There’s a saying that goes „The shoemaker always wears the worst shoes”.
I see people having done a lot websites not having a website of their own.
On possible explanation, in my opinion? They might hate making websites.
If they’d love making websites, they’d have one on their own.
Also, it’s like punctuality – if you come to the meeting on time, you are already late, as you should have come earlier.
You should not only have a website, but a website on which you put a lot of effort.
Things change, I don’t like to make plans two years from now.
It’s not that bad, but it’s not great, either.
It’s good to make plans, but also to have the ability to adjust them.
There are two ways of looking at love:
I prefer the latter option.
I think:
Some people ask: „How are people in the USA? What’s the difference between them and Romanians?”
I liked a lot Jim Bagnola‘s answer to this question (very approximate quote): there are a lot of differences between individuals. Some people have special particularities, tempers, and personalities. The generalization „Americans are like that” tends to be false.
On the other hand, there are some studies that can show differences. Sure, you won’t get a specific answer, there are like differences from various parts of Romania, like they are from a US State to another, or even within a State, or even in various spaces within a city.
But there are some studies that give insights on how the „average” American differs from the „average” Romanian.
But Mr. Bagnola is right – you’re more likely to meet some extremes, rather than the average. Personalities matter more than things related to the culture of a country.
By writing this essay, we (the author, Olivian-Claudiu Breda) tried to better understand Kazakhstan and its people, the Kazakhs, by doing some documentation work on the country. We looked at sources of information in English, primarily books, but a few websites and scientific articles, also.
With the data we gathered, the next aim was to see if the reforms and objectives that happened after 1990 were solid enough so that the country could develop quickly but in a sustainable way. But how could the country develop if, first, the people that are part of it don’t have a mental model of success?
We tried to find out if Kazakhstan sets a high-enough target that its mental model of success helps it and will help, in the future, be successful.
We selected below some of the findings from various sources. We tried our best to create a united view of the story.
Let’s say someone tells me – „In my opinion, you did wrong. This wouldn’t disturb me, but someone else”. How would I interpret this?
How would the person know that someone else would be disturbed by my act? Likely, they were offended by it, but don’t like to admit so.
So, whenever someone tells me „This wouldn’t disturb me, but someone else”, I tend to think that I actually offended that person.
What would differ would not be the action (to disturb), but the reaction (I choose to stay calm).
One reason for laughing: I tend to think that the person mirroring me is happy not only for the joke I just said but for being in a connection with me.
It’s not just the joke in itself, but the relationship, also.
I tend to remember and relive various bad things that happened to me.
Although ruminating on the past is something to be avoided, there’s a silver lining: it makes me avoid some mistakes.
Să zicem că ești într-o situație inetică în care poți lua atitudine (cu riscuri) sau poți ignora (cu riscuri de repetare a situației inetice, sau ca acțiunea curentă să aibă efecte negative).
Strict moral, poți ierta o nedreptate făcută ție, dar nu altuia. Dacă ești judecător, nu e OK să fii milos.
Tu poți ierta, și îți vei asuma că asta are niște consecințe. „Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” Dacă ierți pe cineva și acea persoană face o acțiune negativă ulterioară asupra altuia, porți o parte din vină.
Legat de rețete, nu cred că există reguli generale. „Ar fi bine să intervin?”. Nu știe nimeni o regulă 100% aplicabilă în orice situație.
E bine, ca principiu general, însă să îți asumi riscuri care nu să ducă la lucruri majore (adică, de exemplu, să nu îți riști viața, libertatea, sănătatea). Și aici sunt excepții. :)
Dan C. Mihăilescu avea o emisiune frumoasă la Pro TV mulți ani. Ulterior, a lansat o emisiune în parteneriat cu eMAG, emisiune care a ținut însă doar o perioadă. Motivul? Autorul simțea nevoia să răspundă comentariilor, exista o presiune simțită în acest sens, dar din motive diverse nu răspundea comentariilor.
Care e problema cu logica aceasta? Prea multă politețe. Da, nu e frumos să fii un transmițător de mesaje, și să eviți să răspunzi comentariilor multe care te inundă.
Pe de altă parte, a opri complet emisiunea mi se pare o eroare.
Aș fi preferat impolitețea de a nu avea răspunsuri, față de varianta de a dispărea complet.