3 ms·

When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important

When I mentioned of "emotional intelligence", I was referring to Mackenzie Bezos, for her willingness to compromise because she clearly understood how important Jeff's shares and voting rights were to Amazon. Not everyone could have seen or acted in such manner. This was why I said she did the right things. Your multiple attempts in replying, not only to my personal comment but also to others', indicated you were seeking a proper explanation for my "inconsistent viewpoints". That was what prompted me to address the issue of many people in today world who don't seem to possess the ability to pivot under special circumstances, only because they are just so rigid in holding to their previous beliefs, no matter it was right or wrong. The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. Based on your last comment, I am not sure if you truly understood the benefits of such "inconsistent viewpoints", so I will leave you with a short link below. It also happens to be about Jeff Bezos the man himself: https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mind-a-lot-jeff-bezos-smart-people-always-change-their-minds.html https://www.lifehack.org/articles/work/do-you-change-your-mi...

dpark 8y ago
> The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent. You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence. At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”. I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.
- netwanderer3 8y ago
  You are literally the one that are trying very hard to hold onto the technicality of my wordings, and twisted it such a way to fit in your interpretation and criticism of my comment, while I have already given you more than enough explanation on my part regarding my message. The wordings in my comment are completely irrelevant here, whether it should have been "always" or "generally". The main point being discussed here is you are obviously viewing "inconsistent viewpoints" as a negative trait while in fact it is positive and desirable in my personal interpretation. My previous comments were simply an analysis of the current world trends which I have observed. I even clarified to you that I was referring to McKenzie Bezos so I am unsure why you were being so defensive and even aggressive in accusing me of such. Let's just leave it here as we should never force our own personal views onto others. I have provided more than enough of my personal opinions on this subject. Everyone has the rights to interpret the world in whichever ways they wish that fit with their personal ideologies.
  - dpark 8y ago
    Wording is not irrelevant. Your comment didn’t make sense. I took the time to explain what was wrong with your comment rather than just downvoting quietly like others had. Your response was to go down the defensive path and to argue irrelevant tangents rather than take a moment to consider that maybe you expressed your viewpoint poorly. You’re now accusing me of “twisting” your comment by literally quoting it. Inability to be self-critical is not a positive trait. I agree we should let this drop since it’s going nowhere and we’ve both wasted enough time. P.S. Your article was about changing opinions, not holding or presenting opposing opinions simultaneously.

dpark 8y ago

> The wording that I used, "always" which according to you should have been "generally", has its own purpose of further solidifying and emphasizing the importance of being able to recognize the right acts, no matter how strong our previous beliefs might have contradicted it. The downvotes on my comment are merely the perfect illustrations, and an accurate reflection of current public trend displayed by those who possess such incapability. This is borderline word salad. Convoluted writing doesn’t make a weak point look strong. It does make you harder to understand, but maybe that’s your intent. You’re now trying to frame this as me holding you to some previous viewpoint that you’ve since renounced, but that’s not what happened. You expressed two contradictory viewpoints in a single sentence. At this point I’m assuming you just misspoke and are unwilling to admit even that small error, because the alternatives are that you literally don’t understand what “always” means or that you are unable to see the logical inconsistency between “always X” and “this time Not-X”. I think you should take another look at your own replies here, because while you talk about narcissism in others, you’re the one exhibiting an inability to acknowledge your own errors and a need to accuse those who point out your errors of lacking basic reasoning abilities.

netwanderer3 8y ago
You are literally the one that are trying very hard to hold onto the technicality of my wordings, and twisted it such a way to fit in your interpretation and criticism of my comment, while I have already given you more than enough explanation on my part regarding my message. The wordings in my comment are completely irrelevant here, whether it should have been "always" or "generally". The main point being discussed here is you are obviously viewing "inconsistent viewpoints" as a negative trait while in fact it is positive and desirable in my personal interpretation. My previous comments were simply an analysis of the current world trends which I have observed. I even clarified to you that I was referring to McKenzie Bezos so I am unsure why you were being so defensive and even aggressive in accusing me of such. Let's just leave it here as we should never force our own personal views onto others. I have provided more than enough of my personal opinions on this subject. Everyone has the rights to interpret the world in whichever ways they wish that fit with their personal ideologies.
- dpark 8y ago
  Wording is not irrelevant. Your comment didn’t make sense. I took the time to explain what was wrong with your comment rather than just downvoting quietly like others had. Your response was to go down the defensive path and to argue irrelevant tangents rather than take a moment to consider that maybe you expressed your viewpoint poorly. You’re now accusing me of “twisting” your comment by literally quoting it. Inability to be self-critical is not a positive trait. I agree we should let this drop since it’s going nowhere and we’ve both wasted enough time. P.S. Your article was about changing opinions, not holding or presenting opposing opinions simultaneously.