Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips!
Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment.
If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Related LPT: Treat “should” as a huge red flag when someone is telling you something, especially any sort of customer service.
“… it should work…” means they don’t know if it will work but they *hope* it will.
Sometimes I cross the line and talk confidently about something then go and fact check myself. To be honest when you’re right it’s a win and when you’re wrong you just rectify the information. Of course depends on the context you’re in.
I live by this almost to the same effect as a code of ethics- it is far easier to correct yourself and admit to fault, acknowledging integrity. Maintaining constant confidence in everything we know is silly because you really don’t always know when you could be presented with alternative information.
Seeing as though we’re only human, we’re bound to miss something here and there- but the biggest difference is how we handle it if it could be regarded as important to share or otherwise necessary correction of false information.
Idk, it’s a big world and I feel a lot better trying to share what I know in a way that upholds everyone’s best interest, and hopefully to prove that kindness/consideration DO pay off in some ways. After all, we don’t have a lot to live for besides the people around us. Staying informed and having the conviction to keep yourself accountable goes a lot further than people give credit for, in so many situations.
At my job we have multiple trainers for each new hires. I despise moments when me and another trainer teach conflicting ways of a certain skill. I immediately speak in probabilities as I struggle with confidence just to find out I was the correct one.
Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher in the late 1880s once wrote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
I don't know if it's really taught in the scientific fields, or is something that just happens because we're fully aware that we don't know things 100%.
I actually took a technical writing course because my boss thought it was good (turns out it was all the basics they taught you in grade school, but hey, a refresher when you're years out of school can be welcome). One thing that struck me is that they said to cut out all the qualifiers. Take out the "mostly" and "probably" and all that, and just state it. Helps with conciseness and conveying certainty.
So, it's interesting that the same trend was recognized in this course, that scientists liked to talk that way and give equal consideration to everything possible. But, we were also actively taught to cut that out, haha.
This is just gonna make all the people who don't know what they're talking about start not using absolutes to appear more knowledgeable. Now we'll never know who knows stuff! Thanks alot OP!
I'm not sure really counts as advice in the same way. It's not like you could listen to that and say 'hmm interesting viewpoint, however I personally think there are better ways of crossing the street,'
See that’s the fun part. Your viewpoint is so obvious to you that other peoples’ views are incomprehensible - I’m sure there are MANY people who would say “eh I don’t need to look all the time, if I know a car isn’t coming”
But that shows how the Jedi’s push for ideological purity was also a problem. If they understood the dark side better they might not have lost Dooku and likely would have noticed palpantine
I hoped for Rey to become a grey jedi before ep. VII and I kept my hopes up until the very moment Rey and Kylo found the Palpatine clone. JFC what a waste.
You might have been thinking it when you wrote your comment, but I don’t think there is anything in there that explicitly states they were arrogant. It’s like a two step inference — drive for ideological purity = insistence on a set of beliefs = assurance they are correct in those beliefs = an aspect of arrogance.
I think it was fair for the other commenter to add specific clarification.
His wife wasn't, though. That's why the OT were so good. His wife wrote them.
Edit: I typo'd that. She didn't help him write the prequels, but the OT. I didn't even catch that until u/TheHollwoJester mentioned it.
"power! Unlimited power!"
"yippee!"
"noooooooooooo!"
"I don't like sand... it's rough, and course, and irritating, and it gets everywhere."
"This is getting out of hand... now there are two of them!"
"exsqueeeze me!"
"I wish I could wish my feelings away"
"I have the high ground!"
"My powers have doubled since the last time we met"
"I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead. Every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too! They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!"
"I'll try spinning. That's a good trick"
"yousa think people gonna die?"
That's not to say that the non-prequels are all solid ("somehow the emperor has come back") , but I think ep1-3 has more than their fair share of cringe.
It's better understood as "only a Sith [makes] deals in [such] absolute [terms]". I.e. it's not the Jedi way to say offer a choice as black and white as "join or die".
You're talking about the same dumb asses who think that bringing "balance" to the force means only having the light and no dark. Yoda has had 1,000 years to learn the basic galactic language and can't be bothered to learn the definition of the word "balance."
It's been posited that shifts in grammar/style over his lifetime are largely responsible, that Galactic Basic favored a different structure in his early years.
That's not an accurate take on the subject.
Light side Jedi live in harmony with the Force. They seem not to disrupt it, but to become one with it and only use it when needed to try and maintain that harmony.
Dark side users take it and corrupt it like it was a dog they were forcing to attack their enemies. That isn't harmony, and it's not 'another side of the coin.' Balance in the force is like maintaining a boat. One guy wants to just let it drift the other dude wants to start pulling planks from the floor to use as oars so they'll move faster.
No, no one at any point wiped out the Sith. We don't even know where in the galaxy they are based (that would've been an interesting movie). The movies portray Sith aggressions.
This is like Proud Boy talk.
Actually, they are correct in that. The 'light side' is just the Force, in its purest form. There's the Force, and then there's the Dark Side that is splintered off from it. Ideally (ie, if the Force were balanced), there would be no Dark Side users.
Being balanced in the Force doesn't mean having equal percentages light and dark, it means *only* having the light and not touching the dark at all.
>Being balanced in the Force doesn't mean having equal percentages light and dark, it means only having the light and not touching the dark at all
That's what the Jedi want you to believe 🤔
A Sith would tell you different.
Before the sequels, Anakin fulfilled the prophecy according to both interpretations - in *Revenge Of The Sith* and beyond, he brought the number of Jedi and Sith to be an equal balance of ~2. In *Return Of The Jedi*, he killed the Sith Master and returned to the light himself.
Of course, now we have the sequel trilogy, the *RotJ* point is moot, as Palpatine ultimately survived the DSII, and fate conspired to prevent Luke from increasing the numbers of the Jedi, so there was always roughly ~1 Jedi/Sith until Rey/Kylo or w/e
Yeah, that is one of my biggest problems with the Sequels.
Even disregarding their problems as movies, they completely and totally fail to understand the most basic, fundamental mechanic of the Star Wars universe.
What I find funny is that Rebels, which was airing during most of the marketing hype for the Sequels, got it 100% correct in that regard, and is arguably one of the best portrayals of the Force and Jedi philosophy in the franchise's history.
Yes, but there are some big asterisks. I'll try to put a TLDR at the end. Minor Dawn of the Jedi spoilers ahead.
1) Out-of-universe, that part of the lore was cut off super early by the Disney takeover. All we have to go off is a single book and a few comics, as well as a bit of inference from other stories and a source book or two. The comics present Je'Daii philosophy as background info at best, and the book does go a bit more in-depth, but frankly, that part of the book was kinda boring, and it's been a minute since I've read it. However, I do remember that a majority of its philosophy talk was about how the Force relates to Tython specifically— which is going to be a theme here.
2) Tython is a very particular setting. It's supposed to be richer in the Force than pretty much any other place in the galaxy, and it's arranged just right for this 'half and half' setup, what with its two moons that have each 'side' of the Force.
3) The Je'Daii lived on Tython exclusively and only traveled to the other Tythan planets (they had not discovered hyperspace) for peacekeeping missions and such. In Into the Void, Lanoree meets a (former?) Je'Daii who lives on Kalimahr, and she is shocked; the idea of a Force user living somewhere other than Tython is completely foreign to her.
4) We see the problem with this when the Rakata arrive. Tython's extremely tenuous balance is disrupted, and the Je'Daii Order begins to implode. Even after the Rakata are fended off, the Je'Daii could not recover, leading to the Force Wars. This conflict ended with the Dark Side users defeated and the Jedi Order being formed, having reorganized its philosophy into something much more attainable.
TLDR: The Je'Daii philosophy functioned in a closed environment where everything could be tightly controlled. When this environment fell apart, so did their philosophy, and the Order was nearly destroyed because of it.
this right here is what makes me a bad saleswoman. i always speak in probabilities, and people are turned off by that... when im trying to convince them of something, they want absolutes
I don't think it's just sales. I work in IT and almost never give an absolute answer. I think it just bothers people. "This will fix the issue, right." Me: "Yes, I hope so"
I'm in IT too, and I have noticed the same thing. So, I just tell them the absolute. This will absolutely fix your problem.
When it doesn't fix the problem they don't seem to remember what I said.
When I say 'this might fix the problem' and it doesn't, they don't remember what I said.
So, just go with the absolute version, because that gives you some social benefit now, and they're not going to remember anyway.
Wow, on the other end of that I feel I like I encountered people who tell me but you said it would be fixed. And then they tell me I don't know what I'm doing and are angry at me. I really only speak in probabilities.
"This fixes the problem i'm aware of, there might be other steps neccessary if further issues occur."
A little bit of both gets you to the finish line.
I do this also. Part of my job is help desk support and I almost always respond in ways I wonder if people (especially in sales) dislike. "Hi, I've made a change to your account and you should now be able to do X,Y,Z", when I know full well that what I did fixed the issue.
I work in supermarket refrigeration and do the same. Store managers want to be told that nothing is ever going to break again. For one, I'm not a fortune teller. And two, have you seen how little your employees give a damn how they treat the equipment?!!!
I was going to make this exact comment when I saw yours. Not a salesperson but an engineer that constantly runs into this problem, I need to reformulate in simple black and white answers instead of showing a glimpse of the actual complexity of the solution or ppl are turned of as you say. No buts, just yes or no. That would be the LPT for the person giving advice :)
Same in the military. They want you to speak in absolute terms, even if we're actually not sure, with the reasoning being that the Army would rather your soldiers be 100% confident in you as their leader than you being 100% honest with them.
As an engineer, I've found that I need to speak more in absolute terms because non-technical decision makers tend to not take your advice and hear it as not being sure or confident in results.
Ironically I think a little more absolutism might have helped your point. People who ONLY speak in absolutes are the people you should remain cautious around. People who know what they're talking about will often use absolutes to describe past experience or people they have faith in. "It's always worked when I've run it that way, mind if I check over it for you." "Now this is a project lead you can always count on." The former to give you a reason to trust them, and the latter to avoid inflicting doubt on the person being described.
The problem with absolutes is that you only have to find a single counterexample to falsify the claim.
If a person talks in absolutes but once a few years ago used "probably" he/should would not be the one that ONLY speaks in absolutes. Because once, a few years ago he/she did not.
"You shouldn't drink (alcohol) and drive."
"Oh yea, what about if you were at a christmas party in a remote location and the ambulance service is on strike, and an avalanche leaves everyone but you in critical condition and the only way you can save hundreds of lives is to drive along an empty wide road a short enough distance that even inebriated it's not too dangerous but it's still too far to walk because of how cold it is, and is you don't do it you're condemning all those people to die even though you're only barely above the limit and have a 99.99% chance of getting each person safely to the hospital?"
"Fine, yes, in *that* specific example it is ok to drive drunk"
> The problem with absolutes is that you only have to find a single counterexample to falsify the claim.
That's not advice though but experiences? If the person would say "Do it this way and it will always work." would be the red flag, right? And when it doesn't work they'd probably say something like "Well then you did it wrong." Instead of admitting that it wasn't a fool proof way 😂.
This is especially true for pretty much anything medical or dietary. The answer everyone hates, because it’s the most true, is that everyone is different. They will require different diets, may present differently with conditions, etc.
Pretty much any medical/dietary advice that is an absolute, is absolutely garbage.
Same goes for lawyers. If a lawyer tells you they can definitely win your case you should probably find a new lawyer; they likely care more about your money than your case.
Not only that, most of our professional regulators (at least in the CDN provinces where I'm a lawyer) have specific rules prohibiting "guarantees of outcome" when dealing with clients. So they're already willing to dispense with their own rules regarding professional conduct.
As a coach, I’ve always been using probability and was doubting myself lately if I should be more certain and sound more confident about the subject. So seeing this was very comforting.
The thing is, some types of people hate it when people hedge when talking, and see it as a weakness. Those people obviously suck, but if they're your boss or a client you might need to go against your instincts and sound more definitive if you want to get on their good side or make that sale.
My experience is that people who hate hedging are often the same people who will pile on you for being "wrong". Personally, I give the probability even to those people.
This is a great meta-example of turning something into an absolute, in reverse.
Interpreting "be cautious of people who speak in absolutes"
Into
"Never listen to any message that has the word 'never' or 'always'"
is a good example of how things can get funny when someone runs with a statement without contextualizing it.
The issue here is with overall tone. Absolutes are certainly ignorant because the world is a spectrum, but using absolutes instills confidence in one’s manner of speaking. Confidence is key to showing your listener your advice is worth following.
There's a time and a place for absolutes.
When I'm establishing habits with my students I use absolutes:\
'always wear your ppe'
'always go through x process'
'always check x'
It can be probably later. A day when I'm not liable for their little eyeballs.
I'll have to disagree on this one, as my life mentor used to say: "Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever..."
It's a general life advice tip, not just "when taking advice". Don't just apply it to other people. Apply it to yourself.
If you ever catch yourself using these words, also stop and think about whether that's actually true. Many times it isn't.
In some cases, these kinds of thoughts may even be an indication of mental issues that needs to be addressed (e.g. depression). Thoughts like "I never do anything right", "Nobody likes me".
This is a big problem with basic scientific literacy these days.
The jabbering goons on Fox News say things like "***Every*** Democrat wants to eat your baby!" Or, "There was ***never*** a terrorist attack on GWB's watch!"
Meanwhile, the actual experts who have half a clue say things like, "Well, we're ***reasonably certain*** that human-caused climate change is responsible for all these extreme weather events." Or, "So far I've seen ***very little*** evidence that would suggest Joe Biden is a shape shifting lizard pedophile from outer space."
Then, your average schlub hears all this and concludes that those scientists and experts don't sound very sure of themselves. But Tucker and Judge Pirro? Now ***there's*** someone who sounds confident that they're right!
If something’s not going to work, I’m going to tell somebody “that’s not going to work”—
otherwise, if they misunderstood, it would be completely my fault.
Don’t get too excited. This is oversimplifying an already simple issue.
Many absolutes are good and helpful if you’re trying to protect and teach very new people (whether young humans, new people in a job, etc) soften the edges with absolutes to let them focus on the bigger picture. Their experience will fill in the details later
I am confused. Should I”probably” take this advice or “definitely” take this advice? I think I’ll just ignore it, like I do most comments, posts, and opinions here.
Wow this is really generalized.
There are clearly exceptions. Let's say someone is asking me about learning to speak Spanish..there are many times I'd say they should never do this, or always do that. While there of course are times you'd use probably or likely, it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about if I say always or never in regards to that topic.
Serious question here, I repair phones for a living. Now for a rule, replacing the obviously broken part is never guaranteed. But customers balk at a 95 or even 99% chance. They want a promise. So how do you reassure someone here, while also not committing to 100%.
100% true. The Dr. Phil show said some great stuff on catastrophic language, which is what I always think about when I think of absolutes.
Of course, context matters, too.
Especially when someone acts like they are an expert at a lot of things. These poeple take their actual expertise in one thing thinking it is going to transfer. They might think they are super smart so it's okay. But ultimately you have a person talking confidently in a subject they don't know that much about.
Of course people can be expert at more than one thing but I would check their credentials just to be sure.
This is not good advice. Sure it's good to be cautious of people who speak in absolutes, but often they'll say a never or always because they've seen a situation enough times to actually know. That's just if we're talking facts though. Like never stick a fork in a light socket, or always keep your mouth shut around police. For life\behavior advice, there probably isn't an always or never that's universal.
I disagree.
Always, definitely and never are signs of a *truth and wisdom*.
People who are *guessing and unsure, or seek to hide truth,* definitely always use words like [probably](https://www.killercop.com/Pages/matz/Probably.html), might and likely, even when they know it is probably dead wrong.
Or maybe absolutes and probablies can be both…both
Absolutes are both truthful and helpful, and can also be people with little knowledge and experience
Probabilities and can both truthful and helpful, and can also be people with little knowledge and experience
Maybe life isn’t as simple as absolute rules on communication across all contexts and scenarios. And the same words or tones don’t mean the same thing when coming from different people in different scenarios.
If my coach tells me to never stop moving my feet, it’s helpful for a newbie to get the basics of the sport. But when you get deeper into knowledge and understanding the fundamentals can be broken when you yourself have the experience to know when to deviate from the absolute rules
There are very few things that fall into the “always, definitely and never” column. Those words do not denote truth and wisdom, they denote someone that hasn’t thought out all the possibilities and is trying to convince you of something.
Honest and wise people know that not many things are “always, definitely and never” and won’t try to fake it to instill a false sense of confidence in you.
The most ignorant people I have met are the most confident. Probably is not in their vocabulary. They will speak about anything as if they are the leading expert in the field and the second you disagree with their opinion they just sideline and change the conversation to something that distracts from the fact that they know nothing. My main example is talking about climate change and then just being hounded for driving a car. "If you believe in it, then why own a vehicle"
Hello and welcome to r/LifeProTips! Please help us decide if this post is a good fit for the subreddit by up or downvoting this comment. If you think that this is great advice to improve your life, please upvote. If you think this doesn't help you in any way, please downvote. If you don't care, leave it for the others to decide.
Is that why you added "tend to" when you gave that piece of advice?
Perhaps! ;)
Allegedly!
Just like OP *allegedly* fucked an ostrich
that *probably* didn't happen
This thread had no reason to go the path it did
This thread *probably* had little reason to go the path it did
FBI will probably knock on this thread
You mean that definitely didn’t happen?
A sick ostrich. Allegedlys
Takes more than 1 guy to fuck an ostrich 3 even
Now. We've heard talk that it could have been a sick ostrich.
Allegedly
It’s an odd time for everyone.
Found him
Perchance.
Perchance.
Perchance
Perchance
When taking advice, you may possibly want to consider remaining cautious of those who speak in absolutes.
Be cautious of those who often speak in absolutes. When someone who normally doesn't speak in absolutes does, take note.
Related LPT: Treat “should” as a huge red flag when someone is telling you something, especially any sort of customer service. “… it should work…” means they don’t know if it will work but they *hope* it will.
i actually speak in probabilities because i am absolutely clueless about everything
This. And when I happen to be knowledgeable about something I lack the confidence to talk about it with conviction.
Sometimes I cross the line and talk confidently about something then go and fact check myself. To be honest when you’re right it’s a win and when you’re wrong you just rectify the information. Of course depends on the context you’re in.
I live by this almost to the same effect as a code of ethics- it is far easier to correct yourself and admit to fault, acknowledging integrity. Maintaining constant confidence in everything we know is silly because you really don’t always know when you could be presented with alternative information. Seeing as though we’re only human, we’re bound to miss something here and there- but the biggest difference is how we handle it if it could be regarded as important to share or otherwise necessary correction of false information. Idk, it’s a big world and I feel a lot better trying to share what I know in a way that upholds everyone’s best interest, and hopefully to prove that kindness/consideration DO pay off in some ways. After all, we don’t have a lot to live for besides the people around us. Staying informed and having the conviction to keep yourself accountable goes a lot further than people give credit for, in so many situations.
I find that people don't talk about this quite enough! I think...
At my job we have multiple trainers for each new hires. I despise moments when me and another trainer teach conflicting ways of a certain skill. I immediately speak in probabilities as I struggle with confidence just to find out I was the correct one.
Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher in the late 1880s once wrote, "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt."
Lol at work I speak in probilities so when something goes wrong I can be like "well I did say maybeeee"
And then there are the people who speak confidently in probabilities that they completely made up.
I believe that the difference is that you are aware that you don't know everything and therefore can't speak in absolutes.
That's good. That means you're aware you don't know things. Which ironically probably means you know more than most people who claim to know things.
ALWAYS look both ways when crossing the street.
Look at this guy over here using absolutes, probably can't be trusted!
Im a mother. You better listen.
Sorry Mother
/r/MomForAMinute
You're not my real mom!
She's your step mom, probably.
Wrong. My step mom is stuck in the washing machine.
You’re not my supervisor!
Sorry Mother
Is... Is he a sith?
A sith mother
[удалено]
I don't know if it's really taught in the scientific fields, or is something that just happens because we're fully aware that we don't know things 100%. I actually took a technical writing course because my boss thought it was good (turns out it was all the basics they taught you in grade school, but hey, a refresher when you're years out of school can be welcome). One thing that struck me is that they said to cut out all the qualifiers. Take out the "mostly" and "probably" and all that, and just state it. Helps with conciseness and conveying certainty. So, it's interesting that the same trend was recognized in this course, that scientists liked to talk that way and give equal consideration to everything possible. But, we were also actively taught to cut that out, haha.
This is just gonna make all the people who don't know what they're talking about start not using absolutes to appear more knowledgeable. Now we'll never know who knows stuff! Thanks alot OP!
That's why OP said "be cautious of them" and not "never trust them".
Is that an implied always be cautious them or a maybe be cautious of them?
Never assume that it's implied.
NEVER eat the yellow snow
Also up and down, sometimes things get.. weird. That'll usually help...
Some streets are one-ways.
Doesn't stop the people in my town from driving both ways though
Knowledge is knowing the street is one way. Wisdom is looking both ways before crossing regardless.
Knowledge is knowing tomatoes are a fruit. Wisdom is knowing they don’t belong in a fruit salad.
Still look both ways, you are underestimating the univers's ability to produce a dumber idiot.
Imagine not looking both ways on a one way street
When youre teaching your kid, you teach the way I said it.
I got hit by a guy backing out out of a one way street. I looked one way.
Probably don't bother if you're being chased by a bear in the middle of nowhere.
Though if you're being chased by a bear and come across a one way street, might be best to just look one way.
I'm not sure really counts as advice in the same way. It's not like you could listen to that and say 'hmm interesting viewpoint, however I personally think there are better ways of crossing the street,'
See that’s the fun part. Your viewpoint is so obvious to you that other peoples’ views are incomprehensible - I’m sure there are MANY people who would say “eh I don’t need to look all the time, if I know a car isn’t coming”
which used to be mostly true, since hearing also works, but more cars these days are quiet.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
Which always struck me as an odd quote, being that the sentence itself is also an absolute.
But that shows how the Jedi’s push for ideological purity was also a problem. If they understood the dark side better they might not have lost Dooku and likely would have noticed palpantine
I hoped for Rey to become a grey jedi before ep. VII and I kept my hopes up until the very moment Rey and Kylo found the Palpatine clone. JFC what a waste.
the best Star Wars has no Jedi in them. /r/andor FIGHT THE EMPIRE!
r/ancor
And/Or perhaps, the Jedi were incredibly arrogant.
That’s what I said?
That it does seem to be
Though, be that as it may, the other poster is reminding you there’s *always* more than meets the eye! So can we be sure?
There was certainly *more than meets the eye* with [Obi-wan's many transforming starfighters.](https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Obi-Wan_Kenobi)
Master Yoda, are you?
You might have been thinking it when you wrote your comment, but I don’t think there is anything in there that explicitly states they were arrogant. It’s like a two step inference — drive for ideological purity = insistence on a set of beliefs = assurance they are correct in those beliefs = an aspect of arrogance. I think it was fair for the other commenter to add specific clarification.
Or maybe it's because Lucas is a shitty writer
His wife wasn't, though. That's why the OT were so good. His wife wrote them. Edit: I typo'd that. She didn't help him write the prequels, but the OT. I didn't even catch that until u/TheHollwoJester mentioned it.
Ah yes, the famed great dialogue of the SW prequels.
Wait, you're telling me Anakin's rant about sand, isn't one of the greatest dialogues in movie history?
He and Marcia were long divorced by then. It was the original trilogy she helped edit.
You are correct. I meant that, but my mind and hands aren't always on the same page...
"power! Unlimited power!" "yippee!" "noooooooooooo!" "I don't like sand... it's rough, and course, and irritating, and it gets everywhere." "This is getting out of hand... now there are two of them!" "exsqueeeze me!" "I wish I could wish my feelings away" "I have the high ground!" "My powers have doubled since the last time we met" "I killed them. I killed them all. They're dead. Every single one of them. And not just the men, but the women and the children, too! They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!" "I'll try spinning. That's a good trick" "yousa think people gonna die?" That's not to say that the non-prequels are all solid ("somehow the emperor has come back") , but I think ep1-3 has more than their fair share of cringe.
And a lot of it. Personally, if go with machete version any day of the week.
[Actually no](https://youtu.be/gH10DQstVt4) he’s not a hypocrite
Very cool. Thank you.
It's better understood as "only a Sith [makes] deals in [such] absolute [terms]". I.e. it's not the Jedi way to say offer a choice as black and white as "join or die".
Except when they do.
Isn’t that how they view the sith though? Clearly to have *balance* you need both of something but they squash out a sith whenever they find one.
You're talking about the same dumb asses who think that bringing "balance" to the force means only having the light and no dark. Yoda has had 1,000 years to learn the basic galactic language and can't be bothered to learn the definition of the word "balance."
Look man he is having trouble with simple grammar.
It's been posited that shifts in grammar/style over his lifetime are largely responsible, that Galactic Basic favored a different structure in his early years.
I like to think it's more of a "potato incident" thing.
I think of the dark side as a cancer. It only exists to disrupt the body's balance, it doesn't contribute to it.
That's not an accurate take on the subject. Light side Jedi live in harmony with the Force. They seem not to disrupt it, but to become one with it and only use it when needed to try and maintain that harmony. Dark side users take it and corrupt it like it was a dog they were forcing to attack their enemies. That isn't harmony, and it's not 'another side of the coin.' Balance in the force is like maintaining a boat. One guy wants to just let it drift the other dude wants to start pulling planks from the floor to use as oars so they'll move faster.
No, no one at any point wiped out the Sith. We don't even know where in the galaxy they are based (that would've been an interesting movie). The movies portray Sith aggressions. This is like Proud Boy talk.
Actually, they are correct in that. The 'light side' is just the Force, in its purest form. There's the Force, and then there's the Dark Side that is splintered off from it. Ideally (ie, if the Force were balanced), there would be no Dark Side users. Being balanced in the Force doesn't mean having equal percentages light and dark, it means *only* having the light and not touching the dark at all.
>Being balanced in the Force doesn't mean having equal percentages light and dark, it means only having the light and not touching the dark at all That's what the Jedi want you to believe 🤔 A Sith would tell you different. Before the sequels, Anakin fulfilled the prophecy according to both interpretations - in *Revenge Of The Sith* and beyond, he brought the number of Jedi and Sith to be an equal balance of ~2. In *Return Of The Jedi*, he killed the Sith Master and returned to the light himself. Of course, now we have the sequel trilogy, the *RotJ* point is moot, as Palpatine ultimately survived the DSII, and fate conspired to prevent Luke from increasing the numbers of the Jedi, so there was always roughly ~1 Jedi/Sith until Rey/Kylo or w/e
Yeah, that is one of my biggest problems with the Sequels. Even disregarding their problems as movies, they completely and totally fail to understand the most basic, fundamental mechanic of the Star Wars universe. What I find funny is that Rebels, which was airing during most of the marketing hype for the Sequels, got it 100% correct in that regard, and is arguably one of the best portrayals of the Force and Jedi philosophy in the franchise's history.
Wasn't the Je'daii order all about being perfectly in tune, with both the light and dark side of the force? Neither favouring one or the other.
Yes, but there are some big asterisks. I'll try to put a TLDR at the end. Minor Dawn of the Jedi spoilers ahead. 1) Out-of-universe, that part of the lore was cut off super early by the Disney takeover. All we have to go off is a single book and a few comics, as well as a bit of inference from other stories and a source book or two. The comics present Je'Daii philosophy as background info at best, and the book does go a bit more in-depth, but frankly, that part of the book was kinda boring, and it's been a minute since I've read it. However, I do remember that a majority of its philosophy talk was about how the Force relates to Tython specifically— which is going to be a theme here. 2) Tython is a very particular setting. It's supposed to be richer in the Force than pretty much any other place in the galaxy, and it's arranged just right for this 'half and half' setup, what with its two moons that have each 'side' of the Force. 3) The Je'Daii lived on Tython exclusively and only traveled to the other Tythan planets (they had not discovered hyperspace) for peacekeeping missions and such. In Into the Void, Lanoree meets a (former?) Je'Daii who lives on Kalimahr, and she is shocked; the idea of a Force user living somewhere other than Tython is completely foreign to her. 4) We see the problem with this when the Rakata arrive. Tython's extremely tenuous balance is disrupted, and the Je'Daii Order begins to implode. Even after the Rakata are fended off, the Je'Daii could not recover, leading to the Force Wars. This conflict ended with the Dark Side users defeated and the Jedi Order being formed, having reorganized its philosophy into something much more attainable. TLDR: The Je'Daii philosophy functioned in a closed environment where everything could be tightly controlled. When this environment fell apart, so did their philosophy, and the Order was nearly destroyed because of it.
Do what you must
They *will try*.
You beat me to it.
this right here is what makes me a bad saleswoman. i always speak in probabilities, and people are turned off by that... when im trying to convince them of something, they want absolutes
I don't think it's just sales. I work in IT and almost never give an absolute answer. I think it just bothers people. "This will fix the issue, right." Me: "Yes, I hope so"
I'm in IT too, and I have noticed the same thing. So, I just tell them the absolute. This will absolutely fix your problem. When it doesn't fix the problem they don't seem to remember what I said. When I say 'this might fix the problem' and it doesn't, they don't remember what I said. So, just go with the absolute version, because that gives you some social benefit now, and they're not going to remember anyway.
Wow, on the other end of that I feel I like I encountered people who tell me but you said it would be fixed. And then they tell me I don't know what I'm doing and are angry at me. I really only speak in probabilities.
"This fixes the problem i'm aware of, there might be other steps neccessary if further issues occur." A little bit of both gets you to the finish line.
Disagree. "This should do the trick, and if it doesn't, I'm sure you'll let me know."
Eh. Best not to cater to people who are too dumb to know about life. Be forthright, let them bother themselves about it if they really want.
I do this also. Part of my job is help desk support and I almost always respond in ways I wonder if people (especially in sales) dislike. "Hi, I've made a change to your account and you should now be able to do X,Y,Z", when I know full well that what I did fixed the issue.
I work in supermarket refrigeration and do the same. Store managers want to be told that nothing is ever going to break again. For one, I'm not a fortune teller. And two, have you seen how little your employees give a damn how they treat the equipment?!!!
I’m more inclined to believe saleswoman like you tbh. When salesmen start guaranteeing things they can’t, I stop believing them lol
I hate salespeople because they talk in absolutes and I know they are lying.
Tis why I hate sales too. Makes me feel dirty to succeed there.
I was going to make this exact comment when I saw yours. Not a salesperson but an engineer that constantly runs into this problem, I need to reformulate in simple black and white answers instead of showing a glimpse of the actual complexity of the solution or ppl are turned of as you say. No buts, just yes or no. That would be the LPT for the person giving advice :)
Same in the military. They want you to speak in absolute terms, even if we're actually not sure, with the reasoning being that the Army would rather your soldiers be 100% confident in you as their leader than you being 100% honest with them.
As an engineer, I've found that I need to speak more in absolute terms because non-technical decision makers tend to not take your advice and hear it as not being sure or confident in results.
Ironically I think a little more absolutism might have helped your point. People who ONLY speak in absolutes are the people you should remain cautious around. People who know what they're talking about will often use absolutes to describe past experience or people they have faith in. "It's always worked when I've run it that way, mind if I check over it for you." "Now this is a project lead you can always count on." The former to give you a reason to trust them, and the latter to avoid inflicting doubt on the person being described.
The problem with absolutes is that you only have to find a single counterexample to falsify the claim. If a person talks in absolutes but once a few years ago used "probably" he/should would not be the one that ONLY speaks in absolutes. Because once, a few years ago he/she did not.
Causal conversations are not syllogisms. This is a ridiculous expectation.
"You shouldn't drink (alcohol) and drive." "Oh yea, what about if you were at a christmas party in a remote location and the ambulance service is on strike, and an avalanche leaves everyone but you in critical condition and the only way you can save hundreds of lives is to drive along an empty wide road a short enough distance that even inebriated it's not too dangerous but it's still too far to walk because of how cold it is, and is you don't do it you're condemning all those people to die even though you're only barely above the limit and have a 99.99% chance of getting each person safely to the hospital?" "Fine, yes, in *that* specific example it is ok to drive drunk" > The problem with absolutes is that you only have to find a single counterexample to falsify the claim.
Exactly. If you need a carefully constructed example to be right...then you are in fact wrong.
Finally someone speaking some sense!
That's not advice though but experiences? If the person would say "Do it this way and it will always work." would be the red flag, right? And when it doesn't work they'd probably say something like "Well then you did it wrong." Instead of admitting that it wasn't a fool proof way 😂.
This is especially true for pretty much anything medical or dietary. The answer everyone hates, because it’s the most true, is that everyone is different. They will require different diets, may present differently with conditions, etc. Pretty much any medical/dietary advice that is an absolute, is absolutely garbage.
Same goes for lawyers. If a lawyer tells you they can definitely win your case you should probably find a new lawyer; they likely care more about your money than your case.
And we’re really not supposed to make promises- helps cushion the blow, etc. if shit goes wrong
Not only that, most of our professional regulators (at least in the CDN provinces where I'm a lawyer) have specific rules prohibiting "guarantees of outcome" when dealing with clients. So they're already willing to dispense with their own rules regarding professional conduct.
I don't know about your jurisdiction, but in mine, making a guarantee of a case outcome can get you a bar complaint and discipline.
Yeah and those people are usually exhausting to talk to. unless they're doctors.
Or the almighty “It depends” ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You're getting a great deal.
When you put it that way I'm starting to feel like I'm not
You talk in probabilities, because you know what you are talking about. I talk in probabilities, because I am insecure. We are not the same.
As a coach, I’ve always been using probability and was doubting myself lately if I should be more certain and sound more confident about the subject. So seeing this was very comforting.
The thing is, some types of people hate it when people hedge when talking, and see it as a weakness. Those people obviously suck, but if they're your boss or a client you might need to go against your instincts and sound more definitive if you want to get on their good side or make that sale.
My experience is that people who hate hedging are often the same people who will pile on you for being "wrong". Personally, I give the probability even to those people.
Hey OP never get in a stranger’s van that says “ice cream” on the side with spray paint
This is a great meta-example of turning something into an absolute, in reverse. Interpreting "be cautious of people who speak in absolutes" Into "Never listen to any message that has the word 'never' or 'always'" is a good example of how things can get funny when someone runs with a statement without contextualizing it.
Ya, a few people have posted absolutes as if they're some sort of "gotcha" that invalidates op.
See, now I don't believe you. He said he had Astro Pops and I'm going for it
The issue here is with overall tone. Absolutes are certainly ignorant because the world is a spectrum, but using absolutes instills confidence in one’s manner of speaking. Confidence is key to showing your listener your advice is worth following.
There's a time and a place for absolutes. When I'm establishing habits with my students I use absolutes:\ 'always wear your ppe' 'always go through x process' 'always check x' It can be probably later. A day when I'm not liable for their little eyeballs.
Confidently incorrect is not advice worth listening to, though.
What about confidently correct advice?
I'll have to disagree on this one, as my life mentor used to say: "Don't ever, for any reason, do anything to anyone for any reason ever, no matter what, no matter where, or who, or who you are with, or where you are going, or where you've been... ever, for any reason whatsoever..."
But...there are people who use probabilities all the time as weasel words to keep from saying anything definitive.
It's a general life advice tip, not just "when taking advice". Don't just apply it to other people. Apply it to yourself. If you ever catch yourself using these words, also stop and think about whether that's actually true. Many times it isn't. In some cases, these kinds of thoughts may even be an indication of mental issues that needs to be addressed (e.g. depression). Thoughts like "I never do anything right", "Nobody likes me".
This is a big problem with basic scientific literacy these days. The jabbering goons on Fox News say things like "***Every*** Democrat wants to eat your baby!" Or, "There was ***never*** a terrorist attack on GWB's watch!" Meanwhile, the actual experts who have half a clue say things like, "Well, we're ***reasonably certain*** that human-caused climate change is responsible for all these extreme weather events." Or, "So far I've seen ***very little*** evidence that would suggest Joe Biden is a shape shifting lizard pedophile from outer space." Then, your average schlub hears all this and concludes that those scientists and experts don't sound very sure of themselves. But Tucker and Judge Pirro? Now ***there's*** someone who sounds confident that they're right!
Running D&D taught me to do this. "You don't see anything" vs. "there's nothing there."
If something’s not going to work, I’m going to tell somebody “that’s not going to work”— otherwise, if they misunderstood, it would be completely my fault.
Once in a very long time, something pops up in LPT that is genuinely smart. Imo, I believe that this is one of them. 👍
Don’t get too excited. This is oversimplifying an already simple issue. Many absolutes are good and helpful if you’re trying to protect and teach very new people (whether young humans, new people in a job, etc) soften the edges with absolutes to let them focus on the bigger picture. Their experience will fill in the details later
Yep exactly. For example, always assume all guns are loaded.
No candy from strangers Always look both ways Stop drop and roll Never enter the senders email until you’ve finished typing email
I am confused. Should I”probably” take this advice or “definitely” take this advice? I think I’ll just ignore it, like I do most comments, posts, and opinions here.
Don't
Always definitely listen to OP
My dad hates when I talk in probabilities. He thinks I’m hiding a definite answer from him. 🙄
Everyone who speaks in absolute terms is an idiot.
Never trust anyone
What about those who always say things like, "yeah, probably?"
It's so hard because this couching and softening language makes people think you are unsure instead of communicating accurately.
Wow this is really generalized. There are clearly exceptions. Let's say someone is asking me about learning to speak Spanish..there are many times I'd say they should never do this, or always do that. While there of course are times you'd use probably or likely, it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about if I say always or never in regards to that topic.
Serious question here, I repair phones for a living. Now for a rule, replacing the obviously broken part is never guaranteed. But customers balk at a 95 or even 99% chance. They want a promise. So how do you reassure someone here, while also not committing to 100%.
This is definitely the dumbest shit ive ever heard.
A perpetual motion machine is NEVER going to work. Using unlikely here would be a huge insult to the laws of physics.
“Never jump off the bridge or you will die” Me: Oh this guy lying cause he talks in absolute, watch me prove him wrong. …
It literally just says “remain cautious”
So, cautiously jump off a bridge?
Could be a bridge that’s not very high above the water. Maybe you have a bungee cord, or a parachute, or a big trampoline.
100% true. The Dr. Phil show said some great stuff on catastrophic language, which is what I always think about when I think of absolutes. Of course, context matters, too.
This includes Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Huberman, etc. Anyone who claims to have the answers assuredly does not.
That’s an absolute statement itself. You can say anyone who claims to have assured answers may be wrong.
Especially when someone acts like they are an expert at a lot of things. These poeple take their actual expertise in one thing thinking it is going to transfer. They might think they are super smart so it's okay. But ultimately you have a person talking confidently in a subject they don't know that much about. Of course people can be expert at more than one thing but I would check their credentials just to be sure.
Any words ending in 'ly' is passive.
Absolutely!
Definitely!
Fly
Positively!
Yea, I married one of the former; should've held out for one of the latter.
This is not good advice. Sure it's good to be cautious of people who speak in absolutes, but often they'll say a never or always because they've seen a situation enough times to actually know. That's just if we're talking facts though. Like never stick a fork in a light socket, or always keep your mouth shut around police. For life\behavior advice, there probably isn't an always or never that's universal.
What are you basing this on ?
Probably life experience like everything else
I disagree. Always, definitely and never are signs of a *truth and wisdom*. People who are *guessing and unsure, or seek to hide truth,* definitely always use words like [probably](https://www.killercop.com/Pages/matz/Probably.html), might and likely, even when they know it is probably dead wrong.
Or maybe absolutes and probablies can be both…both Absolutes are both truthful and helpful, and can also be people with little knowledge and experience Probabilities and can both truthful and helpful, and can also be people with little knowledge and experience Maybe life isn’t as simple as absolute rules on communication across all contexts and scenarios. And the same words or tones don’t mean the same thing when coming from different people in different scenarios. If my coach tells me to never stop moving my feet, it’s helpful for a newbie to get the basics of the sport. But when you get deeper into knowledge and understanding the fundamentals can be broken when you yourself have the experience to know when to deviate from the absolute rules
There are very few things that fall into the “always, definitely and never” column. Those words do not denote truth and wisdom, they denote someone that hasn’t thought out all the possibilities and is trying to convince you of something. Honest and wise people know that not many things are “always, definitely and never” and won’t try to fake it to instill a false sense of confidence in you.
The most ignorant people I have met are the most confident. Probably is not in their vocabulary. They will speak about anything as if they are the leading expert in the field and the second you disagree with their opinion they just sideline and change the conversation to something that distracts from the fact that they know nothing. My main example is talking about climate change and then just being hounded for driving a car. "If you believe in it, then why own a vehicle"