What is the difference between you and your idea? It seems you are your ideas. Perhaps the real issue is that they don't really even know how to know you.
Agreed.
If you don't have an ego, it cannot be bruised. Pride and hatred of others and of self creates meaning where there is none. Acceptance is understanding. It is knowing the self without having to worry about the prejudices of others. It allows one to be free of the ignorant self.
It looks like I am required to have an ego where I stand in life and will more often be standing. That is, if ego is defined as self-esteem and self-importance. I am much more modest and bear the attitude of humility in my interactions, yet without self-conviction, the people around me will likely be influenced in some negative or un-ideal fashion, or at worst but not impossibly my fate will end up like those in history who tried to help society by bringing something novel to the light and was instead left for dead by the masses who couldn't understand something so new and different. I will end up being more influential than I can control, so I must do what I can to stay positive and understand beyond who I am. When I wrote this, there was a streak of emotional tenseness due to incongruence between understanding that is now resolved. But, I don't know who to trust, anymore, yet I try to tell myself that if I let myself trust people a little bit, they will trust in return - That I must give trust to earn it. I will give as much as I can of myself and the stuff of my brain as long as I am still putting myself first.
Well it depends whats it about and why its being presented and also who is going to read it for what reason. Kind of hard to tell if he is right or wrong. The thing is I dont care what people think of me or write about me or whatever as long as its factually wrong and doesnt impact me directly in bad way.
However if this is about you and it should be presented by you no?
The publishing date will not be for a long time, so I will be able to revise as I desire until then. This person is someone I've known a while, so they have no intention of violating my reputation, even though in the heat of argument it can seem that way likely because he has way more testosterone than me and a constant need to have won the argument if any exists.
Have you considered forbidding them from writing a piece that violates your privacy? They seem like they're ignoring your concerns so I don't think you should trust them. The more they attempt to flatter and cajole you, the more on guard you should be. Depending on the specific details, this might not be a bell you can unring.
Yes, I made some statements clear to him which he acknowledged once I could communicate it in a way clear to him personally. He is not publishing until I have read through every major and minor detail and I am actually writing out chunks of it. Thank you for your consideration and concern for my well-being.
If I'm arguing with someone about something and I'm convinced they're just plain wrong I don't really care about changing their mind. Sure it would be nice but if I can convince the crowd by making that individual my intellectual punching bag then it doesn't matter if they don't change their mind to spite me. Because I can disengage and let the crowd have them and if they don't change their mind at that point then as I see it they're just a victim of their own obstinance.
You case is entirely different, if someone was to write an article about me I would either write it myself or be so evasive/misleading/contradictory that anything they write could easily be dismissed as either misinformed or just plain garbage.
Adaire just beat me to it.
Alright so why do you want to be famous? Indeed what is this fame you speak of, what will you be famous for? You fear they might be misrepresenting you, why do you think they might be doing that?
Normally I also don't care about changing people's minds because I am generally open-minded and curious about how the person with a different opinion has come to their conclusions.
I don't want to be famous. I imagine I want the complete opposite. He thinks I will be, and has so far convinced me there is a strong chance that I will be, and I will eventually need to prepare myself for this or get hit with the wave and deal with it when it comes, which will be worse than being stressed now and preparing in advance.
It had come to the point where I was cautioned that I would need to have body guards whenever I go outside, which is entirely the last thing across all the multiverses and galaxies that I would want to think about - Having to protect myself from random people who think they know more about me than myself, who obsess over me and want to take a selfie with me and distract my trains of thought every two seconds. Fame has more consequences than benefits.
When it comes to discussing controversial topics with others I have to ask myself "is it worth it"? When things go sour all I can do is make a final reply and leave.
I do need to ask myself this much more often. I will do this from now on, thanks.
In real life I don’t really argue with people unless something real is at stake (like when you have to make a decision with real consequences) because I know how little interest people have in reason and logic. And if I am forced to argue I simply use whatever tricks are necessary to come to a resolution; people want to feel they are sentient beings making their own choices so you have to lead them into these choices; they have their motivations, predispositions and beliefs and they will not change their mind unless all these are accounted for. But that’s a last resort. Usually it’s better that both the parties involved have “skin in the game” - ie that they have something at stake in their beliefs and pay a price for being wrong. But my most common strategy is to design the circumstances in a way where ultimately I am indifferent to anyone’s opinion at the outset. That means having optionality - if I don’t agree with someone I just bail out of the whole thing and rely on an option which doesn’t involve them.
We would both have our reputations at stake in this case. I believe I have way more to lose, but he might think the same about himself.
So far the lesson I've learned, taking into account your point on optionality, is to be clear, direct, simple, and not feed any fires of emotion with more fire as to then be able to maximize optionality. This will take practice. It is not something to be learned by texting out on forums, as much as I wish it was.
This sounds really stressful... On the other hand, congratulations on having done something worthy of fame.
Can you afford a PR consultant? Perhaps one of your startups can pitch in, they have skin in the game. Maybe approach another journalist of your choice? If you cease cooperating with the current guy and he still writes a poorly informed article, another article to which you divulge more information could set the record straight. A blog sounds like a good idea, too.
I'd minimize fame if I were in your shoes. Do you need the publicity? Could you deflect any attention to your business? The article will get a lot more attention in the long run if you collaborate on it, is my guess.
I still don't think I have done anything worthy of fame, and I am my own PR consultant.
I don't really fully understand but this person sounds kinda shit tbh?
what's the reason you have to have this person write about you anyway?
I've come to learn that everyone can sound shit in the heat of arguments. I've let this go.
DESTROY THEIR SOULS, DECLARE WAR, EVISCERATE THEM, IT'S PERSONAL
Lol. I'm too nice for that.
People need to feel emotionally validated before they even consider anything you say. Most real discussions of beliefs/science/opinions do not get settled over one conversation, but many. I've convinced people of what I think, but every time it takes months, if not years. I never argue with what they would have to say on the matter, and just subtly talk about my view from time to time (when relevant). Then one day, they agree with me, but only because they chose to (instead of having the humility to admit they may be wrong about some things they very first time).
Though this isn't exactly the same as a situational argument, I was raised a vegan (still am), and I have to say that I've been "bullied" about it my whole life. All I have to say it "I don't eat meat," and I get lamb-blasted with reasons why my diet is inferior. I've never gotten combative, not matter how ignorant or rude the statement, and just indulged their one-sided jokes. Yet, most people who spend enough time around me slowly come around and ask me more about recipes I use, and stop making quips that undermine what I eat.
The only reason these people come around is because I don't offer any rebuttals that would "confirm" their opinions about the "holier-than-thou" stereotype of vegans. Some people actually start eating less meat and dairy just by being around me, and I never said anything against eating meat.
How do you enable yourself not to have your ego bruised, and explain things without getting mad that they other person couldn't understand the rationality behind your statements?
By not stopping to their level, or letting them get to you. Sometimes this requires just reserving what you have to say until another day. Then at least, you're bound to be able to approach the topic with a more convincing rational instead of feeling as though you have to defend your ideals in the-heat-of-the-moment. Just preaching never converted anyone.
I recently argued with someone more extraverted than me, and have been unable to really get through my thoughts and thought experiments to this person. They don't want to entertain what they perceive as fringe ideas even though I explain massive impacts on the world, many avenues of success, and things of that nature, that have equally powerful effects on humanity as more supposedly broad / "macro" level topics.
I honestly can't handle this so much that I never put myself in these situations.
I don't know to what extent this impacts anything, but I'll note anyways that this person seems to have minimal need to explore the depth of details in life due to superior / above-average conventional physical attractiveness. Which begs the question: Does physical attractiveness grant the privilege to dismiss facts in exchange for conversational power?
People are nicer when you're pretty, it's true. But that only works on strangers, and does little to save personal relations. In an argument, people are more likely to "amuse" a pretty person, rather than actually listen to them. This can translate to someone thinking that they're actually important and convincing. For guys it could get you more opportunities and influence, sure, but it only takes you so far before you're "playing with the big boys" who don't give a flying crap about your face's marketability.
My theory is that people that don't like to entertain curious ideas will tend to view them as a waste of time because it is "inefficient", or doesn't give a sense of gratification.
They don't want to feel "sad."
I think on my end, I'll need to dial back what I perceive as logical, and force myself to think more emotionally in order to communicate effectively. As sad as it is, conversations in real life have so much more emphasis on emotion than I want to realize, but I must. Yet, I feel this is somewhat unfair that I must condition myself to appeal to emotion more than I appeal to logic and reason.
Not necessarily. People vary on how receptive they are to emotional vs. rational arguments. You have to first figure out what "language" someone speaks before trying to have a discussion with them.
As a rule of thumb, always tell someone they're right before you tell them they're wrong.
I agree with everything you've said. Thank you so much for taking the time to write this out. I do need to figure out what "language" someone speaks before trying to have a discussion with them. Granted, this isn't always possible, but I've found I haven't done this even for people I've known for a long time, so it will be good for me to be conscious of that.
just ignore the troll if he attacks you personally, he probably has a personal vendetta on you.
or bait him to attack you and hate you more in the future.
Haha, he isn't a troll, and I'm fortunate enough to have to deal with trolls pretty minimally (for now, at least). When it comes to individuals I am pretty passive and I don't get vengeful. I get vengeful about problems and systems, however.
