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.
Non-practice
Loving your enemies
There are two ways of looking at love:
- “I can love everyone, but especially those enemies. They are bad and evil, but still, I love them. Evil exists, but it doesn’t bother me.”
- “I love anyone. I think enemies don’t exist; the whole world is made of friends. If there are people that do bad deeds (I don’t they are, but they might be), I will consider they do evil out of a lack of knowledge, AND I will also consider that it’s totally fine for me to go through the bad stuff.”
I prefer the latter option.
I think:
- Every bad thing can be attributed to a lack of knowledge/intelligence. If I can do this, it’s very easy to forgive.
- I also think that if a bad thing happens to me, it is totally fine.
How are people in the USA?
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.
Targets and objectives for Kazakhstan – do they aim high enough?
Abbreviations used in this document
- FDI – foreign direct investment.
- GDP – gross domestic product.
- GNP – gross national product.
- IMF – International Monetary Fund.
- KRU – Kazakhstan, Russia, and Ukraine.
- PPP – public-private partnership.
- SSR – Soviet Socialist Republic.
- UK – United Kingdom.
1. Introduction – the aim of this essay
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.
This wouldn’t disturb me, but someone else
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
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.
Remembering bad things
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.
E bine să iei atitudine când vezi o nedreptate?
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. :)
Prea multă politețe
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.
Muschetari vs. Mușchetari
Ca fapt divers, mi-a plăcut ce a zis regretatul George Pruteanu despre mușchetari – anume că s-ar numi muschetari, cu “s”, de la “muschetă”, nu cu “ș” de la “mușchi”.
Dar n-a prins sugestia lui. :)