Tired of having your Ideals Challenged?

[Tenshou]

Tenshou, your questions are simply too broad for me to answer in a forum post. Entire books have been written on everything you're asking and I simply don't know enough to even begin to explain my opinions.

Then why attempt to abase me on a few simple post I have written? This forum post is simply here to pique you and all the others participants (anyone on this forum in general) interest in such a serious social topic. Authority and Culture(Social Context). Although, I did know you couldn't not answer these questions, just state simple opinions on it like everyone else has tried.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Then why attempt to abase me on a few simple post I have written? This forum post is simply here to pique you and all the others participants (anyone on this forum in general) interest in such a serious social topic. Authority and Culture(Social Context). Although, I did know you couldn't not answer these questions, just state simple opinions on it like everyone else has tried.

I don't think this is fair at all. Drakkith has given you good advice but your questions based on that are impossibly broad. If someone recommends beng polite do you think it's fair to ask them to outline every parameter for how to decide what exact type of behaviour is the best option? Rather than getting bogged down in this I suggest that you pick some specific examples that you can receive feedback on e.g. "yesterday I challanged X over Y like this, was it polite?"

 

[Tenshou]

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. Did you read my first post prior to that? I asked anyone to give simple input on what they, they think about what is impolite/polite regardless/irregardless of the social context because apparently I did something rude, and (always) do something rude, based on a few post. I was not just asking Drakkith, yet I was asking anyone who was willing to answer(relay some input on) what they think about Authority and Culture(Social Context), or here, if this is succinct enough: what do they think about centralized forms of rule? where do "I" stand next to the authority? In other words. I just want to see peoples input, personal thoughts about this "broad" topic, and if it is to much to ask do you think this should be moved to the humanities bulletin board?

 

[pongo38]

Tenshou: There is more than one way of dealing satisfactorily with any situation such as you describe. Two different approaches are represented by a model from cricket (UK) or similar bat and ball games - I don't know much about other games. The person batting can either confront the bowled ball head on and return the ball more or less in the opposite direction to the incoming ball; or, they may carefully deflect the ball, using its momentum to change its path slightly. Personally, I have seldom found that confrontation succeeds. I have had more success with getting alongside a difficult person, traveling with them, understanding their point of view and taking opportunities as they arise to deflect them away from their chosen path. Not always successful. But neither is confrontation. Can you acknowledge that confronting authority, good as it may be sometimes in the right place, is not the only way to achieve anything? Perhaps you could amplify your response by indicating to readers the situations where confronting authority has been clearly successful, and situations where an unforeseen undesirable outcome occurred.

 

[phion]

This reminds me of a classroom conversation I witnessed in the fourth grade regarding a discussion about World War 2 and Nazi Germany (yes I remember that far back). I remember our teacher describing the conditions of the holocaust and what he thought it meant to be a communist, and where all geographically the war took place. Then I remember very distinctly what occurred next; our teacher decided to call on us to see what we thought... and a girl raised her hand and said, "Hitler was very rude!".



EDIT: It was the 6th grade.

 

[Tenshou]

Tenshou: There is more than one way of dealing satisfactorily with any situation such as you describe. Two different approaches are represented by a model from cricket (UK) or similar bat and ball games - I don't know much about other games. The person batting can either confront the bowled ball head on and return the ball more or less in the opposite direction to the incoming ball; or, they may carefully deflect the ball, using its momentum to change its path slightly. Personally, I have seldom found that confrontation succeeds. I have had more success with getting alongside a difficult person, traveling with them, understanding their point of view and taking opportunities as they arise to deflect them away from their chosen path. Not always successful. But neither is confrontation. Can you acknowledge that confronting authority, good as it may be sometimes in the right place, is not the only way to achieve anything? Perhaps you could amplify your response by indicating to readers the situations where confronting authority has been clearly successful, and situations where an unforeseen undesirable outcome occurred.

This is true. There is always the best way for achieving algorithmic efficiency. I mean going about something in such a way that is satisfactory for each individual situation. I do understand, I think, but everyone has been in a situation in which they didn't understand the commanders reasons for doing such a thing, and if they never had the audacity, the nerve to ask why, then why did they not ask? Everyone has spotted and efficient way of going about something better then person in charge, at least at one point in time and they choose to stick to the accustomed ways.

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways, their ideals which have been in the group for "as long as one can remember, it has been this way". I do not know about you, but the United States was built this way, challenging (becoming enlightened through questions) what had been established because it didn't work, it is built on the dynamic transmogrification, grotesque perversion of what established thoughts were. Everyone has been in the situation in which the person has challenged an authority figure, or at least asked a question directly/indirectly about this persons actions.

 

[WannabeNewton]

What do you think you're going to accomplish challenging authority? You have to learn to get along with your peers and learn to obey those above you. Unless you're trying to recreate the French revolution or become the next Che Guevara, just learn to do what you're told to do because you're the one with the most to lose. There is a difference between questioning authority and challenging it. For most people the latter is just a sign of immaturity, stubbornness, pampered upbringing, or maybe all three together. The people of whom you speak were some of the greatest political minds in history; the common man on the other hand has to know his place.

 

[Jorriss]

Challenging authority just to challenge authority is childish.

 

[Tenshou]

What do you think you're going to accomplish challenging authority? You have to learn to get along with your peers and learn to obey those above you. Unless you're trying to recreate the French revolution or become the next Che Guevara, just learn to do what you're told to do because you're the one with the most to lose. There is a difference between questioning authority and challenging it. For most people the latter is just a sign of immaturity, stubbornness, pampered upbringing, or maybe all three together. The people of whom you speak were some of the greatest political minds in history; the common man on the other hand has to know his place.

What makes man common, certainly not science, something like this coming from a person who wish to be netwon!? "It is this, at its most basic, that makes science a humane pursuit; it acknowledges the commonality of people's experience." J.C Polanyi

What made them so great, they were just no different than the common man, aw hell they were the common man. Gods are put on pedestal while man are put in the place of Gods(forgive my witty and figurative speech). Immaturity, I shall admit to. I am not done growing, not done changing, questioning what I wish to become and where I want to go, the journey of 1 thousand miles was started long ago and I don't think I have honestly taken the first step. I wouldn't not mind being a El Che like figure, I do some military theory in my spare time (´∀｀)♡ . Revolution are meant to change the world, think of the Arab Spring (talk about old news).

Challenging authority just to challenge authority is childish.

Jorriss do you not have questions about the people in charge, or are you those type of people who are jaded enough to not care about what is going on around you?

 

[Vanadium 50]

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways

Do you mean why don't other people change their ways?

 

[Tenshou]

Do you mean why don't other people change their ways?

Why would I want other people to change their ways I mean all people(groups). inclusive to me or not. Does this mean the person is ahead of their time? or what, because as a once great astronomer once said "Yet, the Earth does move..."

 

[Drakkith]

This is true. There is always the best way for achieving algorithmic efficiency. I mean going about something in such a way that is satisfactory for each individual situation. I do understand, I think, but everyone has been in a situation in which they didn't understand the commanders reasons for doing such a thing, and if they never had the audacity, the nerve to ask why, then why did they not ask?

There are plenty of ways to go about something in a satisfactory way. And how that way meets the definition "satisfactory" is extremely varied. For one thing each person will have different priorities and areas they focus on. Some are focused on doing things the safest way, no matter if it takes 2-3 times longer, or more. Some are focused on getting it done safely and quick, and will not take quite as long in making sure the "one-in-a-million" chance accidents are dealt with before they happen. And some have no concept of safety other than "don't hit yourself with the hammer".

The reason most people don't ask is probably because in the past when they have asked they've been given answers that they may not have liked, and may have tried to change, but were unable to change it. It's pretty pointless to keep asking "why are we doing it this way" when every time you ask you get an answer and there's nothing you can do about it.

Everyone has spotted and efficient way of going about something better then person in charge, at least at one point in time and they choose to stick to the accustomed ways.

I disagree. I think everyone THINKS they have spotted a better way of going about something. I believe they are almost always most certainly wrong. The exceptions to this are when the person is either engaged in something entirely trivial and not worth discussing here, or when the person is actually knowledgeable in their area and can see the bigger picture. I think the latter example happens far less frequently than most people would imagine.

My true underlying question is why don't people change their ways, their ideals which have been in the group for "as long as one can remember, it has been this way". I do not know about you, but the United States was built this way, challenging (becoming enlightened through questions) what had been established because it didn't work, it is built on the dynamic transmogrification, grotesque perversion of what established thoughts were.

Because people, as a general rule, abhor change. This is built into us. Change means you have to expend time and effort into doing things you probably don't care about and may cause stress, fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Things such as learning a new program at work, re-doing the steps to a task the new way, etc. And I don't know where you got this idea of the U.S. being built this way. It is my observation that it takes a great tragedy for anything to change. Either tragedy on a national scale, such as natural disasters that lead to sweeping changes in building and safety codes, or more personal ones, of which I cannot remember the example I had...

 

[Tenshou]

There are plenty of ways to go about something in a satisfactory way. And how that way meets the definition "satisfactory" is extremely varied. For one thing each person will have different priorities and areas they focus on. Some are focused on doing things the safest way, no matter if it takes 2-3 times longer, or more. Some are focused on getting it done safely and quick, and will not take quite as long in making sure the "one-in-a-million" chance accidents are dealt with before they happen. And some have no concept of safety other than "don't hit yourself with the hammer".

No matter how much you would like to believe that anyone can see all the possible outcomes to a situation you are wrong. Humans have a hard time gathering perfect information, in the game theoretical sense. I only say that because it is true, the program Buena De Musquite(I hope he can forgive me destroying his name(>_<)). No way is the safest way, unless one person wishes to take all the blame, be this an auspicious, naive fool, they are noble and deserve respect from a people, or group of them. Socrates, for example thought you should question the way the world works. I question in the pursuit of knowledge for I know it will make me happy in the end.

The reason most people don't ask is probably because in the past when they have asked they've been given answers that they may not have liked, and may have tried to change, but were unable to change it. It's pretty pointless to keep asking "why are we doing it this way" when every time you ask you get an answer and there's nothing you can do about it.

So, you are saying if we do not have the prestige, the skill, the strength(?) to change we should not? Are you saying we don't change because we, as humans are simply to weak to do anything about it. So would that not constitute as abuse of their authoritative power?

I disagree. I think everyone THINKS they have spotted a better way of going about something. I believe they are almost always most certainly wrong. The exceptions to this are when the person is either engaged in something entirely trivial and not worth discussing here, or when the person is actually knowledgeable in their area and can see the bigger picture. I think the latter example happens far less frequently than most people would imagine.

If they can see the bigger picture, why won't they explain it in a way such that the person who doesn't shuts-up?I do agree. Sometimes explaining the triviality or something that may be considered trivial is detrimental to understanding the cause and reason for things. Nothing is coincidental, thus has a reason.

Because people, as a general rule, abhor change. This is built into us. Change means you have to expend time and effort into doing things you probably don't care about and may cause stress, fear, anger, anxiety, etc. Things such as learning a new program at work, re-doing the steps to a task the new way, etc. And I don't know where you got this idea of the U.S. being built this way. It is my observation that it takes a great tragedy for anything to change. Either tragedy on a national scale, such as natural disasters that lead to sweeping changes in building and safety codes, or more personal ones, of which I cannot remember the example I had...

This is true, we can't stand change, er more or less, we don't like inconsistent ideals with what has been the base for their previous understanding of ideals, like postulates to prove other postulates. I do agree new doesn't mean improved, nor does it mean efficient, it just means new. I am not sure, this is just a hypothesis but I think this "Luciferian Disorder" is a result from blasé life style, to cloy the life of being on the bottom of the centralized chain of command. I too think that could be possible true. Change happens when people want to go into a new direction, they all get tired of the old style of living and do achieve a new and efficient style of living, change isn't the necessary herald of a great disaster and vice versa.

People are bad enough for thinking they can see every result good and bad, and then take extra time trying to go deeper in what can go wrong. I applaud those who can. If they can see all the bad things that may go wrong, they have one heck of a talent for information sorting and gathering and producing a stunning result.

 

[Drakkith]

No matter how much you would like to believe that anyone can see all the possible outcomes to a situation you are wrong. Humans have a hard time gathering perfect information, in the game theoretical sense. I only say that because it is true, the program Buena De Musquite(I hope he can forgive me destroying his name(>_<)). No way is the safest way, unless one person wishes to take all the blame, be this an auspicious, naive fool, they are noble and deserve respect from a people, or group of them. Socrates, for example thought you should question the way the world works. I question in the pursuit of knowledge for I know it will make me happy in the end.

*scratches head*
What? How does that relate to what I said? Are you just going off on a tangent?

So, you are saying if we do not have the prestige, the skill, the strength(?) to change we should not? Are you saying we don't change because we, as humans are simply to weak to do anything about it. So would that not constitute as abuse of their authoritative power?

No I am not. I'm merely stating the reality for most people in most cases.

If they can see the bigger picture, why won't they explain it in a way such that the person who doesn't shuts-up?I do agree. Sometimes explaining the triviality or something that may be considered trivial is detrimental to understanding the cause and reason for things. Nothing is coincidental, thus has a reason.

Explaining things is hard. I'm serious. Explaining things in a way that almost anyone can understand and accept is nigh-impossible. Most people don't like it when you disagree with them. They get defensive and most people cannot accept things which differ from their opinion, no matter how well you put it or how logical it is. They shrug it off with a "Oh, whatever..." or "Oh please, it'll be fine..." or some other statement if they aren't simply outright hostile to your opinion.

This is true, we can't stand change, er more or less, we don't like inconsistent ideals with what has been the base for their previous understanding of ideals, like postulates to prove other postulates.

I don't know about inconsistent ideals, I think it's as simple as what I said. People just don't like change from the norm.

I am not sure, this is just a hypothesis but I think this "Luciferian Disorder" is a result from blasé life style, to cloy the life of being on the bottom of the centralized chain of command. I too think that could be possible true. Change happens when people want to go into a new direction, they all get tired of the old style of living and do achieve a new and efficient style of living, change isn't the necessary herald of a great disaster and vice versa.

I have no idea what the chain of command has to do with it. Resistance to change encompasses every level in my opinion. It's just that people at the top are actually able to enforce their own change when they want to. That's the key. People will change when they want to. And they typically want to change towards their own ideas, not others. I don't think people get tired of the "old style of living", I think people actually do the opposite. They get stuck in their ways and unwilling to accept new ideas and change. This is why younger people are typically the ones to push for change, and older folks typically resist change with all their might.

 

[Tenshou]

I really want anyone who reads this bulletin to think, and think harder than what these post are talking about, read 4 lines deep between the words and beyond the meaning

No I am not. I'm merely stating the reality for most people in most cases.

Ha, reality. it reminds me of a quotes "Ones persons craziness is another reality" -Tim Burton. Still, reality is subjective and it seems like you do mean that the person could be to weak to do anything about how the situation they are in.

Explaining things is hard. I'm serious. Explaining things in a way that almost anyone can understand and accept is nigh-impossible. Most people don't like it when you disagree with them. They get defensive and most people cannot accept things which differ from their opinion, no matter how well you put it or how logical it is. They shrug it off with a "Oh, whatever..." or "Oh please, it'll be fine..." or some other statement if they aren't simply outright hostile to your opinion.

Completely right! But explaining it isn't the problem, just make the person think. if they do not want to think, then why argue? If you cannot replace a persons opinion with logical, rational statements which clearly depict the way beyond the norm, why is this "conflict" happening? When people do end up producing a logical argument they (the opposing party) tend to deny the rights on the other person, this is going back to my question "does this make them ahead of their time?(the ones who is questioning the norm)" , if so why won't anyone catch up?

I have no idea what the chain of command has to do with it. Resistance to change encompasses every level in my opinion. It's just that people at the top are actually able to enforce their own change when they want to. That's the key. People will change when they want to. And they typically want to change towards their own ideas, not others.

Again, this willingness for the authority to push for the change that they want, why would this power be let to go unchecked? Dissension is the way to democracy, the rule of the people, the decentralized government has rise! I do not know, the stuff seems like you believe that a politically weak adversary don't have the right to voice opinions.

"Resistance to change" as you call it seems like a reason why people don't like some type of foreign ideas.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Dissension is the way to democracy, the rule of the people, the decentralized government has rise! I do not know, the stuff seems like you believe that a politically weak adversary don't have the right to voice opinions.

I feel like you're just coming off a Braveheart marathon.

 

[micromass]

I don't see any valid reason why do you challenged authority. The reason they called authority is because they are superior than normal people.

Nobody is inherently superior than somebody else.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Nobody is inherently superior than somebody else.

*ahem* you seem to be forgetting a mister Jimmy Page

 

[micromass]

*ahem* you seem to be forgetting a mister Jimmy Page

We were talking about people, not gods...

 

[WannabeNewton]

We were talking about people, not gods...

Oh darn so we can't talk about Cantor either

 

[Drakkith]

I really want anyone who reads this bulletin to think, and think harder than what these post are talking about, read 4 lines deep between the words and beyond the meaning

This is a physics forum, not a philosophy forum. It helps to state your meaning as clearly as possible. Otherwise that thing that someone is thinking about could be completely counter to what you were suggesting.

Ha, reality. it reminds me of a quotes "Ones persons craziness is another reality" -Tim Burton. Still, reality is subjective and it seems like you do mean that the person could be to weak to do anything about how the situation they are in.

It's not weakness, it's an inability to change someone's mind. Practically any group of people working toward a common goal will have some sort of leader, it's just the way we work. This is either through the appointing of one, such as any workplace, or through social pressures or whatever you want to call it, such as a group of students working on a project where one person happens to become the de facto leader because of their personality, skills, or whatever.

Most people have had plenty of situations where they've made suggestions and they've been shot down, so eventually they just stop trying to change things and just go with the flow. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Suggestions can be good or bad. I know I've had to shoot down my share of bad suggestions because the person suggesting them didn't know what they were talking about. Of course at the same time I've also tried to listen to people and taken the good ones to heart. It's just as important to know when to suggest change as it is to know when not to suggest change. People who continually question pointless everyday things or make suggestions about every little thing quickly become super annoying to work with.

Completely right! But explaining it isn't the problem, just make the person think. if they do not want to think, then why argue? If you cannot replace a persons opinion with logical, rational statements which clearly depict the way beyond the norm, why is this "conflict" happening? When people do end up producing a logical argument they (the opposing party) tend to deny the rights on the other person, this is going back to my question "does this make them ahead of their time?(the ones who is questioning the norm)" , if so why won't anyone catch up?

I don't really know what you're getting at here. The conflict happens because two people have different opinions about something. You may even think you have a reasonable, logical argument, but from the other persons point of view your logic may be flawed, you may not understand the whole situation, or any number of things.

Again, this willingness for the authority to push for the change that they want, why would this power be let to go unchecked? Dissension is the way to democracy, the rule of the people, the decentralized government has rise! I do not know, the stuff seems like you believe that a politically weak adversary don't have the right to voice opinions.

My statements have nothing to do with politics specifically and everything to do with people as a whole. Democracy in the US is a totally different subject that what we are discussing and I believe we should keep it out of this thread or political arguments will spread like wildfire and this thread will be locked.

 

[NemoReally]

I don't know, I seem to get in trouble very often and I do not know why. All I do is challenge authority.

I am an impolite person

Have you not worked out a probable answer to your question yet?

Why do other people who I am associated with get punished also, why do my so called friends tell me not to challenge this "power to be"?

Sigh. Let's see, your "associates" get punished when you "challenge authority" and then you wonder why they ask you not to? Hmm, tricky one, that, isn't it?

by nature, don't blame me for my natural inquisitions, my innate curiosity.

Attributes that many people, and not just scientists, share. But they are not all rude in the manner in which they attempt to discover things from others and raise questions.

You wouldn't blame a person with down syndrome who couldn't tie their shoe could you? Why blame a person who is some what impolite?

No, but after assessing the individual a little more closely, I would "blame" the person for not having the insight to learn a little courtesy, particularly if they are the ones who claim to have insights that "authority" does not and which lack the "lemmings" do not question. What's so special about you that you can't, or don't feel the need to, control your impoliteness?

As with Drakkith, I've got a military background (16 yrs as an engineering officer) and one of the many things I learned was that if you're after simple, correct answers to ill-defined, unquantified questions with no background information then you're living on the wrong planet.

 

[jim hardy]

Natural Selection works in social mechanisms. We got where we are by, to borrow a phrase, standing on the shoulders of giants.
To presume that because we enjoy this 'view from a height', the giants who got us here can be dismissed as mental elves is at the very least a gross mistake. They learned through experience what ideas and methods work and what ones do not work. Reject them at your peril, you're dismissing your own support system.



“The individual's most vital need is to prove his worth, and this usually means an insatiable hunger for action. For it is only the few who can acquire a sense of worth by developing and employing their capacities and talents...”

"Both the revolutionary and the creative individual are perpetual juveniles. The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing. "
eric hoffer, the ordeal of change

You'll get farther in life by getting and keeping your little corner of the world in such good order that others take note and see it as an example.



old jim

 

[Tenshou]

This is a physics forum, not a philosophy forum. It helps to state your meaning as clearly as possible. Otherwise that thing that someone is thinking about could be completely counter to what you were suggesting.

Philosophy is a science and this forum contains most Natural and Pure sciences. Thinking is subjective, and I made that statement such that It would, or possibly even could be counter to what I was thinking.

It's not weakness, it's an inability to change someone's mind. Practically any group of people working toward a common goal will have some sort of leader, it's just the way we work. This is either through the appointing of one, such as any workplace, or through social pressures or whatever you want to call it, such as a group of students working on a project where one person happens to become the de facto leader because of their personality, skills, or whatever.

What is weakness to you? Yeah, social animals do work in the fashion of having a pack leader, cult leader (note that I am using cult to refer to cultural conditioning, and a person who is in charge of the cultural thing.) still the leader doesn't have to take the role of an authority figure. what do you think would happen, if they did take the role of the authority?

Most people have had plenty of situations where they've made suggestions and they've been shot down, so eventually they just stop trying to change things and just go with the flow. And this isn't necessarily a bad thing either. Suggestions can be good or bad. I know I've had to shoot down my share of bad suggestions because the person suggesting them didn't know what they were talking about. Of course at the same time I've also tried to listen to people and taken the good ones to heart. It's just as important to know when to suggest change as it is to know when not to suggest change. People who continually question pointless everyday things or make suggestions about every little thing quickly become super annoying to work with.

How do you know the person didn't know what they were talking about? what gave that kind of indication? Questioning everything, just means you want to learn, babies they question everything, or they want to explore everything around them because it is so new, you know like a new concept! Don't you like exploring new concepts? Well, I guess that is just a simple quirk you have to over come, I mean if you do want to make friends, and friends are better than enemies.

I don't really know what you're getting at here. The conflict happens because two people have different opinions about something. You may even think you have a reasonable, logical argument, but from the other persons point of view your logic may be flawed, you may not understand the whole situation, or any number of things.

If you do not believe a person to be reasonable, then why not point out the flaw in their logical argument and have that stated as the counter argument. If they didn't understand the bigger picture, then why could not be a simple, and in a polite way state to the conformal/non-conformal character, the multitude of things. Patience the virtue, impulse the vice.

My statements have nothing to do with politics specifically and everything to do with people as a whole. Democracy in the US is a totally different subject that what we are discussing and I believe we should keep it out of this thread or political arguments will spread like wildfire and this thread will be locked.

Yeah I know, I just wanted to begin to narrow it down so it as broad as so many people claim that it is. I only suggested democracy, for one because it characterizes the standards for unadulterated freedom, and the second thing is that democracy is decentralized power (meaning a direct democracy). I don't understand why this thread will be locked, if a conversation between competent and rational beings would talk about politics?

Have you not worked out a probable answer to your question yet?

I don't see how a persons ability to be non-conforming rude. Do you? I mean, if a person has a lot of money, and prestige they are considered an eccentric, yet if they do not and are on the dredges of society they are called a non conformist. I implore you to please explain to me, if you do have the ability to see something I have missed.

Sigh. Let's see, your "associates" get punished when you "challenge authority" and then you wonder why they ask you not to? Hmm, tricky one, that, isn't it?

Pretty tricky, I do agree. You cannot liberate those who do not want freedom.

Attributes that many people, and not just scientists, share. But they are not all rude in the manner in which they attempt to discover things from others and raise questions.

Rude is just a word. The action is intent. One many not have that ability to comprehend something as rude. that is why I deferred about the down syndrome. Though, it is true that people under social condition some people do have the ability to know the difference between polite and rude in a conversational setting, I am just now referring to the past example, because I thought about conforming and non conforming. Although, the person with down syndrome cannot choose to be a non-conformist to the social environment, or probably anything for that fact. The people around them can choose. Rudeness is something that is understood in by the other party,subjective. Although one many not try to come off ignorant it is kind of hard not to when they aren't giving any answers, or better yet the simply answer "I simply do not know."

No, but after assessing the individual a little more closely, I would "blame" the person for not having the insight to learn a little courtesy, particularly if they are the ones who claim to have insights that "authority" does not and which lack the "lemmings" do not question. What's so special about you that you can't, or don't feel the need to, control your impoliteness?

Simply? I do not know, or better yet i don't know what it means to be polite.

As with Drakkith, I've got a military background (16 yrs as an engineering officer) and one of the many things I learned was that if you're after simple, correct answers to ill-defined, unquantified questions with no background information then you're living on the wrong planet.

There are many things I find abstract in this statement. Simple answers are easy to find "I do not know." is the best and simplest, when you shut down a person you close doors and may possibly lead them down the opposite direction, or to an unintentional place. I do not wish to base on the military, serve the country, serve the state. I am sure with your beautiful engineering degree, that you have lots of questions in fields you are ignorant in too. Everyone has curiosities about the different fields of exploration. Sometimes you just need patience, I am sure you have it.

These unquantified questions can lead to the build-up of a background, no one is to wise to learn, yet people become to wise to continue to learn.

Natural Selection works in social mechanisms. We got where we are by, to borrow a phrase, standing on the shoulders of giants.
To presume that because we enjoy this 'view from a height', the giants who got us here can be dismissed as mental elves is at the very least a gross mistake. They learned through experience what ideas and methods work and what ones do not work. Reject them at your peril, you're dismissing your own support system.

I do agree, oh my. I do not know what to say, but you are true.

“The individual's most vital need is to prove his worth, and this usually means an insatiable hunger for action. For it is only the few who can acquire a sense of worth by developing and employing their capacities and talents...”

I have this sense that I have heard that before, and there is knowledge in this quote.

"Both the revolutionary and the creative individual are perpetual juveniles. The revolutionary does not grow up because he cannot grow, while the creative individual cannot grow up because he keeps growing. "
eric hoffer, the ordeal of change

You'll get farther in life by getting and keeping your little corner of the world in such good order that others take note and see it as an example.

old jim

That kind of reminds me of something from plato's apology. Although, I have not formally read this poetry myself, I think it is impertinent of you to take a look at the "childish" side of things, the one which is "never grows-up, because it is not finishes". It kind of reminds me of Neverland and Peter Pan.

 

[Evo]

The Op posts have driven this thread off topic.