External Considering and Good Manners

[mabar]

So, I guess I am just curious as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'hunter/gatherer' temperament.

AD/HD; the "hunter" in Thomm Hartmann's "hunter/farmer" model; neurodiverse in the spectrum that autists' prefer to model as neurotypical/neurodiversity; or whatever is your preferred description for someone who is normally (without deliberate effort) not micro-synced to the minutia of everday neurochemical balancing acts (routine social bonding habits?) between people in social circumstances.

Hi Buddy,
This part was quite difficult to understand. Not everybody has read Thomm Hartmann - I haven't.

[quote author=Buddy]
Hypothetical example: You and I have quite a few shared experiences and have become what we both think of as "good friends." I go away on some project, hobby, or work assignment or special investigation or whatever and you don't see me for 5 or 6 months. Next time we meet, you get all excited, want to hug me, dance with me, shake my hand for 5 minutes, pat me on the back, ask a lot of personal questions like "where ya been, where'd ya go, what'cha been doing, how come you didn't blah, blah, blah..." but you don't do any of that because, just from my act of walking up to you, you've been hit with an impression that I don't, or must not, really care about you or something else like that. And that impression is formed when you notice that when I approached, I started talking to you as if we hadn't been apart for more than 30 seconds or so.

Should you try to ease your discomfort anyway by carrying on, you might get the impression I'm looking at you strangely; like I'm wondering what's wrong with you or what changed in you while I was away that you get all gushy on me and do you even have a life? Because I'm acting like hardly any time has passed and I'm still as good a friend this minute as I was when we parted company and to prove it, I invite you to my house tonight for more of our typical deep conversations about the kinds of things we normally like to talk about (because we're good friends, remember?).

Didn't quite get what you are trying to say. You do not like a good friend to express positive emotions and ask about how you have been while you were away after you went away without telling him/her?
[/quote]


It was difficult to understand to me also, the the "hunter" in Thomm Hartmann's "hunter/farmer" model, even reading it, but from Buddy's description/example it was, as clear as water, because I happend to have similar experiences, it is difficult/not use to express in that way the overwhelming feeling to “see us happily again, after N lapse of time”. Because “time” does not moves equally to everything, sometimes people use lapses of time to enhance or reduce things, I assume that it is due also to deep personal traumas. How I perceive life.

In my case, it is not that I do not like for friends expressing their emotions, it is mostly because I feel uncomfortable because –even though the emotion, may be same, similar- the way of expressing it is different. Although, I cant be sure if it is similar as Buddy.

It is like the hugs, I do not like to be hug (personal traumas too), it is still a little stressfull and uncomfortable to receive them, I have been learning to receive them, it is not easy. Its been like 2 news occasions this year that I want to give them, but I found myself without experience, and that makes me feel beyond awkward –with the intention of never do it again-, but I supposed that in a future, the action will be more natural. And people who know me knows I do not like hugs, they “force” me to receive it, is not that they are asking, there was a time in which I thought that deny it them would be consider as a lack of manners and running the “the nice program”, then I thought that, these people seems to need them more, and I went with he flow. How I perceive hugs is changing, but not as quickly –I supposed- as other people would expect or would desire.

 

[Buddy]

So, I guess I am just curious as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'hunter/gatherer' temperament.

AD/HD; the "hunter" in Thomm Hartmann's "hunter/farmer" model; neurodiverse in the spectrum that autists' prefer to model as neurotypical/neurodiversity; or whatever is your preferred description for someone who is normally (without deliberate effort) not micro-synced to the minutia of everday neurochemical balancing acts (routine social bonding habits?) between people in social circumstances.

Hi Buddy,
This part was quite difficult to understand. Not everybody has read Thomm Hartmann - I haven't.

Sorry about that. Here's a table of 'traits' and how each trait is often perceived by different people:

_http://www.thomhartmann.com/articles/2007/11/thom-hartmanns-hunter-and-farmer-approach-addadhd

[quote author=Buddy]
Hypothetical example: You and I have quite a few shared experiences and have become what we both think of as "good friends." I go away on some project, hobby, or work assignment or special investigation or whatever and you don't see me for 5 or 6 months. Next time we meet, you get all excited, want to hug me, dance with me, shake my hand for 5 minutes, pat me on the back, ask a lot of personal questions like "where ya been, where'd ya go, what'cha been doing, how come you didn't blah, blah, blah..." but you don't do any of that because, just from my act of walking up to you, you've been hit with an impression that I don't, or must not, really care about you or something else like that. And that impression is formed when you notice that when I approached, I started talking to you as if we hadn't been apart for more than 30 seconds or so.

Should you try to ease your discomfort anyway by carrying on, you might get the impression I'm looking at you strangely; like I'm wondering what's wrong with you or what changed in you while I was away that you get all gushy on me and do you even have a life? Because I'm acting like hardly any time has passed and I'm still as good a friend this minute as I was when we parted company and to prove it, I invite you to my house tonight for more of our typical deep conversations about the kinds of things we normally like to talk about (because we're good friends, remember?).

Didn't quite get what you are trying to say. You do not like a good friend to express positive emotions and ask about how you have been while you were away after you went away without telling him/her?
[/quote]

Well, it was just a made-up example, but the main idea is to contrast how different people perceive the same things differently; like what mabar said in the next post. Which is interesting in itself due to the mention of 'time' which is perceived differently by some people (SoTT has articles up on the AD/HD and time relationship by the way and for what it's worth).

I admit it is hard to develop depth of friendship with many people due to the roles they often play - even to the point of dramatizing behavior they've learned is socially expected or whatever. It's hard to describe exactly, but I think Laura hit the nail on the head with the mention of a deeper context.

I value my deeper friendships dearly, but this valuing is felt deeply without a need for a lot of acting out, so to speak. In my hypothetical example above, the facts about where I've been, what I've done and so forth will all come out in due time, just like I'll be asking about you too if you're interested to share.

~Added:
I just read Kris' link to that article on play deficit. That definitely applies to me since, as I've mentioned before, I had to grow up fast and take on a lot of responsibility that should have been on a parent or other caregiver at that time (in my opinion).

 

[Arwenn]

What an interesting topic! I see many levels of complexity. The complexity arises from a myriad of things from cultural differences, socio-economics, the youth of today (who appear to be plugged in but tuned out), internal programs (people-pleasing, be nice, forgive & forget etc.) to applying discernment in knowing when to use good manners.

Perhaps manners and rudeness are not static, but depend on the specific context, situation and intent, in which discernment is required, as explicated by QFG in the Cassiopedia here, in reference to Gurdjieff's Third force.

In the spirit of a duality defined by STO/STS, Creation/Entropy, Ascending/Descending, B-influence/A-influence, etc, one has a decision to make in every given moment. The choice one makes in this decision aligns one with either the Creative principle or Entropic principle. The Third Force is the configuration of circumstances, structures, and characters in that given moment that define the alignment of the choices one has. Truly one of the most dangerous occult truths, the Third Force implies that no moral dogma is comprehensive enough to inform one involved in The Work on how to act in alignment with the Creative principle in every possible situation. This idea is closely related to the principle of "perspicacity", which is the discernment of what the Third Force can reveal about the nature of the choices in that given moment.

So using nice manners and being a people pleaser with a passive-aggressive person or garden variety psychopath, is simply aligning with the Entropic principle. Yet showing sincere appreciation, kindness and good manners to the host in the appropriate situation is adding to the Creative principle.

FWIW


Edit: Spelling errors

 

[SeekinTruth]

Regarding "treating others as you want to be treated," this like everything else has to take into account the context / specific situation. Otherwise it seems to be a form of internal considering. It would require thinking of the other(s) more than what you'd like or want. So knowing about those you're interacting with is a prerequisite to knowing how they would like to be treated in any particular situation and using all your powers of discernment would be required, as well. Or so I think.

 

[Chu]

I would say that "treat others as you want to be treated" has a deeper context. That is, you want other people to know you, know what you like and don't like, know what you need or don't need, and maybe, if they really care for you, know when to tell you "no" because they know something is not good for you and you will thank them later.

Otherwise, treating other people "as you want to be treated" can become just an exercise in projection.

Think about it this way. If someone gives you a gift, very often, they give you something that THEY would like. If you are really paying attention and care about this person, when time comes for you to give them a gift, you will remember what they gave you and look for something similar. Because, in a sense, we all usually give what it is we want or need, even in terms of affection etc. So, if we are paying attention in this way, it can be pretty easy to figure out how another person actually does want to be treated and not assume that they want to be treated as you do which could be very wrong.

While thinking about this and the entire thread, I thought that perhaps, part of the problem with good manners and external considering has to do with the frontal cortex (in its capacity to make the right decisions, looking at the bigger picture, and appropriately link thoughts to emotions). Then, while reading something totally unrelated (I thought), I came a cross the following:

Frontal Lobes and Language, by Skye McDonald, in the Handbook of Neuroscience of Language, edited by Brigitte Stemmer and Harry A. Whitaker

People with frontal lobe injuries can have perfectly intact language skills, that is to say, they are able to name objects, construct grammatically acceptable prepositional speech and understand the literal meaning of conversations in which they engage. But despite this, their communication skills are frequently aberrant. When attempting to converse their narratives may peter out or laps into perseverative comments and stereotyped phrases. (...) Alternatively, they may be over-talkative, disorganized and frankly confabulatory in what they say with apparent indifference to their conversational partner. Similar patters of impairment are seen in adults with frontal dementia and traumatic brain injuries (TBI) both of which result from frontal systems impairment.

(..) The 'social dysdecorum' that frequently ensues after frontal lobe damage includes not only socially inappropriate language but also lack of insight, blunted social awareness, tactlessness, poor reasoning and behavioral dyscontrol. (...)

[Decoding language -and social situations-] is sequential: (1) the literal meaning is comprehended; (2) some cue indicates this is not sufficient (e.g. the literal meaning is contradicted by the context) and (3) inferential rules are implemented in order to extract the intended meaning.

[...] There are currently three major constructs that characterize social cognition (or social intelligence): (1) "theory of mind" (ToM), that is the ability to make judgments concerning another's mental states; (2) emotion processing, that is the ability to understand and distinguish different affective states and (3) social knowledge schemas that guide judgments and behavior. Evidence concerning the neural substrates of these different components consistently highlights overlapping systems that include the prefrontal cortex.

[Adults with frontal lobe damage are described as] "egocentric" and "self-focused" [...] and their communication style is described as blunt, overly familiar and inappropriate.

The rest of the paper is more specific to language, so I won't quote it all here. But I thought it was interesting to find these details about the social "dysdecorum", as he called it. People in general are so programmed and used to NOT thinking (using their frontal cortex), that perhaps, since the brain is so plastic, "if you don't use it you lose it" (you don't need to have actual brain damage to behave in those ways). And that includes knowing how to learn to pay attention to social cues, and to others.

We have had guests here who would behave in the ways described above, and when I think back about some of them, they also had some other "traits" that would suggest a lack of "frontal activity". For example, someone who couldn't stop talking, was rude, etc. and was also very oblivious to his environment in general, breaking objects, or being very lazy and much more. In his case, I remember thinking that more than inner considering, the person just wasn't even thinking at all. His words would come out before he was able to think about them, his constant talking was not even intended to save face or look good, or possible projection. He was just talking and talking, oblivious to all the rest.

My 2 cents.

 

[Jasmine]

What is curious to everyone in my family about that situation is how oblivious this girl was to basic etiquette, and how she had no clue that her suggestion that my brother just use a flashlight was completely out of line. So it is interesting how consideration of others comes natural to some people, and is some foreign concept to others. Is it just a case of upbringing or is something more internal that's missing?

Great question SAO. Perhaps we are all oblivious to things we havn't learned yet. You referred to her as a "girl" so I presume she was young. And especially young people go out into the world and learn things that they didn't learn at home - regardless if it was demonstrated in the home environment or not. Even if she was not young the same would apply. Perhaps she learned something that night, or at least it planted a seed of thought that would allow her to obtain more awareness of such things for her future reference.

If good manners are taught well by the parents through consistent demonstration repeatedly over the full length of the child's development, then as adults it may appear to us that it comes natural with an adult who uses good manners regularly. However this would be the best case scenario. But let us remember that not every child comes from a nurturing, nucleolus home environment with loving, attentive parents. Some people are raised in - group homes, hospitals, shelters, with extended families, cult environments, abusive family, and on the street. For this later group that didn't get the best case scenario, it may be possible that good manners is a "foreign concept" to them, but doesn't make them bad people. They will learn good manners and similar concepts as they go out into the world if they are receptive to the ideas. However in our environment today of mediocrity as the norm, it is getting harder and harder for these concepts to be taught and learned. I want to point out that in using this illustration, the best case scenario is not the only way we learn good manners from childhood, nor is the later scenario meant to suggest that these kids learned no manners at all. I hope it is understood that things aren't that cut and dry. I think I was trying to illustrate a tone of tolerance for those that are still in the learning process. That is why I believe it's important to use good manners if you already employ that mindset so others who haven't learned yet can pick up on the social cues you demonstrate. Maybe thinking of it as STO is a good idea, as we all learn from each-other in this University we call life.

Are good manners more of a cultural thing of importance in our modern industrialized countries? For people who are living hand to mouth for daily survival in poverty entrenched countries (I'm speaking of people facing starvation, disease, who are lucky to have a tin roof over their head, and who live in garbage heaps, and rat infested environments, with no clean water) how important are good manners to their way of life? Was good manners something the elite societies of modern industrialized countries used as a way of fraternizing with other elites for their STS purpose of gaining acceptance and furthering their advancement in those circles to protect their greedy interests? Did this type of elitism trickle down to the masses as a way to further our own same interests? I know there are many history buffs here on the forum. Is good manners a program? And even if it is, it is important to use good manners to illustrate good will to our follow peers. And it can be used to further our STO objectives by demonstrating an act of kindness to people we meet daily whom may desperately need to feel some kindness in their life.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Interesting points, Jasmine. The history of manners is fascinating. Over many centuries it covers restraint on violence, cleanliness, masking bodily functions in public,etc. For those who are interested the book The Civilizing Process by Norbert Elias, a 20th century sociologist, is worth looking at.

The prohibition against violence goes back to early Medieval times (at least in Europe), where violence was only what we would consider a "crime" if it took place in the household or presence of the king. Outside of that, "murder" was only killing in secret. Killing someone in public was more like what we would call a civil infraction, in other words you were liable for damages to the victim' skin if they could drag you in front of someone powerful enough over you to enforce the payment of damages. If not, it would turn into a blood feud.

Over the centuries the radius of the circle where violence was a crime expanded wider than just the court or the king, eventually covering the whole territory of a national state.

What we would call manners follows a similar process. It started more on the later Middle Ages and Early Modern period, in "courts" or spaces near the sovereign where power players from different social classes would rub shoulders. There were lots of guidebooks written then for people to learn how to behave in those circles. In Elias's book he has some examples of table manners that were acceptable in some circles that we would consider absolutely disgusting. Then over centuries the circle of good manners expanded beyond the "courts" to the whole of society.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Jasmine]

Thank you Mr. Premise. I appreciate this information so much. It thoroughly quenched my curiosity of what I had hoped to learn from posing those questions. Yes, it's most interesting and fascinating too.

 

[Alana]

I don't think we are talking about some kind of aristocratic/upper class etiquette when we talk about good manners here. I think the point of it is how much we care about others to make them feel or remain comfortable when we are around them.

And speaking of etiquette of proper manners as it pertains to social classes, I have seen the rudest behaviors being exhibited by very wealthy people, who thought that just because they had money they were above everyone else, and treated them as their slaves at worst, with contempt at best, even though they knew which spoon is used for the desert. Contrary, I have received great hospitality by people who don't even have the basic necessities in life, and didn't even have families to begin with. So it seems to me that good manners towards our fellow humans have to do with how we perceive the world, how we perceive ourselves and others, and how we act based 1) on those perceptions and 2) what we learned during our time in this life (perhaps others too, I wouldn't cross the possibility out). That's my current simplistic understanding of it at least.

 

[Lisa Guliani]

I agree with you, Alana. That's a great post, imo.

 

[loreta]

Good manners is related also with gentleness and how gentleman you can be in any circumstances. I am thinking on how people drive and how it is important to have good manners while driving. In fact many road accidents are due to the fact that drivers haven't good manners at all, nor while driving nor also in life. You drive as you live. I love to drive in Portugal, they are so gentle and gentleman, and in some parts of USA also, Vermont for example. In Spain depends of the region.

Good manners is looking around you and see. For example, I like to be a gentleman and open doors to other people, specially seniors or even also to men. I like to give priority to people when in front of a door, pass my turn. If I am in a bus or in the metro, give my seat to old people. Not because "this is what we should do (program)" but because I like to help, it is like a smile I give to others. To be gentleman is to be present. Who is around you? Do you see them? Are you here or in the moon? Are you present?

For me this is a very important aside of good manners, a very huge subject!

 

[Jasmine]

I don't think we are talking about some kind of aristocratic/upper class etiquette when we talk about good manners here. I think the point of it is how much we care about others to make them feel or remain comfortable when we are around them.

Excellent point. It may be historically related in an subtle way, but it's not what we are talking about here. You clearly pointed out the difference.

And speaking of etiquette of proper manners as it pertains to social classes, I have seen the rudest behaviors being exhibited by very wealthy people, who thought that just because they had money they were above everyone else, and treated them as their slaves at worst, with contempt at best, even though they knew which spoon is used for the desert. Contrary, I have received great hospitality by people who don't even have the basic necessities in life, and didn't even have families to begin with.

I couldn't agree more. The very wealthy are certainly the last people people to look to for role models in good manners. I normally don't like to categorize people like this , but we have to call it like we see it.

Good manners is related also with gentleness and how gentleman you can be in any circumstances. I am thinking on how people drive and how it is important to have good manners while driving. In fact many road accidents are due to the fact that drivers haven't good manners at all, nor while driving nor also in life. You drive as you live. I love to drive in Portugal, they are so gentle and gentleman, and in some parts of USA also, Vermont for example. In Spain depends of the region.

Good manners is looking around you and see. For example, I like to be a gentleman and open doors to other people, specially seniors or even also to men. I like to give priority to people when in front of a door, pass my turn. If I am in a bus or in the metro, give my seat to old people. Not because "this is what we should do (program)" but because I like to help, it is like a smile I give to others. To be gentleman is to be present. Who is around you? Do you see them? Are you here or in the moon? Are you present?

For me this is a very important aside of good manners, a very huge subject!

This is how I view good manners as well. Putting it into practice by simple courteous awareness toward others as you pointed out here. Especially in public it's rewarding to see how these small gestures mean so much to another person.

 

[Vic]

I don't think we are talking about some kind of aristocratic/upper class etiquette when we talk about good manners here. I think the point of it is how much we care about others to make them feel or remain comfortable when we are around them.

And speaking of etiquette of proper manners as it pertains to social classes, I have seen the rudest behaviors being exhibited by very wealthy people, who thought that just because they had money they were above everyone else, and treated them as their slaves at worst, with contempt at best, even though they knew which spoon is used for the desert. Contrary, I have received great hospitality by people who don't even have the basic necessities in life, and didn't even have families to begin with. So it seems to me that good manners towards our fellow humans have to do with how we perceive the world, how we perceive ourselves and others, and how we act based 1) on those perceptions and 2) what we learned during our time in this life (perhaps others too, I wouldn't cross the possibility out). That's my current simplistic understanding of it at least.

My perception is that politeness is simple, Alana. To me it has something to do with respect. I was taught to say please and thank you, but genuine politeness can't be taught because it is as you say: "...the point of it is how much we care about others to make them feel or remain comfortable when we are around them."

I believe everyone has the right to receive respect from others unless and until a point is reached where they earn disrespect. Respect is, for me anyway, the other side of the 'care' that you mention. I don't think caring about others can be taught. It's either in you or it isn't. I want to feel good, and I want others to feel good. So it's a natural, instinctual thing for me to show respect to others, which by definition means politeness, resulting in a person feeling, at some level, good about themselves.

Like you I have found that those with nothing give more than those with much. Obviously that's a generalisation, but in my experience that's how it is.

 

[Menna]

I believe that thinking about people and treating them a certain way because you place "respect" and that person under the same umbrella is a dangerous way of thinking and can keep one in illusion. I believe admiration can take over one's emotional center and can cloud their intellectual center. I believe that thinking about good manners and treating someone a certain way using the mentality of respect is a slippery slope.

I believe that people have an internal compass and when they grow up they are taught to act and behave a certain way. When they get introduced to "life" more and more they see other ways of acting and behaving. This internal compass now has something to compare and a choice is made. keep with what has been taught to them from early on or act more like the people in their life or muddy the water and a combination of behaviors are now adopted or realize that there is something more than what one has come across and rise above look for a new (psycopaths excluded)

 

[Vic]

I believe that thinking about people and treating them a certain way because you place "respect" and that person under the same umbrella is a dangerous way of thinking and can keep one in illusion. I believe admiration can take over one's emotional center and can cloud their intellectual center. I believe that thinking about good manners and treating someone a certain way using the mentality of respect is a slippery slope.

I believe that people have an internal compass and when they grow up they are taught to act and behave a certain way. When they get introduced to "life" more and more they see other ways of acting and behaving. This internal compass now has something to compare and a choice is made. keep with what has been taught to them from early on or act more like the people in their life or muddy the water and a combination of behaviors are now adopted or realize that there is something more than what one has come across and rise above look for a new (psycopaths excluded)

Who said anything about 'admiration' Menna?

For me 'respect' means acceptance of a person's right to be treated with care and without prejudice.

You have implied that I use '...a dangerous way of thinking' and linked that to a '...cloud[ed]... intellectual center' and might be on a 'slippery slope.'

All that on the false premise that by 'respect' I meant 'admiration'

I respect you, Menna, because you are a living, breathing human being, and I have nothing in my awareness that says you have done anything to invalidate that respect. I don't 'admire' you though, because I simply don't know you or about the things you manifest in your life that would evoke admiration.

Respect and admiration are two different dynamics in my perception of them. Now knowing this I wonder if you would repost your response from a more informed standpoint.