A while back—probably a year or two ago—Golden asked me why I always respond to people thanking me with, "No problem." She noted that, "You're welcome," would be better. Old habits die hard, so I have not really changed things, though I think about it more. I do think that this has exposed a difference in how I think versus how she and I am sure many others think, and I would never had even considered it had that conversation not occurred.
I do not know this for a fact, but I suspect that most people answer one way or the other, and do not alternate between the two too much. The reason I think this is that there is a very specific reason that, "No problem," seems natural to me. If someone does not have that same personality quirk, I would suspect that they would tend to use, "You're welcome," more than, "No problem," as well.
For one reason or another (or a hundred) I am very highly motivated not to put someone out. I view it as a personal failing to have unnecessarily inconvenienced someone. I called it a quirk earlier, but I think that most people don't like inconveniencing others. At the extreme I reach it is a flaw or worse. It has caused me more problems than good, for sure. So, to me the act of thanking someone is a form of apology for requiring them to go out of their way. I like to receive the response, "No problem," because this signals that the person in question is not bothered by being put out.
I suspect, though I do not know first hand, that those who prefer to hear, "You're welcome," prefer that because they are more likely to see someone doing something for someone else as a gift. The "You're welcome," would then signify that the gift was sincerely given and can be genuinely appreciated.
Do you have a preferred way to respond to thanks, or a preferred way for others to respond to your thanks? Do you have your own theories regarding why someone would prefer one response over the other? I'd love to hear about it in the comments.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Saturday, May 16, 2015
despicable assumption
Of the myriad of movies that our kids like, Despicable Me 2 is near the top of almost everyone in our family's list of enjoyable films. Seriously, it's worth watching, whether you have kids or not. If you haven't seen it, stick it in your Netflix queue, or plan on renting it, or whatever you do to see older movies. It is that good.
Having acknowledged how entertaining and brilliant the movie is there is one glaring issue I have with it, and I have embedded a clip that illustrates the problem below.
I apologize that this is going to be fairly dark considering the source material, but it is what bugs me every time this scene comes up. I genuinely cannot enjoy this scene, and this might ruin it for you too. If you don't want this scene ruined skip the rest of this article. I'm serious on that.
I want you to imagine for a moment you are that horrible woman on the date with Gru. You're sitting at a table dining with your date when you decide to humiliate him in a heartless fashion. You reach for his toupee then everything goes black. You regain consciousness the next morning in your own bed, you are sore and bruised, and you have no recollection of anything that happened after the beginning of your meal. What would you assume had happened the night before?
If I were that woman I would assume that Gru had slipped a roofie into my drink. Even though the woman was not mistreated in the way she would probably assume, there very few scenarios where what this turn of events will not scar her. It's played for laughs because we assume the woman deserves to feel a little bruised the next day, and the physical damage can be written off with cartoon physics and all, but the emotional damage that she will experience in this situation would likely far outweigh any physical pain she'd experience. This is a serious issue even before considering the real possibility that Gru would loose his girls and wind up in prison based on strong circumstantial evidence that he is a loner with psychological issues who must have badly mistreated his far-more-attractive date on that night.
If you read through that, I am sorry to spoil that part of the movie for you. The rest of this film is entertaining, though this scene is unfortunately key in establishing why Gru should care about Lucy, so it can't be easily skipped. It's just one of those scenes that I'll just always have to grit my teeth through. Now, maybe it will be for you as well.
Having acknowledged how entertaining and brilliant the movie is there is one glaring issue I have with it, and I have embedded a clip that illustrates the problem below.
I apologize that this is going to be fairly dark considering the source material, but it is what bugs me every time this scene comes up. I genuinely cannot enjoy this scene, and this might ruin it for you too. If you don't want this scene ruined skip the rest of this article. I'm serious on that.
I want you to imagine for a moment you are that horrible woman on the date with Gru. You're sitting at a table dining with your date when you decide to humiliate him in a heartless fashion. You reach for his toupee then everything goes black. You regain consciousness the next morning in your own bed, you are sore and bruised, and you have no recollection of anything that happened after the beginning of your meal. What would you assume had happened the night before?
If I were that woman I would assume that Gru had slipped a roofie into my drink. Even though the woman was not mistreated in the way she would probably assume, there very few scenarios where what this turn of events will not scar her. It's played for laughs because we assume the woman deserves to feel a little bruised the next day, and the physical damage can be written off with cartoon physics and all, but the emotional damage that she will experience in this situation would likely far outweigh any physical pain she'd experience. This is a serious issue even before considering the real possibility that Gru would loose his girls and wind up in prison based on strong circumstantial evidence that he is a loner with psychological issues who must have badly mistreated his far-more-attractive date on that night.
If you read through that, I am sorry to spoil that part of the movie for you. The rest of this film is entertaining, though this scene is unfortunately key in establishing why Gru should care about Lucy, so it can't be easily skipped. It's just one of those scenes that I'll just always have to grit my teeth through. Now, maybe it will be for you as well.
Saturday, May 09, 2015
foreign policy
I am thirty-five now, and I will be thirty-six later this year, so I cannot use age as an excuse any more as to why I haven't become president of the United States yet. The only excuses I have left are simply not wanting it enough and not having a strong enough get-out-the-vote machine built up in the swing states.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
On a more serious note, this is the sort of thinking I actually had in my middle elementary years. I remember as a kid thinking that maybe I would some day run for president. In third grade my teacher asked the class who wanted to be president some day. I was surprised when I was one of only four or five in a class of twenty-five who raised their hands.
I remember ticking off the requirements as a kid. I was born in Arizona, so I met the most obvious requirement. I knew I'd be an ancient thirty-five some day, so I'd meet that requirement one day. Everything necessary to become president checked out. Well, everything checked out except money and the depth of my ambition.
Now, at my current age, I wonder why anyone would possibly want to be president for one very important reason—foreign policy. Domestic policy is polarizing and a political tightrope walk, but it is far more comparatively easy. Foreign policy is a loser's game now matter how it's played. In foreign policy the choice is rarely between the good and bad option, but rather a selection of whatever horrid option is the least so.
How bad are the options? Most significant decisions will result in people dying or being badly injured. Everyone seems to have opinions about what the obvious solution is to certain issues, and they are almost always stupid, because sometimes there aren't any good options. It is frequently difficult to tell the difference between a mistake, a tactical decision, and treason. The nation-states you are dealing with are largely run by the most intelligently psychopathic people on earth. Decisions have to be made based on incomplete or inaccurate intelligence. Success usually depends on implementation details that are completely out of your control. Every decision is a gamble, and every decision is a gamble with huge consequences for failure. What's not to love?
I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to deploy a nuke. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide what level of existential threat necessitates torture. I cannot fathom wanting to be the person who has to decide whether to embroil the nation in a military quagmire to stop an impending genocide. I cannot fathom constantly dealing with hostage situations with terrorist groups. Why would you wish that on yourself? What sort of person thinks that is something worth pursuing? Losing a presidential election must be such a gift in disguise.
Saturday, May 02, 2015
automated bathrooms
A couple of months back I was in a store or restaurant bathroom with NJ and he stuck his hands under the sink expecting it to automatically come on. He knows how manual sinks work—our house bathroom sink is a typical manual one—but he is accustomed enough to automated sinks in businesses that it makes sense to him to expect one. In related news, I am feeling old.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
This has to be something that all parents face with some regularity, but it is always odd to realize how different things are for my kids' generation compared to mine. This is not in the interest of viewing one generation as superior, or spoiled, or disadvantaged. This is just in the interest of comparing experiences.
There are more obvious differences as well. My kids will grow up with different music than I did, with different TV shows than I did, and with the Internet. For whatever reason, the ready availability of automated sinks in store bathrooms throughout their lifetime is what strikes a chord with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)