Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Amazon Fire TV Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > philosophy discussion forum

Much younger/older partners - Friendship/Romance: Beyond cut off yrs.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 251-275 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Aug 2010 23:15:42 BDT
Dreamer says:
Kates you do have to realize that i'm still trying to work our my own views on the subject. Therefore I am automatically taking a position opposite to your own so that I can explore both sides of the argument. This is a discussion forum. In order to have a discussion you must have differences of opinion. Therefore I am takeing the position of the opposition in order to explore the exact implications and meanings of what you are suggesting. Sorry if you thought I was just being intransigent, I actually think you have a lot of good points.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2010 01:29:21 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Aug 2010 01:33:52 BDT
That`s fine, but what`s happening is that I`m being constantly blocked in our conversation from taking this debate any deeper, because unless you move on with me, such as by asking questions, it`s become only about covering the old ground. In a place like this, trust me, that is frustrating, and especially when after so much work, and such considerable time. Meanwhile, your personal views can be left to materialise at there own speed. It`s not easy, for over such matters, even for those for which it is least true, they are probably still very considerably tied into a social norm of thinking - This is why, in large part, I was hoping you`d work with me now, for the benefit from adopting an opposing stance is long worn off(?), rather than against. It could be that I`m too tough on you, but in this world we`re in, nothing of a person is ever quite clear. Thank you for remaining so civil.
Did you ever see my website??

Posted on 19 Aug 2010 02:03:32 BDT
Ford Prefect says:
The discussion here so far has focussed on the elderly male / teenage female scenario.

I'm wondering if the views expressed would be the same if the situation involved, say, a 55-year-old woman and a 16 year-old boy? Or a 55-year-old man and a 16 year-old boy? If not, why?

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2010 10:26:46 BDT
Damaskcat says:
A Little - yes would the views be different? I did try and bring this subject up earlier I think but D R Kates isn't interested in that he's only interested in young women/older men scenario. I have a much younger male partner but I didn't meet him until he was in his 20s. There was considerable pressure on us not to continue the realtionship - I was called cradle snatcher among other things and told he'd go off with someone his own age in the end. Funny that as we're still together nearly 22 years later! The age gap is 14 years but it's not obvious because he looks older than he is and I look younger than I am.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2010 15:47:22 BDT
Dreamer says:
Tell you what, i'll try and be more constructive if you'll try and be less cryptic. Half the time I have no idea what on earth you're on about.
No I don't usually look at websites I'm directed to from these forums. None of us really know each other and I don't want to end up with a computer virus. I will follow youtube links but apart from that I tend to avoid them.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2010 15:48:30 BDT
Dreamer says:
I agree it might be interesting to aproach this from the other side.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Aug 2010 18:18:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 19 Aug 2010 18:23:00 BDT
When I`m being cryptic ask me questions to find out what I`m saying? "We don`t know each other", but we do know each other far better than if we`d spent an entire weekend together - If we had merely exchanged a few words in a pub, or club, there wouldn`t be all this computer virus worry(?), and we`ve just spent months together, not by any means entirely together, but enough information about each other has exchanged. If society were not telling us not to trust in this environment we might still have left some rational mind - Under your own steam, and with your own mind, surely you know that I`m not so small minded as is your concern here - Ask youself, is this genuinely you, your mind, or, is this only society exercising its concern through you? - Are girls themselves actually ever genuinely of themselves ageist, or, is it societies ageism being acted out through them?
I know enough about you to be able to trust you, so why not you me? - They make too much play over being never able to trust anyone on the internet. My website merely tells you who I am, nothing else!

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 00:32:46 BDT
Dreamer says:
I know it seems a bit silly to be paranoid about getting computer viruses, but a friend of mine just had huge amounts of private information stolen via a computer virus, therefore I am being extra wary. I'm not saying that I distrust you in any way but it is best to keep out of the habit of following these links. This really isn't a reflection on you or our discussion but rather on the limits of this medium, something like 98% of language is non-verbal and therefore in this environment it is much easier to lie than in many other situations. Hey everyone needs to be paranoid about something it channels all of our natural paronoia instincts into a harmless direction. Trust me it's not about you I just know too much about the risks of computers. A friend of mine works for a compter company and he constantly gets completly messed up computers in from clicking on the wrong link. I trust you enough to be completely honest with you and i'm not that honest with many people. (admitedly the fake name helps). I don't trust computrs though sorry.

I see your point about peoples ageism being society's ageism acted through them. But doesn't this raise questions about the rest of people's behavior. How much of it is really us, how much are we just a manifestation of society's views? Is anything we ever do separate from society. I think a lot of behavior is either a manifestation of the system of rebellion against it. What would you say?

Posted on 21 Aug 2010 10:33:19 BDT
Are you sure, many peoples body language is quite poor(?) Non verbal in the sense that the brain has to process the verbal, such as, if one were up to such tricks, would one leave it this late to implement them? You have processed all the data(?), but are now responding as sole consequence of one negative and isolated incident, and one where you were not involved. Could not to refuse to know the identity of the person with which one spends time be a potential issue? - Girls, those that do, reject the notion of active friendship with men beyond cut-off years/are instruments of social ageism through male envy, and their only conciousness is of negative feed back - Can they ultimately break free to make a rational decision? Never, for this is what programming is - All pathways to truth,- (are their people in other places which will vouch for you, such as Facebook/Is there an indirect passage?), and always truth itself, are always obscured. By knowing whom the person is you have a vital context over what is being said(?)
When you look at a tree 100% is non eyes, in a sense, but you know through your eyes all the same, and in this case, you know through the language, it`s testing, and the duration; this taking it of course that intuition and reasoning over this matter still exists?
Thanks, yes, you see it as I do, and it would probably have to be approached situation by situation(?) The philosopher should always attempt to separate him/herself from both society, and the self ego, before making any deliberation. Perhaps the simplest way to view it is like this - We are in the first instance all linked to society/a part of society in our design/our thinking. Absolute truth can sometimes be discovered through abstract thinking, is sometimes that which we`ve been given, and sometimes that left hanging in the air of lifes experience. In order to recognise absolute truths we must have this second instinct. You are right, we are all heavily compromised in this quest, and considerable amounts of time and thinking are the only key.
You need to complete your sentence and question. It already looks very hard to follow?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 11:27:15 BDT
Damaskcat says:
Body language - by and large - can't be controlled by the conscious mind - which is why liars give themselves away. Body language is read and understood by the unconscious mind not the conscious mind.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 12:30:44 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2010 12:32:47 BDT
Welcome in. I would suggest that, this despite what we are supposed to believe is the case, and here I`d obviously agree, our overall capacities in body language fall well short of the language of words, the language of actions, and possibly even the language of pauses, that they can be mostly at the margins, but are actually largely a concious communication, and are in fact very often more likely to be misconstued/ taken out of context - The psychological backdrop, beyond the actual situation at hand, to the particular body language is too often unrealised - To suggest that 98% is non verbal is misleading without detailed clarification, and even then in my opinion, if we`re talking in terms of successful communication, there`s a big difference, is considerably too high. It would become much closer the truth if the population were all to undertake formal body language, and related psychological training - The times I`ve been misunderstood on account of my body language. The police should score highly! The combination of the written word and duration has the potential for very considerable distance on their own! Absolute certainty can probably be said not to exist(?) - Is it that you have no interest in whom I am that your timing for acting is now, or, is this the manifestation of the single social mind playing out, a place where free/philosophical thinking is squashed.
I confirm what you say concerning the origins of body language.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 14:59:17 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2010 14:59:38 BDT
Damaskcat says:
I would have thought you would know that the greatest part of verbal communication is tone of voice and body language - only about 8% of it is the words used.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 15:24:05 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2010 15:34:25 BDT
Dreamer - We are intricately locked up with society, both to it and with it, as individuals to varying degrees but none the less substantially so, agreed? Whether it is the case that in absolute truth that truth resides with us where we have vision now, or, in another place which exists in a place despite ourselves, our communal selves, can only be known once all possible communal corruptions have been first addressed, then isolated, and finally we have reassessed what is true. Yellow is the colour of largely social thinking/typically largely social thinking - I don`t know the percentage range, I`d guess perhaps 80-99% social thinking - This is where I believe most of us reside for most of the time, some of us aware, others not, some of us in denial, others not. Red is the colour of free thought, in the centre of the band, yellow to the outsides, but red isn`t entirely red, not for anybody, and it ranges between still yellow, but with the misconception of being red, effectively colour blindness, and orange. Only the great philosophers ever arrive at near red, the nearest that humans can come to genuinely free thought and independent thinking, but even they only for moments at a time. The red is the place to be!
I do accept that one shock incident over websites could be all that`s at work here, but in order for me to be sure, we`ve only words (not even tones, which I`d neglected to mention before) I need to be a lot more questioning, and over considerably longer than if we were face to face - Do even you yourself honestly know yet that the social mind is playing no part?

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 15:55:59 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2010 16:05:17 BDT
Nothing can be said to be "known" here, but if you were to remove the words you`d have very little language(?), and after that it has a considerable amount to say for how well you can work with language - Many people don`t actually give much away either by tone or by body language, but successful communication with some people is still quite possible - 8%, is this your figure? - Do you honestly realise how triveal 8% actually is? To argue that it`s a very potent 8% is the same as to say that it`s greater than 8% I`ve thought on this. If you explain in depth what you personally are quantifying in terms of the 8% and the 92%, and how it is exactly that you arrive at these percentages, in your own personal language, then we begin a debate with you - This is right, and that`s wrong, is not enough for me, for anyone, to follow on, other than with other percentages, but to what end?? Philosophy must be about explanation, or there`s no successful communication - I know what I`m supposed to believe, as I`ve prev.stated, but I`m far more interested in a journey into absolute truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 16:13:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 21 Aug 2010 16:24:21 BDT
Damaskcat says:
D R Kates - I have been through 5 years of training - both trainer and trainee - in management. One of the most important subjects studied in such training is communication. The 8% is the generally accepted proportion of the message carried by the words in any face to face communication.

I can't at the moment find you a link to a site that shows the pie chart that is usually used to demonstrate this - so I'm happy to accept that I may have remembered the exact figure incorrectly. The words you use are a very small part of the communication process - which I think any book or website on communication skills will tell you. That's the point I was trying to make - most of the message comes from non-verbal cues NOT from the words used.

EDIT: 'Borg attests that human communication consists of 93 percent body language and paralinguistic cues, while only 7% of communication consists of words themselves[1]; however, Albert Mehrabian, the researcher whose 1960s work is the source of these statistics, has stated that this is a misunderstanding of the findings[2] (see Misinterpretation of Mehrabian's rule). Others assert that "Research has suggested that between 60 and 70 percent of all meaning is derived from nonverbal behavior."[3]'

This is from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language

So even if you ignore Borg's percentages - the largest part of face to face communication is carried by non verbal means. I suspect this percentage varies a little with the context of the communication anyway.

In reply to an earlier post on 21 Aug 2010 22:33:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Aug 2010 11:26:43 BDT
I know you believe this, and because it`s in books, I`m aware, and that`s why they sell, but I disagree, as you know, and I`ve explained my position - This is a philosophy forum, and we are not tied to others opinions, at least should not be, nor indeed to books, for we are here to think for ourselves? If you have a position, then, for the second asking please explain it, so as we may follow.
If the English language is to be treated even the slightest bit fairly there can be no hidden agenda/less than obvious reference point when suggesting merely/only to a relative percentage, for you`d first require a much longer and more detailed sentiment, and with this the claim itself would be altered. Otherwise, and as it stands, you should therefore be able to communicate from another room/in a darkened room without words, by making full use of the other 92% of body language, more than enough, don`t you think - If you can manage on merely the 8% of untoned language, which often you can when you have to, and under every single circumstance to it, explain why under countless circumstances the replacing of the 8% with the 98% leaves you with no communication what-so-ever, never mind whether it`s successful or not. You also have all my previous points to clear up at the same time. I know what it says in certain publications, why it says it, and I know what publishers want, how to make a name, and why books sell, but I`m asking you to convince me, for publications never will. You must have something to say on the subject, in what you believe? There are inadequate terms in that sentiment for it to be suggesting to the 8% as being any more than virtually insignificant to final communication - We are not communicating to the death here!
GIRLS make assumptions about older men based in "truth", and without a second thought/with no reflection of their own - It is written that, etc,etc. (in societies doctrine), but it is far too often the wrong truth.
YOU have just added another post above me... I`m not in any way obliged to, but I`d probably come out at around 40-60% myself, perhaps even the 60, but this would warrant some further clarification of the sentiment. Yes, this isn`t about books anymore, that sounds quite reasonable! I trust that you realise what we`re talking about now though, it`s totally changed, that this issue has now been updated by you/your findings to include behaviour, and behaviour is totally different from body language - I new the sentiment had to be incomplete
INCLUDE BEHAVIOUR and the girls will, eventually at least, potentially always understand most communications for precisely what they are. Behaviour is not strictly part of communication itself, unlike communicational language, but may result from it, at the time, but much more commonly later.
Thank you for clearing this matter up. I couldn`t agree any more without exploding! Permission to move on before I do!!?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Aug 2010 09:56:00 BDT
Damaskcat says:
If publications will never convince you then I can't see how me typing anything on here will convince you either!

I'm not sure what you mean by behaviour - please give me an example

The point I was trying - and clearly failing - to make is that much of communication is subliminal. If you cannot see the person you miss the greatest part of what they may be saying.

I've spoken to groups of people and had some completely misread my messages - because they have preconceptions about the nuances attached to certain words. For instance you can say something is very unlikely to happen and some people will interpret that as likely to happen - presumably because of their own experience and your own body language or simply because they're cynical.

Face to face communication is a very inexact science. Because you don't know how the recipient is receiving your message you always need to make sure they 'talk back' to you otherwise you end up with confusion. It's the same with social interaction.

Your example of communicating from one room to another is a straw man. If you can't hear any words or see anyone then there is no communication - unless you go into the realms of telepathy. If you're saying you can communicate from one room to another by only hearing the words then yes you can - it's like telephone conversations. Body language has to be seeen to be understood.

You've only got to hear a couple of people who've been together a long time to know that communication is more than words. My partner made a comment that I hadn't moved the wheelie bin after the bin men had been. From his tone of voice it was a criticism of me for not moving it though it could have been a statement of fact - but I got the extra message that he was displeased with me but I also got the message that he was having a go at me because he was nervous about a doctor's appointment he was about to go to. Knowing that I was able to bite my tongue and not make an issue out of it because I knew the circumstances surrounding his comment. Communication - even with people you don't know - is not as simple as you think it is.

Posted on 22 Aug 2010 11:06:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Aug 2010 09:01:08 BDT
It isn`t necessary to define the difference between body language and behaviour. Behaviour obviously came from out of the blue because it isn`t a part of communication, though it is of course something over which communication may be assessed, and it can have a very considerable degree of biult-in precision in this regard. I`m sure we agree. Where precisely I`d place my percentages depends on the small print of the actual study in question - How complete must communication be to be deemed successful. Do we stop, or continue on from the point of what`s being taken to be adequate/successful communication to include the entire art form. Is triveal conversation defined, where are its boundaries being said to fall, and is it rated down/treated as there being less of it from meaningful conversation - In my view it should be before arriving at figures.
IF GIRLS were to always study well behaviour, and at the same time to focus far less on the actual words uttered, they`d become almost invincible where guy`s are concerned, and regardless of respective ages. The girls would of course not always have the opportunity to follow the behaviour, and neither would there always be behaviour to be followed, nor, behaviour which can be assessed readily well.
There`s no straw man(?), if your in another room you simply shout, but it`s more difficult to communicate from there with body language, though I accept that behaviour might be in with a shout of its own!! - It wouldn`t happen often though? - Some people are brilliant with language, others not, so you can only generalise. I agree with your points, and I do accept that you`ve studied all this, but having accepted that most conversation might be only of a rather trivial nature this does I feel require to bare out in the percentages, for words alone are more often more nearly adequate when the subject matter is no more than a stop-gap, and where there may be little if any receptiveness to meaning beyond just the words(?)
My figures would range between about 8o% and about twenty percent the words, dependent upon the actual terms of the study, and this is where I got my 40-60% other than the words from. These are obviously averages, for nobody can actually say between two individuals, not without repeating the process of the entire study, agreed? It is all quite subjective, though, I do follow with your communications. Wake-up now Dreamer! What do you think, and we`re not repeating it all for you!!

Posted on 22 Aug 2010 12:08:29 BDT
Damaskcat says:
I think behaviour doesn't always tie in with what people say. I remember reading something in a novel I think which said 'never mind their eyes, watch their hands' In other words you need to aware of what people are doing just as much - if not more - than what they are saying. But I'm not sure how all this relates - if at all - to your original question.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Aug 2010 13:27:45 BDT
Last edited by the author on 22 Aug 2010 13:33:55 BDT
I forget the original question!! Much of words only communication is either incomplete, or, non communication, accepted that, but much of the remaining modes of communication may also be at times incomplete, or, non communication. In both furtherance, and addition, isn`t it often the case that one may be saying one thing whilst thinking on the next, or, even something entirely different.
Behaviour incidental to the actual communicational process, the endeavour to communicate, is behaviour, what a person does, and "behaviour", at whatever level, which is happening as part of the communicational process is body language. That`s my take on what should be considered the most practical point of division, and one which offers the least opportunity for misunderstanding, and therefore optimises on the potential power of words to deliver.
Behaviour can be critical to critical communications, but unfortunately/sometimes fortunately is often missing at that time.

Posted on 22 Aug 2010 23:04:10 BDT
Dreamer says:
WOW you guys have been busy. Ok so we're talking about body language now. I'm not an expert but as far as i'm aware a large percentage of natural human communication is not the concious verbal words we use but tiny gestures, signals, changes in tone of voice and even smell. We get a huge amount of information about other people's intentions, meanings and state of mind from this. I read a newspaper article that was to do with concerns that the amount of time teenagers spend on the internet was having a negative impact on their ability to interpret this info and by extension was damaging their social skills and ability to relate to people.
One of the major areas of defiency in this medium is the ability to express humour. On many occasions on other forums I have made jokes which people then took offence at, thinking I was being serious.
Most of what I know relates to autistic people's inability to interpret this info so my knowledge of the subject is in a slightly different area to Damaskat.
One interesting thing to note is that verbal communication is a fairly recent development while non verbal communication has been around for millenia.

Posted on 23 Aug 2010 00:40:37 BDT
Charlieost says:
Hi Dreamer. Re your comments about night clubs and festivals, I heard that the Elephant Fayres are starting up again. They were brilliant in the eighties. Best festivals I ever went to. Did ye ever get over to them?

Posted on 23 Aug 2010 08:59:06 BDT
Last edited by the author on 23 Aug 2010 09:09:46 BDT
Dreamer - That makes a lot of sense to me, although, I`ve never been quite convinced over smells, besides, you`d require a very hieghtened sense? It should also be taken into the equation just how much time may be spent either too tiered to function much beyond just the voice, words, pauses, and their tone, and also how much conversation may actually occur without any visual contact. Whilst working, or, facing in different directions/in positions where there can be none, or, very little visual contact. For a higher percentage of communication to be considered as being other than the voice, both of these terms, potential, and optimal, must be included - Potential optimal communication is %... Not, communication is..., for we typically spend a lot of time in both a recovering state, and also in an environment where there are priorities above often significant visual contact. Highly trivial conversation doesn`t so often in my view lend itself well to an optimal environment for visual contact. You might require to define trivial quite closely though. Our abilities were presumably far greater before words.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Aug 2010 23:55:15 BDT
Dreamer says:
Never did i'm afraid. Never got round to it before they closed down.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Aug 2010 00:14:00 BDT
Dreamer says:
It's interesting that you say you are unable to interpret people's body language when you are tired, I process things very visually so when i'm tired I often have trouble focusing on peoples voices, it sometimes gets to the point where I have not idea what they were talking about. I would guess you naturally process things in a more auditory way. I also feel very uncomfortable talking to people without being able to see them therefore where possible I will always turn to face them. That's part of the reason I hate talking on the phone. Do you feel uncomfortable trying to communicate with people if you can't hear them properly. I'm interested in your response as it would be interesting to compare.
With regard to smells maybe it's just me but i've noticed that most people have their own smell, this smell tends to be similar for people who live together but it is always subtley different. Interestingly the smell often fits their personality quite well.
‹ Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 62 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the philosophy discussion forum (106 discussions)

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  59
Total posts:  1536
Initial post:  27 Jan 2010
Latest post:  25 days ago

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions