ronaldo or messi
who is better looking taller
Ronaldo
Here is the preferential questions
Who is your favorite footballer
Ronaldo or messi
Mine is Ronaldo
Why
Thats preference
I do like maybe
his personality
His discipline
That dude looks like model
but still works hard
Thats impressive
While messi doesnt have
much going for him
except football
The question
may have reasons
But you sometimes
just like some one
and dislike others
Maybe there are reasons
While as for the other
Am i Right
Yep
Am i not right
Yep
Am i right
Yes
Am i not right
Yes
Are we both right
No
Your Guru is the one
who is the fool here
See your logical here
If i ask what is 2+2
And you answer me
with Hitler life story
Then that is
not the correct answer
well thats why
i hate people
who try to call themselves
wise
Why
Most of the them are just wordplay
If i kill a cereal box
Thats me make a cereal killer
I kid you i thought
it is genius
But as wordplay
and as a joke
They are just
fancy ways of doing
the the lesser thing
And when we see
something from
the "same" perspective
Then see two different things
That is where the debate arise
i see a elephant
You see elephant
We both see its head
From the exact same point of view
And you say its his leg
You are wrong
Thats established in real word
By
Topic
We argued on
Ronaldo and messi
up there
On what
Who is Better
Better at what
Rapping
Football
Looks
We both argued in the "same" topic
Last one was preferential
Excellent