4 ms·
Sure, they could just be clique-ish and resistant to outside parties wanting to help. But what's the reason for that behaviour? I still think it makes a lot mo
by bradknowles 3y ago
Sure, they could just be clique-ish and resistant to outside parties wanting to help. But what's the reason for that behaviour?
I still think it makes a lot more sense if they have actually perceived harm from others coming in from the outside, which now explains the behaviour we see today.
But as I said, without more authoritative information from the parties in question, your guess is as good as mine.
- cxr 3y agoYou don't seem to be truly open to the possibility that I have laid out. Asking "what's the reason" to try to explain something irrational is a dead end. There is no reason by definition. Taking the position that a person themselves is authoritative on matters concerning them leaves you vulnerable to an unreliable narrator.
- bradknowles 3y agoIMO, it's not an irrational behaviour on their part. It may seem irrational to us, but I believe it's much more likely to be a rational response to events that have happened in the past. We just don't know what those events were. I think that's where we differ. You see it as a purely irrational behaviour on their part that doesn't need explaining, whereas I see it as a rational response that does actually have one or more trigger events in the past.