I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent picture" of someone else is very short. Generally, it is whatever is the shortest length of time required to determine "are they acting in accordance with my desires or not?".
If the person is generally helping to make things happen which you want to have happen, you form a favorable impression of them quickly.
If they are unhelpful, you tend to think negatively of them. There is rarely a deep consideration of who the person actually is, or what might motivate them to behave the way they do.
Of course, if they are not only helpful, but are creating new opportunities, we call them "visionary" or "leaders". Great people.
If their actions are opposed (directly or indirectly) but very obviously to what we think our needs and desires are, we label them "enemy" and push them into that definition.
I'm having a hard time articulating what I want to get across, but it boils down to this: after a while, we stop acting on information that might change our perception of who someone is. We just think of them as "being a certain way" and observe all behavior from there on out as solidifying that definition in our minds.
I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.
> I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.
But a truly "person who is currently acting smart" may realise that they simply do not have the time to continue treating this "person who is currently acting stupid" as if they're simply acting that way, and may make a temporary value judgement about that person fully in the knowledge that it's an over-simplification and useful only in the present situation. Doing so may also be a smart thing to do, as it allows said person to actually get something done.
> I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.
That's a very humanities 1990s definition of "smart," and one that I don't think is remotely accurate, either.
Thanks, that was an awesome read. I'm going to get the book. While this post was short & to the point, I felt there was a lot of generalizing going on... I mean, what the heck is "smart" and "stupid" anyways? Don't we all define that in our own minds? Asymmetric insight; now that's some serious stuff to reflect on...
I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent picture" of someone else is very short. Generally, it is whatever is the shortest length of time required to determine "are they acting in accordance with my desires or not?".
If the person is generally helping to make things happen which you want to have happen, you form a favorable impression of them quickly.
If they are unhelpful, you tend to think negatively of them. There is rarely a deep consideration of who the person actually is, or what might motivate them to behave the way they do.
Of course, if they are not only helpful, but are creating new opportunities, we call them "visionary" or "leaders". Great people.
If their actions are opposed (directly or indirectly) but very obviously to what we think our needs and desires are, we label them "enemy" and push them into that definition.
I'm having a hard time articulating what I want to get across, but it boils down to this: after a while, we stop acting on information that might change our perception of who someone is. We just think of them as "being a certain way" and observe all behavior from there on out as solidifying that definition in our minds.
I think a truly "smart person" is someone who is always staying open to the possibility of people changing radically, however unlikely that may seem.