6 ms·

> Part of me is curious as to what led him to believe that's an acceptable thing to do to someone else's property He doesn't think it's acceptable. The issue

by adekok 9y ago

> Part of me is curious as to what led him to believe that's an acceptable thing to do to someone else's property He doesn't think it's acceptable. The issue is he doesn't care. i.e. he doesn't pay attention. He doesn't think about it. He just does what "feels good", and wonders later why people won't loan things to him. Yes, I've met people like this, too.

allannienhuis 9y ago
Sometimes the reason they don't care isn't because of some sort of callous disregard of others feelings, it's because they don't see the thing as a problem at all. IE they don't care if their _own_ playing cards are bent ("that's just normal wear and tear"), so they don't think anyone else would care about it.
- rbritton 9y ago
  This is it I think. I personally buy nice things and do everything possible to keep them nice as long as possible (e.g., I am bothered by reading a book that's creased or significantly worn in any way). I will not loan anything to anyone I believe is likely to damage the item or lacks the ability to replace or repair it in a timely manner. On the other hand, I have a friend, one of my best friends, who is completely content with anything in virtually any condition. There are things that bother me that he would never have a problem with. I don't know why, particularly as we have pretty similar upbringings, but the difference is astounding.
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Both of you are taking joy in use, but in a different kind of way. You take joy in using a thing carefully, where you absorb the objects demands. Your friend takes joy in using an object aggressively, so the object absorbs their demands. It's a difference in where you see beauty... Do you see beauty in the human activity that surrounds the object, and the imprint of that? Or do you see beauty in the object itself, and the imprint that makes on the world around it?
    - ada1981 9y ago
      This was rather nice.
    - jschwartzi 9y ago
      It's sort of analogous to the difference between Keirsey's pairings of Guardian/Idealist and Artisan/Rational. Guardians/Idealists tend to be "cooperative" in their use of tools, meaning that they consider how other people and society might use the tool. So they might avoid stressing a crowbar to breakage unless it's to suit the needs of their group. They might also be unlikely to bend playing cards that they don't own. Artisans/Rationals tend to be more "utilitarian" in their use of tools, meaning that they will subvert a tool if it suits them. So they might use a finish hammer to chip rocks if they have nothing else available, even if it's your finish hammer and you really needed it to put up casing next week. It's interesting to note that he considers language a tool, and so their use of language may follow similar patterns. There are some parallels with Meyers-Briggs in his system, although his intent was to provide measurable characteristics rather than statements about someone's mind.
    - wruza 9y ago
      This seems to be cool idea of happy living, unless you live with them or just visit their house. Kitchen and toilet stink, dust and grime everywhere, because, you know, it is normal wear after their demands. They don't know the price of well-being and are dependent on their unblessed relatives. All activities have associated cost, but they simply ignore it, stealing from someone else. Once their place is full of crap, they simply shift their focus to another that they still like. Forests filled with heaps of trash are nice example of that. There is no beauty in this life style, imo.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I certainly try to be especially careful of anything I borrow. But I do tend to belong to the school of "It's a tool. It's intended to accomplish tasks." I can appreciate aesthetically pleasing machinery but cameras are meant to be used and if they get scuffed up a bit, that's fine. If I can use books more effectively by bending pages and writing in the margins I will.
- Mz 9y ago
  That isn't always true. I personally knew someone who took impeccable care of their own things, and just destroyed stuff that got lent to them. I don't think it was really conscious and intentional. I think they had a warped childhood and weren't all that aware of how fucked up they were. But it was an incredibly consistent pattern.
s73ver 9y ago
Part of the problem is that he doesn’t have any consequences for doing it. Violence isn’t a great solution in all cases, but if after a couple times of doing this, he got popped in the face, he’d probably stop doing it quickly. It’s sad, but some people don’t learn other than getting their ass beat.

by adekok 9y ago

allannienhuis 9y ago

Sometimes the reason they don't care isn't because of some sort of callous disregard of others feelings, it's because they don't see the thing as a problem at all. IE they don't care if their _own_ playing cards are bent ("that's just normal wear and tear"), so they don't think anyone else would care about it.

rbritton 9y ago
This is it I think. I personally buy nice things and do everything possible to keep them nice as long as possible (e.g., I am bothered by reading a book that's creased or significantly worn in any way). I will not loan anything to anyone I believe is likely to damage the item or lacks the ability to replace or repair it in a timely manner. On the other hand, I have a friend, one of my best friends, who is completely content with anything in virtually any condition. There are things that bother me that he would never have a problem with. I don't know why, particularly as we have pretty similar upbringings, but the difference is astounding.
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Both of you are taking joy in use, but in a different kind of way. You take joy in using a thing carefully, where you absorb the objects demands. Your friend takes joy in using an object aggressively, so the object absorbs their demands. It's a difference in where you see beauty... Do you see beauty in the human activity that surrounds the object, and the imprint of that? Or do you see beauty in the object itself, and the imprint that makes on the world around it?
  - ada1981 9y ago
    This was rather nice.
  - jschwartzi 9y ago
    It's sort of analogous to the difference between Keirsey's pairings of Guardian/Idealist and Artisan/Rational. Guardians/Idealists tend to be "cooperative" in their use of tools, meaning that they consider how other people and society might use the tool. So they might avoid stressing a crowbar to breakage unless it's to suit the needs of their group. They might also be unlikely to bend playing cards that they don't own. Artisans/Rationals tend to be more "utilitarian" in their use of tools, meaning that they will subvert a tool if it suits them. So they might use a finish hammer to chip rocks if they have nothing else available, even if it's your finish hammer and you really needed it to put up casing next week. It's interesting to note that he considers language a tool, and so their use of language may follow similar patterns. There are some parallels with Meyers-Briggs in his system, although his intent was to provide measurable characteristics rather than statements about someone's mind.
  - wruza 9y ago
    This seems to be cool idea of happy living, unless you live with them or just visit their house. Kitchen and toilet stink, dust and grime everywhere, because, you know, it is normal wear after their demands. They don't know the price of well-being and are dependent on their unblessed relatives. All activities have associated cost, but they simply ignore it, stealing from someone else. Once their place is full of crap, they simply shift their focus to another that they still like. Forests filled with heaps of trash are nice example of that. There is no beauty in this life style, imo.
- ghaff 9y ago
  I certainly try to be especially careful of anything I borrow. But I do tend to belong to the school of "It's a tool. It's intended to accomplish tasks." I can appreciate aesthetically pleasing machinery but cameras are meant to be used and if they get scuffed up a bit, that's fine. If I can use books more effectively by bending pages and writing in the margins I will.
Mz 9y ago
That isn't always true. I personally knew someone who took impeccable care of their own things, and just destroyed stuff that got lent to them. I don't think it was really conscious and intentional. I think they had a warped childhood and weren't all that aware of how fucked up they were. But it was an incredibly consistent pattern.

s73ver 9y ago

Part of the problem is that he doesn’t have any consequences for doing it. Violence isn’t a great solution in all cases, but if after a couple times of doing this, he got popped in the face, he’d probably stop doing it quickly. It’s sad, but some people don’t learn other than getting their ass beat.