At 2/27/07 12:22 AM, intrinsik2 wrote:
Well, that's because labels and images aren't suppose to be something entirely our own. We find idividuality in our images through nuance, and identity or relation in our images through the culture's (or micro-culture's) definition of that image.
I don't buy it. Labels and images ARE entirely our own, it's OTHER'S understanding and perception of the reality of our self-image that is wrapped up in communicating that image. If I were to convert this, metaphorically, to a different situation, self-image would be your laptop, communication would be the inter-network, and whatever other images would be the collective servers and PC's, etc. that everyone else owns.
Labels and images are a form of communication. Communication requires that both parties have an understanding of the other's symbology. Even in the event that a person's image is indescript, it is indescript to communicate indescriptness - though any onlooker will be quicker to find an existing label to put them into to remove ambiguity.
You're right here, but I don't agree that that's how things should work. Labels aren't a form of communication, however, I see them more as a physical reality. It's like describing a rock; the rock itself isn't a form of communication, but by describing it, you are communicating your understanding of the actuality you're presented with. I consider labels to be the truths each person wants them to be, and the proof of that truth lies in that individual's ability to properly communicate their reality to others.
It's a healthier way to look at the world, because that way miscommunication and misperception can't be blamed on something as ridiculous as "Oh, well, I couldn't describe what I was seeing because the object I was looking at's reality was altered." It forces responsibility on the end-user, which is socially, mentally, and egotistically healthy, I think.
A listener applying improper labelling as a shortcut to understanding is irresponsible, and another mistake that I think the people involved in the conversation should be held accountable for, instead of the inanimate objects they're attempting to describe.
It's somewhat of a social inevitability. Beyond dressing styles, or high-level labels, there are plenty of lower-level labels with which we identify ourselves to others.
It's not really an inevitability so much as it is laziness, which many people are susceptible to. It's easier, and we're taught from a very young age that, in most cases, the easiest route is the best one.
A first impression doesn't negate a second... or third... etc...
Which is why I throw the whole impressions model out the window and refuse to believe in first impressions. I know only what I think of you currently vs. what I think of you overall. Instantaneous and not. I suppose the first contact's instantaneous thought could be considered a first impression, but by the time it's established there's another moment to draw from, and so on an so forth.
Ultimately true. Per-instance it is not much more than an ideal to strive for.
I think you're suggesting I'm in ideal. I'm flattered. : )
Yea, but it's lame that they're so worried about being right that it becomes detrimental to the potential conversation at hand.
Yeah.
I'm glad you fully agree here.