Page 1 of 2

Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 1st, 2021, 12:24 am
by Sushan
This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

I will resort to almost anything to get your attention, to flip your switch or to push your buttons to incite you to rise to action and make some positive improvements on your own behalf. I will probably offend some of you at some point (in itself a warning flag, which we’ll discuss later), and I sincerely hope that I anger, provoke, and challenge you enough to do things differently than you have in the past.
(Location 118 - Kindle version)

As per my opinion we can use two methods to boost someone's morale. One is to say that he/she is good enough as he/she is now and keep it up without comparing his/herself with peers or superiors. This is some sort of flattery. The other is to completely break one's morale and challenge him/her to get on his/her own feet, and that is what this author is doing, kicking you in the butt.

What do you think about these approaches? Which one is better and efficient? Why?

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 1st, 2021, 1:31 pm
by detail
Better do both things at the same time . Just remember Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide through the galaxy. There was a game called Ultra-Cricket, where people hit the heads for no apparent reason , then ran away and apologized from the distance. This was exactly this twofold method and even widely accepted in the galaxy. Here the correct quota from douglas adams:

Brockian Ultra-Cricket

SHARE
Brockian Ultra-Cricket, described as "a curious game which involved suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away", is a fictional sport.

It first appeared in the original BBC radio series The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and later in the novel Life, the Universe and Everything, written by Douglas Adams. In the books, the sport is first named in the first novel; the name comes from Jonny Brock, a friend of Adams.

Its rules (as told from the book) are as follows:

Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, but it keeps the crowds amused.
Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player and clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training.
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the walls for the players. Anything will do ? cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.
Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a 'hit' on another player, he should immediately run away and apologize from a safe distance.
Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.
Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins.
It is said that the rules of Brockian Ultra-Cricket are so controversial that the civilizations which play it spend more time in a state of war over their interpretation than they do actually playing the game; it is mentioned that the rules are so lengthy and complex that the one time they were collected in one place for reference, a black hole was formed out of their mass. It is believed that "in the long run, a good solid war is less psychologically damaging than a protracted game of Brockian Ultra-Cricket", so this may be a good thing.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 1st, 2021, 10:55 pm
by Nick_A
Sushan
I will resort to almost anything to get your attention, to flip your switch or to push your buttons to incite you to rise to action and make some positive improvements on your own behalf. I will probably offend some of you at some point (in itself a warning flag, which we’ll discuss later), and I sincerely hope that I anger, provoke, and challenge you enough to do things differently than you have in the past.
There are two major problems for the modern PC mind. The first is deciding who has the right to kick butt and the second is what constitutes positive improvements?

These are now decided by race. I am a man of no color so have no right to discuss improvements for anyone of any color. However those of color are free to suggest kicking the butt of anyone of no color.

The important point here is that positive improvements for humanity doesn't exist but only refers to those of color having been woke and seeing that those of no color are the source of their difficulty. Only those of no color can commit hate crimes. Forget positive improvements for all and just think color or race if you prefer. You will learn from the educated experts who to curse out.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 2:34 am
by Sushan
detail wrote: September 1st, 2021, 1:31 pm Better do both things at the same time . Just remember Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide through the galaxy. There was a game called Ultra-Cricket, where people hit the heads for no apparent reason , then ran away and apologized from the distance. This was exactly this twofold method and even widely accepted in the galaxy. Here the correct quota from douglas adams:

Brockian Ultra-Cricket

SHARE
Brockian Ultra-Cricket, described as "a curious game which involved suddenly hitting people for no readily apparent reason and then running away", is a fictional sport.

It first appeared in the original BBC radio series The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, and later in the novel Life, the Universe and Everything, written by Douglas Adams. In the books, the sport is first named in the first novel; the name comes from Jonny Brock, a friend of Adams.

Its rules (as told from the book) are as follows:

Rule One: Grow at least three extra legs. You won't need them, but it keeps the crowds amused.
Rule Two: Find one good Brockian Ultra-Cricket player and clone him off a few times. This saves an enormous amount of tedious selection and training.
Rule Three: Put your team and the opposing team in a large field and build a high wall round them.
The reason for this is that, though the game is a major spectator sport, the frustration experienced by the audience at not actually being able to see what's going on leads them to imagine that it's a lot more exciting than it actually is. A crowd that has just watched a rather humdrum game experiences far less life-affirmation than a crowd that believes it has just missed the most dramatic event in sporting history.
Rule Four: Throw lots of assorted items of sporting equipment over the walls for the players. Anything will do ? cricket bats, basecube bats, tennis guns, skis, anything you can get a good swing with.
Rule Five: The players should now lay about themselves for all they are worth with whatever they find to hand. Whenever a player scores a 'hit' on another player, he should immediately run away and apologize from a safe distance.
Apologies should be concise, sincere and, for maximum clarity and points, delivered through a megaphone.
Rule Six: The winning team shall be the first team that wins.
It is said that the rules of Brockian Ultra-Cricket are so controversial that the civilizations which play it spend more time in a state of war over their interpretation than they do actually playing the game; it is mentioned that the rules are so lengthy and complex that the one time they were collected in one place for reference, a black hole was formed out of their mass. It is believed that "in the long run, a good solid war is less psychologically damaging than a protracted game of Brockian Ultra-Cricket", so this may be a good thing.
I felt like a black hole formed in my brain when I tried to understand this concept. So what does it actually say? What is its real idea or the intention? Why should someone hit another one when they have no reason or intention? It is acceptable or understandable when a person hit someone else to way off his anger. But what is actually accomplished by hitting a random guy for no reason? And I see the necessity of the apology, but what was its real need? So many questions :shock:

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 2:39 am
by Sushan
Nick_A wrote: September 1st, 2021, 10:55 pm Sushan
I will resort to almost anything to get your attention, to flip your switch or to push your buttons to incite you to rise to action and make some positive improvements on your own behalf. I will probably offend some of you at some point (in itself a warning flag, which we’ll discuss later), and I sincerely hope that I anger, provoke, and challenge you enough to do things differently than you have in the past.
There are two major problems for the modern PC mind. The first is deciding who has the right to kick butt and the second is what constitutes positive improvements?

These are now decided by race. I am a man of no color so have no right to discuss improvements for anyone of any color. However those of color are free to suggest kicking the butt of anyone of no color.

The important point here is that positive improvements for humanity doesn't exist but only refers to those of color having been woke and seeing that those of no color are the source of their difficulty. Only those of no color can commit hate crimes. Forget positive improvements for all and just think color or race if you prefer. You will learn from the educated experts who to curse out.
That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 2:50 am
by LuckyR
Sushan wrote: September 1st, 2021, 12:24 am This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

I will resort to almost anything to get your attention, to flip your switch or to push your buttons to incite you to rise to action and make some positive improvements on your own behalf. I will probably offend some of you at some point (in itself a warning flag, which we’ll discuss later), and I sincerely hope that I anger, provoke, and challenge you enough to do things differently than you have in the past.
(Location 118 - Kindle version)

As per my opinion we can use two methods to boost someone's morale. One is to say that he/she is good enough as he/she is now and keep it up without comparing his/herself with peers or superiors. This is some sort of flattery. The other is to completely break one's morale and challenge him/her to get on his/her own feet, and that is what this author is doing, kicking you in the butt.

What do you think about these approaches? Which one is better and efficient? Why?
Actually the motivation has to start with the subject, not their life coach. If the subject's goal is to feel better about what they have accomplished, advise accordingly. If their goal is improvement, then advise them towards that goal. Now whether a subject will respond better to positive or negative feedback will vary. Knowing which to use on whom, is what makes a superior coach.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 3:01 am
by Sushan
LuckyR wrote: September 2nd, 2021, 2:50 am
Sushan wrote: September 1st, 2021, 12:24 am This topic is about the September 2021 Philosophy Book of the Month, If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your But's by Mark L. Wdowiak

I will resort to almost anything to get your attention, to flip your switch or to push your buttons to incite you to rise to action and make some positive improvements on your own behalf. I will probably offend some of you at some point (in itself a warning flag, which we’ll discuss later), and I sincerely hope that I anger, provoke, and challenge you enough to do things differently than you have in the past.
(Location 118 - Kindle version)

As per my opinion we can use two methods to boost someone's morale. One is to say that he/she is good enough as he/she is now and keep it up without comparing his/herself with peers or superiors. This is some sort of flattery. The other is to completely break one's morale and challenge him/her to get on his/her own feet, and that is what this author is doing, kicking you in the butt.

What do you think about these approaches? Which one is better and efficient? Why?
Actually the motivation has to start with the subject, not their life coach. If the subject's goal is to feel better about what they have accomplished, advise accordingly. If their goal is improvement, then advise them towards that goal. Now whether a subject will respond better to positive or negative feedback will vary. Knowing which to use on whom, is what makes a superior coach.
I agree. It varys on people how they act towards positive and negative feedback. If someone has achieved something, then it is okay to respond positively. But too much positivity can make a person lazy and ignorant and that can loose his/her interest to target for further achievement, and that won't be of no good at all.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 2nd, 2021, 11:13 am
by Nick_A
Sushan
That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.
Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 8th, 2021, 8:25 pm
by Sushan
Nick_A wrote: September 2nd, 2021, 11:13 am Sushan
That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.
Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.
Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 8th, 2021, 10:47 pm
by Nick_A
Sushan wrote: September 8th, 2021, 8:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: September 2nd, 2021, 11:13 am Sushan
That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.
Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.
Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.
indoctrination or education? Without appreciating the objective goal of education it must devolve into indoctrination which it has

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 13th, 2021, 9:28 pm
by Sushan
Nick_A wrote: September 8th, 2021, 10:47 pm
Sushan wrote: September 8th, 2021, 8:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: September 2nd, 2021, 11:13 am Sushan
That decision to see who has the right to correct someone comes in most occasions with the authority. And in some occasions it comes with the power of majority. In this latter race differences, gender differences, and many more are included. The issue is none of these acts (at least many of them) are not intended on improving the humanity or individuals, but to suppress the less privileged ones and maintain the authority and the superiority of the privileged or the powerful ones.
Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.
Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.
indoctrination or education? Without appreciating the objective goal of education it must devolve into indoctrination which it has
I searched for objective goals of education through google. And most of them say about completion of courses and passing exams. So for that in many cases one should learn what is taught, remember them, and pass exams. Yes, there are research based and student centered education systems, yet they are not fully devoid from exams. So more or less people generally accept indoctrination and education as similar things.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 13th, 2021, 10:11 pm
by Nick_A
Sushan wrote: September 13th, 2021, 9:28 pm
Nick_A wrote: September 8th, 2021, 10:47 pm
Sushan wrote: September 8th, 2021, 8:25 pm
Nick_A wrote: September 2nd, 2021, 11:13 am Sushan



Quite true. The experts determine what improves humanity and define those who prevent it. The trouble makers become scapegoats. If 100 experts are asked what improves humanity they will respond "education." Maybe one out of a hundred will respond differently and probably be killed as disruptive influences maintaining the status quo.
Education will do a lot to determine one's future as well as character. But we see how many educated criminals the world has provided so far. Maybe the education has lost its initial goals and intentions too. Today's education is merely a pumping of facts to a young brain, yet they are not taught how to use them for the betterment of others, but for their own benefit. The good old days before the child rights were not implemented in all the irrational ways, the teachers could punish and correct their students along with the education. So the kids received not only knowledge but also were well disciplined. And I strongly believe that 'kick in the butt' is still not outdated, and should be coupled with education for better results.
indoctrination or education? Without appreciating the objective goal of education it must devolve into indoctrination which it has
I searched for objective goals of education through google. And most of them say about completion of courses and passing exams. So for that in many cases one should learn what is taught, remember them, and pass exams. Yes, there are research based and student centered education systems, yet they are not fully devoid from exams. So more or less people generally accept indoctrination and education as similar things.
Public education is dead for the great majority. If a student is lucky he or she will be enrolled in private education which stll understands the purpose of education. For the rest; heaven help them.

One graduate student who still understands wrote his thesis on the problem

https://philpapers.org/rec/YODSWO
The concern of this study is the loss of the meaning or purpose of education and the instrumental view of education as its corollary. Today, education is largely conceived of as a means to gain social and economic privilege. The overemphasis on school children's test scores and the accountability of teachers and schools is evidence that education has lost its proper meaning. In such a climate, we observe general unhappiness among teachers, school children, and their parents. Society as a whole seems to have given up on education, not only school education but also the very idea of educated human beings. There is an urgent need to reconsider what education is and what its purpose is..........................
Yes there is a minority who still know what education is but the overwhelming majority are content on destroying the purpose of education for pragmatic gain and are winning the battle. Look into the eyes of some of the young and they are dead inside. This is what progressive education is proud of; the destruction of the young.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 13th, 2021, 11:13 pm
by Sy Borg
Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 18th, 2021, 11:49 pm
by Sushan
Sy Borg wrote: September 13th, 2021, 11:13 pm Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.
Too much flattery will lead one to laziness, and too much 'kicks in butt' will lead one to ignorance. Both are harmful as well as counterproductive. A children can be raised in both these extremities and the result will be a disaster. When moulding iron it should go under fire and then under water. None of these alone will produce the expected result. So, yes, the fire and brimstone strategy is useful, but have to be used with caution.

Re: Flattery vs Kicking in the butt?

Posted: September 19th, 2021, 1:29 am
by Sy Borg
Sushan wrote: September 18th, 2021, 11:49 pm
Sy Borg wrote: September 13th, 2021, 11:13 pm Ideally, a coach shows faith in a player, with the player determined to repay that faith. If that fails, then a coach can try to shock a player out of their complacency, but the fire & brimstone strategy must be used sparingly because it soon loses effect.

It would be nice to have a topic where people did not horn in the language of today's culture wars, but I guess that's too much to ask when players from Team Religion or Team Science are always looking to assert themselves over the "'enemy" nowadays.
Too much flattery will lead one to laziness, and too much 'kicks in butt' will lead one to ignorance. Both are harmful as well as counterproductive. A children can be raised in both these extremities and the result will be a disaster. When moulding iron it should go under fire and then under water. None of these alone will produce the expected result. So, yes, the fire and brimstone strategy is useful, but have to be used with caution.
As with many things, it's a matter of balance. Often the best results come when a mentor is respected and trusted, and the students see the mentor's advice as the path to growth.