Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    
    
    I have two wandering thoughts on this topic.
    
    The first in reference to the "whence it came" portion of the base
    note. Much of our society [read folks in power up to about 20 years
    ago, and still in power in a majority view] defines *good* vis-a-vie
    the Puritan Work Ethic.
    
    Remember them? They were to guys who said [apologies to the Puritan
    Doctrine] that if you didn't spend all your time wokring and ploughing
    and praying and sewing and baking and...then you might have time for
    fun in the form of [gasp!] sex...or any other fun for that matter.
    
    These and their off-shoots are the folks that brought you the no-smile
    theory of finding the way to eternal bliss.
    
    Yes, I know I am not only over-simplifying, I am probably being
    insulting. Apologies all-round, but none-the-less, the Puritan Ethic of
    all work and no play makes Jack a good boy...is a good part of the
    "whence".
    
    The second has to do with measuring self worth.
    
    I think the question is a little muddied...I am not sure if you are
    asking how one measures *their own self worth* or how one measures
    *someone elses self-worth*
    
    If it is the former, then I think each of us has to decide what it is
    we want to contribute to our families, our job, our
    communcity...whatever and then strive to meet those goals. Whther those
    goals are tangible or not is irrelevant. How we feel about ourselves is
    then based on how close we come.
    
    If, we are talking the latter...I am not sure that it makes sence for
    another person to measure someone else's self-worth. We tend to see
    lists of people's accomplishments [sometimes] just because it is so
    hard to crawl into someone else and figure out what makes them tick so
    we can see if they wound the clock right. It is, on the other hand,
    reletively simple to make a list of stuff we know somebody *did*.
    
    For instance....I know John Doe. I *know* he is a good man, a hard
    worker, a gentle soul. But how do I convey that to someone who doesn't
    know him? I make a list of things that exemplify the intangibles that I
    feel about him. I might say he always volunteers his time at Christmas,
    or that he was a charter member of the Relief Company...I am not
    equating his worth with these things, but trying to exemplify for
    someone who deosn't know him the intangible feelings I have about him.
    
    FWIW...
    
    Melinda

    >How do *you* measure both your own self-worth and the worth of 
    >others? 
    
    About $100,000 according to the figure used in some government study a
    few years ago.  Of course, now you have to add in the inflation.
    By the way, besides that, what does "self-worth" mean?  I think it is
    an oxymoron.
    
    >Has it become the almighty standard of a person's worth that he
    >be measured by his accomplishments alone and not by the person he
    >was? 
    
    Of course, what you do defines what you are (the usual operational
    definition).
    
    Eugene
                

    As both Mel and Eugene mentioned the only way I can know you are a
    certain type of person is by what you do. I have no other measure. A
    classic case of being "what you are" is how people deal with other
    races and cultures. You can say (and even believe) that you are a fair
    and equality minded individual but it's what you do about it in real
    life that matters. I think a lot of folks faced this big time when
    busing was first proposed. Or the old "but I don't want my daughter to
    marry one" routine.

    This reminds me of the arguments I've heard over the phrase "you've got
    a bad attitude". No one can see your attitude to know if it's good or
    bad. So they judge your attitude by the actions you make. This can of
    course, give a completely false impression but until we learn to read
    minds it's all others have to go on. liesl

    I know who I am -- I am a good, gentle, kind, compassionate,
    passionate, powerful....  (you get the idea) man.
    
    The above has nothing to do with what I do.  I've done many things --
    I'll do many more -- they will add dimension to who I am, but these
    things I do are not what define me.
    
    					andrew

    re .4
    
    You are good because you do unto your neighbors what you would like
    them do unto you...   You are gentle and gave a massage to your
    spouse last night...   You are kind and you take your secretary to
    lunch every week...   You are compassionate and donated two hundred
    grand to the United Way...   You are passionate and your spouse testify to
    that under oath...   You are powerful and capable of drinking a sixpack 
    at one gulp. :-)
    
    Of course, the "you's" above are generic "you's" and not aimed at
    anyone specific.
    
    Eugene  
    
    P.S. By the way, is Parsifal really better than the Ring?

    Eugene -- with the exception of your first example, all of what you say
    is a reflection of a characteristic, not the thing that "creates" the
    characteristic.
    
    Much of who I am is reflected in what I do; all I am saying is who I am
    is more than what I do.
    
    					andrew

<    Much of who I am is reflected in what I do; all I am saying is who I am
<    is more than what I do.
    
    
    I don't really think anyone is arguing that fact. Perhaps a better
    description of what I mean is the difference between "potential" and
    "actual". All of your "being" is potential until you do something. You
    may have the potential to be "good" (and that can mean whatever you
    want it to mean, ie: what you think is good) but if you are never
    tested no one else can really know if you are or not. It's very easy to
    say you are "good", much harder to be so. Most of us will probably never
    reach the full potential of who we are.

    It's along the same line as thinking if man did not have free will then
    he couldn't possibly be bad. A storm can do terrible damage but it
    can't be called evil because it doesn't have the prerequesite will to
    choose being a bad storm or a good storm. It just is, we can choose our
    actions and by doing exhibit who we are in the eyes of others. I think
    my explaination is a bit foggy but explaining it "better" eludes me at
    this time. :*) liesl

    re .6,
    
    That is why I call it "operational definition"; how else could I know
    someone but by watching what he/she does?
    
    Eugene

    I don't think you are granting the idea of being the scope it requires,
    liesl.  I don't think he means choosing to be good, I think it means
    his own whole summary of his own knowledge of his attitudes, his own
    recognitions of life and its meanings and lessons...in sum, his own
    perception of the gestalt that he is.
    
    Eugene, you could learn something (know someone) by reading their
    writing.  In topic, in approach, in vocabulary, in a dozen categories
    you gain insight to the person whose mind can write such stuff.  I
    know people *much* more by what they write than by what I witness
    them doing.  Usually.
    
    DougO

I think I understand the feeling expressed in .0.  I used to wonder
the same thing when I was dating and attending singles functions.
When someone came up to me and introduced himself,the first question
was always "What do you do?"  I found it offensive, because in that game,
they were always trying to pigeon-hole everyone socially based on 
occupation.  I always had the urge to give some answer like, "I'm a
brain surgeon, giving a special on lobotomies." (or vasectomies).

It didn't seem right to have someone pass judgment on someone else based
on occupation.  They're missing what the person IS by saying basically,
"I don't care who you ARE, tell me what you DO."  In a relationship, you
should be more concerned with what's inside the person, what makes them
tick.

IMHO,
Paula 

    I have to disagree; I think a person's accomplishments say a great deal
    about who the person is.  I don't necessarily mean work
    accomplishments, but simply how the person chooses to organize his/her
    life.  For example, my mother has not "worked" for many years, since
    before I was born.  But she has many accomplishments, besides raising
    me and my brother.  She is a mathematician and musician by training,
    plays in the local orchestra, plays in a string quartet which plays at
    weddings and lunchs, is a driver for the "sunshine club" (social club
    for blind adults), volunteers for community work, produces Braille
    books (usually college mathematics textbooks or music; few Braillists
    are math-literate or musicians), travels, attends operas and plays with
    other similar-aged widowed ladies, supports my brother, and keeps the
    world's tidiest house.  If I restricted my description of her to "my
    mother is a nice, intelligent, single, older lady" you'd have much less
    of a feel for what has been important in her life since my dad died.
    Also, it doesn't matter so much to me what a person "is" if the person
    does not reflect it in their actions; for example, a person is "caring"
    if their actions show they care about others, not simply because they
    say they are "a caring person".  IMHO
    
    /Charlotte

re .11

Exactly.  I agree with what you're saying.  Your mother does a lot, which is
not reflected in saying she doesn't have a "job."

If someone came up to her and asked her what her job was or what she did for
a living, a succinct answer would fall far short of showing what kind of 
person she is, and how full her life is.

I'm not saying what you do isn't important - I agree it is.  It distinguishes
those who get out and do from those who sit and vegetate or sit and complain.
Or shows what your interests are.  What you do is a form of self-expression.  

It's one's _occupation_ that may not necessarily tell much about the real 
person.  For example I've been working in software of one kind or another
for almost 10 years.  I got into it as a fairly quick way to support myself
and 2 children.  Something that would more accurately express *me* would be
photography or forestry or wildlife management or philosophy or writing or
research of some kind -- mind/sleep things, communication with dolphins, who
knows.  But they don't offer much job security, or pay well, or have many
opportunities.

Person-A and Person-B could each have 20 interests.  If Person-A sits and
daydreams about them, while Person-B goes out and persues those interests,
then those are 2 very different people! 

I just think one's occupation offers very little insight into the true person,
and in some cases is actually misleading.  And I still think it's shortsighted
if not rude to ask a person's occupation as I described in my previous reply.

    Re .12: I can't agree that it's necessarily either shortsighted or rude
    to ask "what do you do" - it depends on how it's asked, and what the
    questioner does with the information. Seems to me that "what do you do"
    is a pretty decent question, in fact, for finding out something about a
    new acquaintance. By simply answering, "I write software for a living,
    but what I _really_ like to do is...", you could convey the idea that
    you don't want to be defined by your paid job, and also get across
    whatever skills or interests you want to talk about at present. (If the
    questioner was only interested in the status and/or pay-level of your
    job, I'd think it would be a relief to both of you to find out quickly
    that you were on different wavelengths.)
    
    I suppose a more general (and possibly less irksome) question would be,
    "How do you define yourself," but somehow that one, coming from a
    stranger, wouldn't inspire me!
    
    -b

    I always ask, "What do you feel passionately about?"  
    
    If they reply "the C-shell in Ultrix" then I've got a pretty good idea
    whether this is somebody I want to spend a lot of time getting to know.
    
    :-)  :-)
    
    Nanci

    re: "And what do *you* do?" 
    
    However, if they reply to the question like this:
    
    "I *do* whole bunches of things, but none of it makes up even a
    fraction of what I *am*..."
    
    How would you interpret such an answer?  How would you respond?

    I prefer the answer, "As little as humanly possible."
    
    	Jon

    When I meet someone new, I try not to ask them "what they do" but
    instead will phrase it this way, "Tell me about yourself".  They have
    the choice to say whatever.  I still respond to "what do you do" in
    occupational terms.  I might try something new now.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Cathy 

    re-.17
    
    "Tell me about yourself"...
    
    Cathy, that was the *best* response I've heard yet. It encompasses
    both "What you do" and "What you are" as of an interest to others.
    Thank you.

    Re .17,.18: Yeah, but you can't win 'em all - I happen to be made
    rather nervous by "tell me about yourself," because the person asking
    the question has now thrust the entire conversational burden upon _me_.
    (And, sometimes I don't want to tell them about myself at all;
    though in that case I suppose I could just say, "Not much to tell; how
    'bout them Sox?")
    
    My preference for questions from newly-met folk is something simple and
    specific, so I don't have to think too hard while I'm trying to deal
    with my unease at meeting new people. <wry grin>
    
    -b