Went on a long weekend trip to Hatteras. It was great, a real recharger. Nevermind that I am bright pink — still — four nights after the original burn — I had a great time. I think we all did. I did most of the cooking, which seemed to bother no one. Cooking is a hassle for some people, but for me, it’s a relaxing thing. It was also good to be able to use a real grill again.
Did some thinking, writing while I was there. Glad I brought the iBook to scribble down the thoughts.
Morning thoughts. Rough Outline.
3 Jun 2001
Everyone has traits about their person, physical, emotional, etc. Likewise, everyone has something “good” amongst those traits. However, these traits are handled and observed differently by third parties, specifically, how quickly they are believed, “admired”.
Let’s cite a few examples. Athleticism — you can see someone sprint 100 metres, lift a lot of weights, and immediately trust your instincts they are athletic. Likewise, you can see someone walking down the street, person looks good, and your eyes immediately tell you — and you trust your own eyes — that this person looks good. Finally, you can go to a lecture, or read a book, and trust that a person is intelligent, based on their output.
But what about kindness, being “nice” — benevolence? You don’t just see someone “be nice”, do a good deed and immediately trust this. Regardless of whether or not it was a faux act, or genuine — the person could very truly be nice, trustworthy — however this person is not immediately accepted based on the merit of his/her true worth (traits), unlike the other examples cited.
Part I – What is to blame? Societal changes? Or is it instinctual?
Did people, early on, tend to trust someone more readily; perhaps even on first impression? Granted, I think we are less trusting today, than years ago, but was it common to have immediate trust in someone, based on their initial kindness?
How much of it is instinctual? It seems almost logical that the instinct of self-preservation would keep someone from granting trust in someone’s benevolence from the beginning, despite this person’s actions… but I can’t shake the notion that such acts of kindness were more apt to influence another’s trust, in the past.
Part II – Can this have a major effect on a person’s interaction with others?
(Can’t think of a right way to title this right now.)
But let’s go back to the athlete. A person can see an athlete perform, and use the trust achieved in that interaction as a basis for formation of a relationship. He sees the athlete. He believes, knows this trait (athleticism) is for real. He pursues an acquaintance based on this trait.
Yes, it can be said that a relationship based on seeing someone perform a good deed is possible. But it’s that trust issue, again. You can’t/don’t/won’t place the same amount of immediate “trust” in this display as you would in that of a scholarly or athletic trait.
(Section added, 4 Jun 2001)
If someone is impressed to the point of acquaintance immediately by, say, athleticism, then it seems to me that someone whose most prominent trait is that of benevolence would have to achieve much more to gain someone’s kinship.
Someone whose best traits are emotional might run the risk of not appearing as “personable” or approachable, simply because his/her traits are not those which are most readily trusted or recognised.
Logic Breakdown: (4 Jun 2001)
* A RELATIONSHIP IS BASED ON TRAITS OBSERVED IN A PERSON OR THING
* AN APPEARANCE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A TRAIT UNTIL IT IS TRUSTED OR BELIEVED
* PHYSICAL TRAITS ARE MORE IMMEDIATELY “TRUSTED”, THAN EMOTIONAL
…IS SOMEONE WHOSE BEST TRAITS ARE PRIMARILY EMOTIONAL LESS LIKELY TO ACHIEVE KINSHIP…?