What is your interpretation on this statement?

[AresX9]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.

My interpretation is that if someone blows off, say reading the newspaper, which is a vital source of knowledge for the seasoned working class citizen, what prevents an assumption that this same person will blow off a major corporate budget which can lead to the downfall of that corporation?

Discuss.

[inquisitive]

Ah there is a saying,

assumption is the mother of all **** ups.
I have learnt never to assume what someone will or won't do, well not to take it as the 'law' anyway. Everyone makes their decisions based on the information available to them at the time, and hopefully logic, common sense and rational judgement (and if they are an F, how they feel about it.)

[blueback]

You can't determine anything about a person from one event. You need a cluster of events and the full context of each to even come close.

That being said, I think the phrase has a grain of truth in it. The problem is interpreting the little things the right way. We never know what's really going on in someone's head so we never know exactly why they did something.

[Double Victory]

You can't determine anything about a person from one event. You need a cluster of events and the full context of each to even come close.

That being said, I think the phrase has a grain of truth in it. The problem is interpreting the little things the right way. We never know what's really going on in someone's head so we never know exactly why they did something.

I agree with this.

Although you could take it another way, in that with very small things people tend to react rather than think, so you sort of get a glimpse of who they are on the inside. With big decisions, people oftentimes think themselves into the ground, instead of just going with some sort of gut reaction.

[tp6626]

I think it could have some truth in it.

An example. At my work, there is a 'rotund' female manager who is always complaining about being overweight, and how she really wants a good figure back.

Now in my mind that translates as "I want something and I am too weak willed or not patient / persistent enough to make it happen".

Leading on from this, I reason "If this person is set targets at work, just how hard are they going to work towards achieving them?" and "Will they actually achieve them?".

And then onto "Why would I even want to employ (fat) people who moan about wanting something, clearly demonstrating that they have no capability to realise their desires (small problem) and targets (big problem)".

[Tocsin]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.

When I read this statement, a passage from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets popped back into mind:

"So I should be in Slytherin," Harry said, looking desperately into Dumbledore's face. "The Sorting Hat could see Slytherin's power in me, and it-"

"Put you in Gryffindor," said Dumbledore calmly. "Listen to me, Harry. You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own very rare gift- Parseltoungue- resourcefulness- determination- a certain disregard for the rules," he added, his mustache quivering again. "Yet the Sorting Hat placed you in Gryffindor. You know why that was. Think."

"It only put me in Gryffindor," said Harry in a defeated voice, "because I asked not to go in Slytherin..."

"Exactly," said Dumbledore, beaming once more. "Which makes you very different from Tom Riddle. It is our choices, Harry, that show who we really are, far more than our abilities."

That is what I glean from the statement, it is what we choose to do that determines who we are, rather than what he hope to do or think we should do, but don't.

[AresX9]

When I read this statement, a passage from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets popped back into mind:



That is what I glean from the statement, it is what we choose to do that determines who we are, rather than what he hope to do or think we should do, but don't.

I used to be big on Harry Potter back when it was big, never thought of the connection.

[GuerrillaVoyage]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.

My interpretation is that if someone blows off, say reading the newspaper, which is a vital source of knowledge for the seasoned working class citizen, what prevents an assumption that this same person will blow off a major corporate budget which can lead to the downfall of that corporation?

Discuss.

That is one of the more general statements I've been exposed to in awhile. And I think you're trying to attribute a universal fact to your life lenses of the world.

[Zedicus]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.

My interpretation is that if someone blows off, say reading the newspaper, which is a vital source of knowledge for the seasoned working class citizen, what prevents an assumption that this same person will blow off a major corporate budget which can lead to the downfall of that corporation?

Discuss.

What should prevent the assumption is that there are reasons for different actions.

Why someone does or does not do a thing is just as important as what they do, if not more so.

If a person reads a newspaper because they know their boss likes it, then this person may be more likely to blow off a corporate budget then the person who does not read the newspaper because they think that the newspaper is too biased in its opinions.

[stasis]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.
I'm guessing that this supposed insight into a person's character is granted by the idea that the so-called smallest things are less likely to be done to appeal or impress, thus being reliably 'genuine'. The manner in which a businessman pours his or her wine isn't as likely to be the highly practiced facade that his public greeting might be. Look then to the wine for insight. Et cetera.

But let's say our subject grabs his wineglass roughly and spills a couple of drops as he's filling it for the first time. What are we to take this to indicate? That he's reckless and overeager? Careless, and might be careless when it really matters? Or maybe he just has poor motor control, which wouldn't be at all relevant in his professional capacity as the head of corporate accounting. Some people don't read the newspaper because they can get the same information much more rapidly from the internet. Impatience, or efficiency?

It sounds like the sort of assembly line Confucianism that one can find at the heart of any fortune cookie.

[Neo]

I dont read the newspaper because I believe the mass media manufactures world opinion by not reporting or under reporting what is going on - if 'reporting' is what you could call it, it is more like an opinion on what gets most people's attention. Now, how would anyone observing my morning routine guess that from what they saw?

I dont wash my car firstly because it is a silver/grey colour and you dont really notice the dust on it or the oxidation of it, and secondly it is an old car and the paint on it will probably last longer than the rest of the car. I live in a drought declared area and car washing has been banned until it starts raining again, even so, some car proud people still wash their cars - most people probably think that I am just being a good citizen.

How many reasons can you think of for the following and what do they say about me?
My desk is messy.
I insist on bringing my own coffee to work instead of drinking the office coffee.
I dont let my wife drive - ever.

[AresX9]

I'm guessing that this supposed insight into a person's character is granted by the idea that the so-called smallest things are less likely to be done to appeal or impress, thus being reliably 'genuine'. The manner in which a businessman pours his or her wine isn't as likely to be the highly practiced facade that his public greeting might be. Look then to the wine for insight. Et cetera.

But let's say our subject grabs his wineglass roughly and spills a couple of drops as he's filling it for the first time. What are we to take this to indicate? That he's reckless and overeager? Careless, and might be careless when it really matters? Or maybe he just has poor motor control, which wouldn't be at all relevant in his professional capacity as the head of corporate accounting. Some people don't read the newspaper because they can get the same information much more rapidly from the internet. Impatience, or efficiency?

It sounds like the sort of assembly line Confucianism that one can find at the heart of any fortune cookie.

Indeed, it is to look at an individual's character. It is "designed" to pinpoint those that are "genuine", meaning those that truly believe in what they are doing is right for their own reasons. It is also "designed" to expose those that go against society in turn for their own personal benefits.

I dont read the newspaper because I believe the mass media manufactures world opinion by not reporting or under reporting what is going on - if 'reporting' is what you could call it, it is more like an opinion on what gets most people's attention. Now, how would anyone observing my morning routine guess that from what they saw?

I dont wash my car firstly because it is a silver/grey colour and you dont really notice the dust on it or the oxidation of it, and secondly it is an old car and the paint on it will probably last longer than the rest of the car. I live in a drought declared area and car washing has been banned until it starts raining again, even so, some car proud people still wash their cars - most people probably think that I am just being a good citizen.

How many reasons can you think of for the following and what do they say about me?
My desk is messy.
I insist on bringing my own coffee to work instead of drinking the office coffee.
I dont let my wife drive - ever.

The newspaper was just an example. I too am in agreement that mass media is controlling the feed of information that the general population gets. For example, most people that I speak to have no idea who Ron Paul is, how many civilians have died in Iraq, etc.

[Silence]

How many reasons can you think of for the following and what do they say about me?
My desk is messy.
I insist on bringing my own coffee to work instead of drinking the office coffee.
I dont let my wife drive - ever.

To me, these things say:
-That you have a messy desk.

-That you prefer the taste of your own coffee to 'office coffe' - and I used to do the same thing. I'm with you on that one.

-That you must have an extremely tolerant and patient wife.

[enWTFp]

I strongly disagree. To be honest, I find this statement terribly dehumanizing.

Actually, I would expect someone who is very good at large-scale operations to not be so careful with their day-to-day life tasks.

Personal growth doesn't happen proportionally. Some of the most brilliant people you can find in their field, are full of inconsistencies and oddness. It complements their brilliance, something has to go.

Arguably the most influential mathematician of 20th century, Alexander Grothendieck, was not good with numbers. Once asked to pick a random prime number in a discussion with another mathematician, it is remembered how he has chosen 57. Yet, this guy has built some of the most abstract and powerful systematic methods in recent mathematical history that are still advancing many fields even today. (he most probably is INTJ)

I hope nobody gets offended, but I've noticed INTPs tend to expect from others to meet the standards of their own (personal!) working ethics. This can be very discouraging for the surrounding talented people, the lack of ability to see the potential of someone else with completely different way of functioning.

If my teachers were thinking in the described way, I would have been thrown out of school in 1st grade. I never learnt to count properly or the simple algorithms like multiplication and division. I was using my own way of reasoning, but it was working and that's what matters. The same way later I was able to top my peers at various competitions and exams, because I was not necessary following "rules", but my own jumping intuition. The efficiency is demonstrated even better with harder and non-standard problems, than with trivial ones.

Similarly, a guy who doesn't read the newspaper is probably quite confident with his own ways to get the information he needs for accomplishing his goals. This doesn't directly imply, of course, that he is a dependable person, but if I'm able to check his actual good results in practice, then his day-to-day impracticality would only assure me that this is an out-of-the-box individual with original vision and determination to make it work.I'm guessing that this supposed insight into a person's character is granted by the idea that the so-called smallest things are less likely to be done to appeal or impress, thus being reliably 'genuine'.In my opinion, if someone is motivated to impress, it should not be discouraged, but used to their advantage. It doesn't change how genuine they are, because the abilities they develop are as genuine as others, only inspired by different motivations. Hence, I don't understand why, following the original statement, we should not trust the abilities of someone who shows with his daily routines that he doesn't have the 'right' motivations.

[Homini Lupus]

There are some indirect things I look at to make assumptions about people, but they are not many and I know it's not an efficient method for depth knowledge, expecially when culture and education may be the causes of peculiar behaviours rather than personality. Most of the times however, the idea stated in the OP is wrong. A good tactician is not a good strategist just as a 100 meters runner is not good at marathons.

[Tyrant Soup]

It means messing with subatomic particles can cause brain damage.

[Neo]

To me, these things say:
-That you have a messy desk.

-That you prefer the taste of your own coffee to 'office coffe' - and I used to do the same thing. I'm with you on that one.

-That you must have an extremely tolerant and patient wife.

Actually my two year old loves playing on my desk, no matter how many times I stop him (a parent needs to pick thier battles)

Yes I prefer my own coffee, it is much better quality. I can't stand instant coffee it tastes foul. I use a stove top espresso maker.

My wife is leagally blind and cant drive, but you wouldnt know this if you didnt know her well.

So my point is that you shouldn't judge people until your sure, till them give then the benefit of the doubt.

[Silence]

Actually my two year old loves playing on my desk, no matter how many times I stop him (a parent needs to pick thier battles)

Yes I prefer my own coffee, it is much better quality. I can't stand instant coffee it tastes foul. I use a stove top espresso maker.

My wife is leagally blind and cant drive, but you wouldnt know this if you didnt know her well.

So my point is that you shouldn't judge people until your sure, till them give then the benefit of the doubt.

Your point doesn't hold water, because a) you didn't give the facts to begin with. You gave generalised statements, and asked "How many reasons can you think of for the following and what do they say about me?" b) I did not judge you in the slightest, and my answers were correct for each of your questions, and c) you implied control over your wife, and now make a statement that she cannot drive, instead of leading people to believe she would drive, if you did not prevent her from doing so.

It's been my experience that giving people the benefit of the doubt means they lie, change things to suit them, or will abuse the trust given them in some way or another. This example of mild trickery in the small form of a 'lesson' did not disappoint my expectations.

[Zedicus]

Your point doesn't hold water, because a) you didn't give the facts to begin with. You gave generalised statements, and asked "How many reasons can you think of for the following and what do they say about me?" b) I did not judge you in the slightest, and my answers were correct for each of your questions, and c) you implied control over your wife, and now make a statement that she cannot drive, instead of leading people to believe she would drive, if you did not prevent her from doing so.

It's been my experience that giving people the benefit of the doubt means they lie, change things to suit them, or will abuse the trust given them in some way or another. This example of mild trickery in the small form of a 'lesson' did not disappoint my expectations.

I may not be my place to say this but Silence, I think Neo's point was not pointed at you. The trickery was intentional to answer the question in the OP (A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.) not you personally.

[zibber]

A person's actions on the smallest things determine who they really are.

My interpretation is that if someone blows off, say reading the newspaper, which is a vital source of knowledge for the seasoned working class citizen, what prevents an assumption that this same person will blow off a major corporate budget which can lead to the downfall of that corporation?


How are the two paragraphs related? I think the first statement is quite empty, and disagree with your assessment of "the newspaper" as a vital source of knowledge. I guess that in the business world, though, bias/inaccuracy of the (big) news media isn't a relevant factor, so the latter part of the second paragraph could be accurate.