Single Question Experiment

[Gwazi Magnum]

Yes, but, my point is, the hypothetical assumes that this is our first impression, when, in reality, it very well might not be.

You're right that this little experiment does show that most people would stick to that first impression and not try to seek out more info, but, once again, the question is framed such that it controls what our first impression is to begin with.

Even assuming this person is just a stranger that we don't know much about, who's to say that this is the first thing we think about them? There are a lot of other first impressions that we could get from them. Given the fact that the hypothetical gives us no other info, however, it's impossible to say what those other first impressions might be.

Except this *is* a hypothetical.
So in this specific instance it's to be assumed what the OP presented in the first impression.

I guess what I was trying to get at is -- this whole thing made it look like the OP was like "people tend to only see the worst in someone that only sees the worst about others, isn't that something?", and I was trying to point out that, no, this thread doesn't really prove that -- as the only reason we're seeing them in a negative light is because the OP framed them that way.

You're right about the first impressions thing, though -- but, in that case, this whole thing really only goes to show how easily people will stick to first impressions, rather than a more general assessment about how people tend to see someone who "sees the worst in others".

Eh, ok I'll agree that the OP is a bit sloppy on regard of people seeing other's as negative.
But even then we got varying responses.

We got answers about how he could just be a critical person.

Now you could say that to know if he's critical or not would rely on further information, but so would saying he's just a sad person.
Both require you to dig in deeper on first impressions.

So in a sense (intentionally or not) I find it's testing on both in a certain manner.

1. Test to see if the person works on First Impressions. Judged by if they make an assumption right at the start or if they request/desire more information.
2. If they do make an assumption, the nature of it determines if they're positive or negative about it. Where saying they could be critical would be positive, while saying they're a sad person would be being negative.

Though really the "Positive VS Negative" is only being tested on those who bothered to go on first impressions.

 

[razorrabbit]

Well I feel awful that a name just popped into my head at that question, probably says way more about me than it does them.

I think people like that are the kind that like to start fights and drama that enjoy being angry and making others angry, that like to poke and prod and get smug and feel good about themselves for making someone else feel bad, yet burst like an old water balloon when something even remotely similar happens to them and cries out victim.

Though I say this as a very cynical person who lived a majority of their life with very cynical and mean spirited people.

 

[Diana]

I don't like this topic. >:[ It was a trap so you could turn around and go AH HA! YOU GUYS SUCK TOO FOR JUDGING PEOPLE.

You asked for simple answers, not the long winded thoughtful ones. ;__; THIS WAS A TRAP. I AM BETRAYED.

 

[razorrabbit]

I don't like this topic. >:[ It was a trap so you could turn around and go AH HA! YOU GUYS SUCK TOO FOR JUDGING PEOPLE.

You asked for simple answers, not the long winded thoughtful ones. ;__; THIS WAS A TRAP. I AM BETRAYED.

Eh everyone judges everyone to different degrees. (If you claim otherwise you are a dirty liar and once the matches are found your pants will be ignited with lie flames) I would look at it as less of a trap and more of an experiment on how people judge one another. (That's just me though)

 

[Kagayours]

Except this *is* a hypothetical.
So in this specific instance it's to be assumed what the OP presented in the first impression.

Eh, ok I'll agree that the OP is a bit sloppy on regard of people seeing other's as negative.
But even then we got varying responses.

We got answers about how he could just be a critical person.

Now you could say that to know if he's critical or not would rely on further information, but so would saying he's just a sad person.
Both require you to dig in deeper on first impressions.

So in a sense (intentionally or not) I find it's testing on both in a certain manner.

1. Test to see if the person works on First Impressions. Judged by if they make an assumption right at the start or if they request/desire more information.
2. If they do make an assumption, the nature of it determines if they're positive or negative about it. Where saying they could be critical would be positive, while saying they're a sad person would be being negative.

Though really the "Positive VS Negative" is only being tested on those who bothered to go on first impressions.

Ok, I suppose you have a point in that people can try to be more positive about this, but, I still think it's unfairly framed, because it starts at a negative place, assuming that the first thing we notice is that they see the worst in others.

There's a reason why the whole glass half-empty/glass half-full thing is a classic indicator of pessimism vs optimism -- because, objectively, it's both, with the negative and positive being completely equal, and to say that it's "half full" or "half empty" would mean focusing more on the positive or the negative, hence, being optimistic or pessimistic, in a scenario that doesn't lean more towards one side or the other. In this hypothetical though, we're starting in a negative place, which makes it harder for people to turn it around and be positive. People are more likely to stick with the negative view because the question frames it that way. It's like showing people a glass that's 3/4 empty, and wondering if any optimists still choose to focus on the glass being 1/4 full, even though there's objectively more negative than positive, meaning that people will be more inclined to focus on the negative.

Not a perfect, comparison, I know, but hopefully you at least see what I'm getting at about the question not being "fair" in that regard. We're still all more likely to think negatively of them. If the question was worded differently, or if it were more possible to create a scenario of meeting a real person in our minds, then the results might be a bit more accurate, at least in regards to what OP seemed to be looking for.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Ok, I suppose you have a point in that people can try to be more positive about this, but, I still think it's unfairly framed, because it starts at a negative place, assuming that the first thing we notice is that they see the worst in others.

There's a reason why the whole glass half-empty/glass half-full thing is a classic indicator of pessimism vs optimism -- because, objectively, it's both, with the negative and positive being completely equal, and to say that it's "half full" or "half empty" would mean focusing more on the positive or the negative, hence, being optimistic or pessimistic, in a scenario that doesn't lean more towards one side or the other. In this hypothetical though, we're starting in a negative place, which makes it harder for people to turn it around and be positive. People are more likely to stick with the negative view because the question frames it that way. It's like showing people a glass that's 3/4 empty, and wondering if any optimists still choose to focus on the glass being 1/4 full, even though there's objectively more negative than positive, meaning that people will be more inclined to focus on the negative.

Not a perfect, comparison, I know, but hopefully you at least see what I'm getting at about the question not being "fair" in that regard. We're still all more likely to think negatively of them. If the question was worded differently, or if it were more possible to create a scenario of meeting a real person in our minds, then the results might be a bit more accurate, at least in regards to what OP seemed to be looking for.

Ok, Agreed.
But this is working on the assumption that the OP was worded in a negative light.

"What do you see in a person who see's the worst in others?"

I don't see this as Negative. At most what might indicate it's negative is the usage of the word 'worst'.
But remember the saying "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best"?

Seeing the worst isn't would only be viewed as bad if the reader is looking at it in a "Focusing on the bad" perspective.
But if they look at it from a "being prepared" perspective all the sudden this turns into a huge positive.

So for me personally I don't think this is a case of people looking at a rigged cup.
But rather just a matter of how people chose to interpret the idea of "worst".

 

[Kagayours]

Ok, Agreed.
But this is working on the assumption that the OP was worded in a negative light.

I don't see this as Negative. At most what might indicate it's negative is the usage of the word 'worst'.
But remember the saying "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best"?

Seeing the worst isn't would only be viewed as bad if the reader is looking at it in a "Focusing on the bad" perspective.
But if they look at it from a "being prepared" perspective all the sudden this turns into a huge positive.

So for me personally I don't think this is a case of people looking at a rigged cup.
But rather just a matter of how people chose to interpret the idea of "worst".

Eh, personally I think that's just a bit generous. XD Yeah, you could interpret it that way, but I think most people would see the word "worst" as being a negative term, yes, and, even though you can look at it a different way, I think most would agree that a person who "sees the worst in others" definitely seems like a pessimist.

You can look at it from a "being prepared" perspective, but, I don't think that's the most common way that people would look at it. :P I still don't think it's as fair of a split as "half full" vs "half empty" -- simply using the word "worst" already has more of a negative association that would tend to prime people's thinking.

 

[Gwazi Magnum]

Eh, personally I think that's just a bit generous. XD Yeah, you could interpret it that way, but I think most people would see the word "worst" as being a negative term, yes, and, even though you can look at it a different way, I think most would agree that a person who "sees the worst in others" definitely seems like a pessimist.

You can look at it from a "being prepared" perspective, but, I don't think that's the most common way that people would look at it. :P I still don't think it's as fair of a split as "half full" vs "half empty" -- simply using the word "worst" already has more of a negative association that would tend to prime people's thinking.

But what makes pessimist inherently bad?
Other than popular opinion?

And all popular opinion means is the one most people flock to.
Not what's inherent about the thing in question.

 

[SlamifiedBuddafied]

I don't like this topic. >:[ It was a trap so you could turn around and go AH HA! YOU GUYS SUCK TOO FOR JUDGING PEOPLE.

You asked for simple answers, not the long winded thoughtful ones. ;__; THIS WAS A TRAP. I AM BETRAYED.

Not a trap at all. I think it's just the nature of people to communicate things like this which possibly everyone thinks about but doesn't discuss quite enough. Though that is a way of wording it, I'm not so much saying others suck, just pointing out the words we use really effect how we communicate and our reactions as well. Had I also asked what good a person see's, I'm sure the nature of this topic would've taken an entirely different turn because of one word.

And to boot, that point has already been made.*

 

[Alan]

A person who only sees the worst in others? I see someone who is hyper-cynical, and could probably use a bit of love and compassion.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

You're three hours late. I didn't steal shit. You're just slow and wanted an excuse so you blamed me.

This is the kind of shit I deal with at work daily. It's soul-cracking.

You are the ONLY person I've ever met who took that as an insult. Even the most petty of people I've seen in the past laugh and take a bit of pride in saying a masterpiece first.

And I'm not "slow" I just wasn't around. Then when I read the topic, I had your answer in mind, then I scrolled down and found you said it first. That's not an insult, that's not a negative, that's a complement, a positive.

 

[Kagayours]

You are the ONLY person I've ever met who took that as an insult. Even the most petty of people I've seen in the past laugh and take a bit of pride in saying a masterpiece first.

And I'm not "slow" I just wasn't around. Then when I read the topic, I had your answer in mind, then I scrolled down and found you said it first. That's not an insult, that's not a negative, that's a complement, a positive.

I think it may have been a joke.

 

[Shadon Xarian]

I think it may have been a joke.

You sure about that? DX There isn't a trace of sarcasm. It even came with a sentence explaining terrible work experiences.

 

[Kagayours]

You sure about that? DX There isn't a trace of sarcasm. It even came with a sentence explaining terrible work experiences.

Given the fact that, as you said, most people wouldn't care or take it as an insult? And yet Windsong was being comedically over-the-top about it?

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was supposed to be a joke, and not taken seriously.

BUT LIKE, WHAT DO I KNOW, I COULD BE WRONG. That's just how I read it, anyway. Didn't want you to get so riled up over a joke.

BUT WHO KNOWS, MAYBE I'M THE ONE WHO HAS NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON AND IS COMPLETELY MISREADING EVERYONE... IT'S A POSSIBILITY.

 

[Windsong]

No. I meant it.