fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/07/85)
>>Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman. >>Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time. In article <peora.1007> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >Yes, but nowadays people are too MUCH salesmen. I see this conducting >job interviews. People think that if they are just good enough salesmen, >their personal attributes will be overlooked. This is not true. Sheesh! Employers are never satisfied, are they? First they said they wanted college graduates. So the youth all went to college. Then they said they wanted graduates of useful disciplines, not liberal arts. So people shifted from liberal arts to business and engineering. Then the employers said that technical skills are not enough. You must sell yourself. So the students practiced salesmenship. Now they say salesmanship is not enough. They must have a good character and good communications skills (isn't that the purpose of a liberal arts program?). Next thing, employers are going to demand students who are able to separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional. Smart, but not intellectual. Prudent, but not afraid to take risks. Social and well-rounded, with many hobbies, but hard working and dedicated to the job. A family-oriented man who will put his job ahead of his family. Feet on the ground, no head in the clouds, but a regualar church-goer. Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become. Frank Silbermann ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS?
rich@sdcc12.UUCP (rich) (06/10/85)
In article <396@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >>>Dale Carnegie's book is quite a good one for a salesman. >>>Let's face it, we're all salemen some of the time. > >Then the employers said that technical skills are not enough. You must > sell yourself. >So the students practiced salesmenship. > > >Next thing, employers are going to demand students who are able to >separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional. >Smart, but not intellectual. Prudent, but not afraid to take risks. >Social and well-rounded, with many hobbies, but hard working and dedicated >to the job. A family-oriented man who will put his job ahead of his family. >Feet on the ground, no head in the clouds, but a regualar church-goer. > >Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become. > > Frank Silbermann > ANYBODY OUT THERE FROM PALATKA, FLORIDA, OR THEREABOUTS? Damn yuppies. -rich
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (06/10/85)
In article <396@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >Sheesh! Employers are never satisfied, are they? > >First they said they wanted college graduates. >So the youth all went to college. > >Then they said they wanted graduates of useful disciplines, not liberal arts. >So people shifted from liberal arts to business and engineering. > >Then the employers said that technical skills are not enough. You must > sell yourself. >So the students practiced salesmenship. > >Now they say salesmanship is not enough. They must have a good character > and good communications skills (isn't that the purpose of a liberal arts > program?). > >Next thing, employers are going to demand students who are able to >separate themselves above the crowd, but without becoming unconventional. >[several more increasingly-contradictory requirements..] > >Just tell us what you want, and that's what we'll become. I believe that the interviewer quoted was not saying that "salesmanship is not enough" but that he disliked interviewees selling themselves. In general, all employers are not going to want exactly the same qualities, and students simply cannot conform to a single standard and thus become the ideal employeee - some of the qualities desired ARE contradictory. One partial solution is to figure out what you ARE good at, and find an employer who values that. Or try to make yourself into what "most employers seem to want", and accept the fact that some employers disagree. Personally, I wouldn't make a very good salesman, but the qualities that would make me a poor salesman probably make me better-suited to the work that I do want to do.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/10/85)
[The referenced article comments on my suggesting that people nowadays are
too much salesmen.]
Now, wait a minute! First of all, you should not attribute my incidental
observation to the people I work for. My opinion of how interviewees
present themselves has nothing to do with my technical evaluation of them.
However, I have a good bit of experience in this area. Before I came here,
I used to teach college students, where the same problem existed: people
would not study adequately, then would make low grades and come to me
afterwards to try to convince me they deserved a higher grade. (Some even
had the audacity to say "I had a big fraternity party the day before the
test.") If they would put half the effort into learning the material that
they put into convincing me that it didn't matter that they didn't, they
would have done better in the first place.
If someone comes to me, filled with salesmanship, tells me he's a great
person, has written compilers and designed an operating system and you name
it, and then I ask him a simple technical question and he can't answer it
(but he can make some really impressive explanations of why he can't!),
what am I to think?
One of the big problems is the people are always trying to find out what
employers want. Well, employers want people who do a good job at their work.
Now, looking at your list of complaints, actually I will agree with you about
the importance of a liberal arts education (after all, I got my BS degree from
Davidson College, which at the time taught only ONE CS-type course, before
going to an engineering school for 5 years).
It's just this "magic formula" approach to life that's the problem again.
If you want to do well at something, well, then, you have to work at it; there
is not a magic formula that will make it work for you.
---------
MAJOR DISCLAIMER!: the above opinions, and the one Frank was commenting on
originally, reflect my opinions only; they do not reflect those of Perkin-
Elmer, nor do they necessarily reflect its personnel requirements. [I think
Frank perhaps misinterpreted my phrase "personal attributes" to mean
"personality", which I did not mean; I meant "properties of the person
himself," i.e., technical competence, knowledge of his or her area of
expertise, etc., as opposed to the ones he or she attempted to project
through salesmanship.] (But, I imagine good salesmanship would be very
desirable in the SALES dept., don't you?)
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Erny vfgf qba'g hfr Xbqnpuebzr."fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/14/85)
In article <peora.1047> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: (heavily edited) >[The referenced article comments on my suggesting that people nowadays are >too much salesmen.] > >If someone comes to me, filled with salesmanship, tells me he's a great >person, has written compilers and designed an operating system and you name >it, and then I ask him a simple technical question and he can't answer it >(but he can make some really impressive explanations of why he can't!), >what am I to think? > >One of the big problems is the people are always trying to find out what >employers want. Well, employers want people who do a good job at their work. > >It's just this "magic formula" approach to life that's the problem again. >If you want to do well at something, well, then, you have to work at it; there >is not a magic formula that will make it work for you. > >I imagine good salesmanship would be very desirable in the SALES dept., >don't you? I think we agree 100% on the facts, but disagree on which ones to emphasize. Obviously, salemanship without technical competence in a technical job is useless. But my point is that it is much better to have both, than technical competence alone. It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept them. It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas. This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success versus rotting in a dead-end position. I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves, who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers, but under-utilized by their companies. Frank Silbermann
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (06/23/85)
> It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept them. > It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas. > This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success > versus rotting in a dead-end position. > > I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves, > who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers, > but under-utilized by their companies. > > Frank Silbermann I disagree. I want technical people who are competent and who are reasonably articulate, but if they need to ``sell themselves'' in order to be appreciated and utilized, I'm failing in my job as a manager. And if they have a salesman-like mentality, I'll likely not hire them no matter how technically competent they are. Many times I've seen people work hard to sell an idea, but ignore the ideas of the rest of the team--and thus create a tremendous problem by this ``salesmanship''. I want to discuss possibilities and choose based on facts, not on the size of the ego of whoever has the idea. An idea should succeed or fail on its merits; although I'm certain that good ideas are often passed over because they aren't well-presented, this is a failure in trying to *express* them, not *sell* them. Perhaps what you've noticed, Frank, is the inability of some ``techies'' to communicate what they are thinking in a reasonable and articulate way. Or it is a failure of managment to deal with its people in a way that allows them best to express their ideas--I've certainly seen this happen a lot as well. But I wouldn't call these things a lack of the employee's ``salemanship''. To tie this in with net.singles: there is a big difference between liking yourself and expressing your thoughts well (something other people generally find attractive), and having ``salesmanship''. The latter has its place--I don't intend to demean sales people--but it has no place in relationships, and although superficially attractive, it wears out pretty fast. -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (06/29/85)
Frank Silbermann: >> It doesn't matter how good your ideas are if nobody will listen or accept >> them. It takes salesmanship to convince others to accept your ideas. >> This ability can make the difference between outstanding career success >> versus rotting in a dead-end position. >> >> I have seen too many top notch techies who couldn't sell themselves, >> who were thus not only unappreciated and underpaid by their managers, >> but under-utilized by their companies. In article <randvax.2565> edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) writes: >I disagree. I want technical people who are competent and who are >reasonably articulate, but if they need to ``sell themselves'' in order >to be appreciated and utilized, I'm failing in my job as a manager. And >if they have a salesman-like mentality, I'll likely not hire them no >matter how technically competent they are. > >Perhaps what you've noticed, Frank, is the inability of some ``techies'' >to communicate what they are thinking in a reasonable and articulate >way. Or it is a failure of managment to deal with its people in a >way that allows them best to express their ideas--I've certainly seen >this happen a lot as well. But I wouldn't call these things a lack of >the employee's ``salemanship''. Salesmanship includes the ability to communicate what you are thinking in a reasonable and articulate way. If you cannot do this, then you cannot be a good salesman. >Many times I've seen people work hard to sell an idea, but ignore the >ideas of the rest of the team--and thus create a tremendous problem by >this ``salesmanship''. I want to discuss possibilities and choose based >on facts, not on the size of the ego of whoever has the idea. An idea >should succeed or fail on its merits; although I'm certain that good >ideas are often passed over because they aren't well-presented, this is >a failure in trying to *express* them, not *sell* them. I think your point is that, with the ability to communicate in a reasonable and articulate way, the other parts of salesmanship (persuading people on an emotional level) are unnecessary and, in your position, counter-productive. Certainly, you know your own situation best, but let's look at it from another perspective. As long as the programmer continues to receive promotions, he will eventually reach a position where his boss will not be interested in the technical details. The boss will rate him largely on a subjective basis (e.g. does he look professional and responsible? Does he wear a Brooks Brothers suit?). This is where salesmanship comes into play. A data-processing systems- analyst must be able to gain the confidence of the less technical users. An EDP consultant must impress managers who may not know what is happening on a technical level, but who control the budget. People who ignore salesmanship do so at their own peril. Note that Univac and Burroughs lost out to IBM for this very reason, even though both were companies were more technically advanced. >To tie this in with net.singles: there is a big difference between >liking yourself and expressing your thoughts well (something other >people generally find attractive), and having ``salesmanship''. The >latter has its place--I don't intend to demean sales people--but it has >no place in relationships, and although superficially attractive, it >wears out pretty fast. I think that is only partially true. Salesmanship is the ability to present your case in the way that will best appeal to your "prospect". To borrow terminology from the Myers-Briggs personality studies, your spouse may be a "feeler" rather than a "thinker". In that case, it would be more considerate of you to deal with her on an emotional level, rather than always using "cold, unappealing logic." Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship, i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but they often do well at starting relationships. Perhaps it's best to be flexible -- using salesmanship while relationships are still superficial, and then growing out of that mode as the relationship becomes closer. Or would such flexibility be too much for one person to master? Frank Silbermann
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/02/85)
> Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship, > i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative > people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but > they often do well at starting relationships. Frank, I will agree with you for a change! This has always seemed a sad thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily "taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches," eventhough often those were the ones I (personally) thought were the less- desirable people (due to their tendency to distort things in a way intended to look the best). (And have also observed that in the long run many times things did not work out all that well, for that reason.) However, maybe this is just the old "what does he/she see in her/him" question. I must confess that I have an extreme dislike for people who don't tell me the truth about things, and this is largely why I perceived the above-mentioned people as "less desirable". At the same time I have seen that many people seem to exist in a frame of reference in which this distortion-of-reality is expected, even desirable, and although this is a frame of reference I don't understand, perhaps it is no less reasonable than mine... Just part of the infinite human variability, I guess. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/04/85)
In article <tove.258> dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) writes: > >When I was a student, I had a summer job one summer as a door-to-door >salesman. As part of the job, we memorized various sales talks, >read "inspirational literature", and were trained to keep ourselves >"pumped up" and enthusiastic no matter what happened. The facade >looked pretty fakey to me, but it WORKED--those who were most successful >at the job were those who used it the most. I found myself using it too, >in order to get the job done. But I didn't like it: some of the things >we were supposed to do were pretty manipulative, and the company was >manipulating me in the same way. Thus, even though I was doing reasonably >well at the job, I quit after about a month. Imagine you are a WOMAN just starting college. Like so many others, you are new at the dorm, and would like to make new friends. A sophmore from the men's floor approaches you to ask if you want to join him and his friends on a trip to the nearby beach. Below are two possible approaches he might use: 1) Hi there! Are you new here? I don't remember you from last year. ... (What's your major, etc.) ... A bunch of my friends are heading down to the beach. Wanna come? Come on! We'll have a great time! Where's your room? I'll help you carry your stuff. 2) (Slouch over to her like you are recovering from mononucleosis). Hello. Were you here last year? I might not have met you then; I don't make friends to easily. Want to come with me to the beach? It won't be too boring, because they'll be alot of other people there. Which approach do you think would be more effective? My point is that you SHOULD try to keep yourself "pumped up" and enthusiastic when trying to meet women, just as you should when selling. Frank Silbermann P.S. Please note: This doesn't mean that I approve of what that company wanted you to do that summer. I disapprove, not because of the sales tactics, but because I don't believe in their product. If this is the company I'm thinking of, they specialize in selling overpriced books to ignorant poor people who are unable to recognize a rip-off. Of course, this criticism wouldn't apply to your attempts to meet women. After all, you're quite a guy (aren't you?), and you'd be doing the women a favor by introducing yourself!
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/05/85)
Frank Silbermann: >> Besides, what about the problem of _INITIATING_ a relationship, >> i.e. getting that first date? I will agree that coldly manipulative >> people do not do so well in relationships over the long haul, but >> they often do well at starting relationships. J. Eric Roskos: >Frank, I will agree with you for a change! This has always seemed a sad >thing for me; You're probably not the only one who feels that agreeing with me is a sad thing. :-) J. Eric Roskos: > that having known many male-type people very well, and a >reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many >times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily >"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches," >even though often those were the ones I thought were the less-desirable >people due to their tendency to distort things in a way intended to look >the best. And have also observed that in the long run many times things >did not work out all that well, for that reason. > >However, maybe this is just the old "what does he/she see in her/him" >question. I must confess that I have an extreme dislike for people who >don't tell me the truth about things, and this is largely why I perceived >the above-mentioned people as "less desirable". At the same time I have >seen that many people seem to exist in a frame of reference in which this >distortion-of-reality is expected, even desirable, and although this is >a frame of reference I don't understand, perhaps it is no less reasonable >than mine... Can it be an honest difference is style? Do you see the wine glass as half empty or half full? As I grew up, I automatically adopted my parents' style, which they got from their parents, which ultimately derived from Eastern European superstitions about the evil eye. For those of you who haven't yet read Leo Rosten's "The Joys of Yiddish", let me explain. The evil eye is a devil whose job it is to make trouble for people on Earth (perhaps to test their faith in God, as Satan did with Job). If ever you admit that things are going too well, or that your are too satisfied or comfortable, the evil eye might hear you and realize that he has forgotten to torment you lately. If that happens, the good times are over. To counteract this, Jews try to complain as much as possible. Complain about your ill health; complain about how terrible your wife is; complain about your political leaders; complain about anything and everything. Doing so will fool the evil eye, by making him think he has caused enough trouble for you already, so he might go away and leave you alone. Gentiles that I grew up with in Palatka Florida didn't understand this attitude. Oddly, they found being around me to be unhealthy and depressing. They preferred a more Protestant attitude like Rev. Norman Vincent Peal's "The Power of Positive Thinking." I'll give an example of the use of this philosphy in sports. If you go into a match expecting to lose, then you WILL lose. If you expect to win, or at least if you believe that you have a good chance of winning, then you may well win, even if the opposition has a reputation of USUALLY playing better than you do. That's why at the beginning of baseball season, so many team managers tell the sportswriters that they expect to win the pennent this year. Though most of them will end up with quite undistinguished seasons. Let's get back to social relations. If you tell a woman or yourself, that you're just looking for an easy lay, that's all you'll get, if you get anything at all. But if you tell her that you respect her, that this is no common fling, that she really means something to you, well who knows? MAYBE such a relationship WILL grow, after all! If not, well, you tried! Positive thinking doesn't come easily to me, but I'm working on it! Frank Silbermann
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (07/06/85)
In article <539@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >... My point is >that you SHOULD try to keep yourself "pumped up" and enthusiastic >when trying to meet women, just as you should when selling. I think there's a difference between being genuinely enthusiastic and the kind of facade those door-to-door salesmen used. The latter was pretty fakey. -- Dana S. Nau, Computer Science Dept., U. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 ARPA: dsn@maryland CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn Phone: (301) 454-7932
pooh@ut-sally.UUCP (Pooh @ the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen) (07/08/85)
From postnews Mon Jul 8 09:09:24 1985 > Frank Silbermann: > > As I grew up, I automatically adopted my parents' style, which they > got from their parents, which ultimately derived from Eastern European > superstitions about the evil eye. . . > If ever you admit that > things are going too well, or that your are too satisfied or comfortable, > the evil eye might hear you and realize that he has forgotten to torment > you lately. If that happens, the good times are over. > > Gentiles that I grew up with in Palatka Florida didn't understand this > attitude. Oddly, they found being around me to be unhealthy and depressing. > They preferred a more Protestant attitude like Rev. Norman Vincent Peal's > "The Power of Positive Thinking." > > Let's get back to social relations. If you tell a woman or yourself, > that you're just looking for an easy lay, that's all you'll get, > if you get anything at all. But if you tell her that you respect her, > that this is no common fling, that she really means something to you, > well who knows? MAYBE such a relationship WILL grow, after all! > If not, well, you tried! > Well, Frank, maybe the best thing to do is to tell her that, and then complain to your friends about how she doesn't like you and it's not going to work out! :-) A Funky Little Jewish Princess, Pooh pooh@ut-sally.ARPA pooh@purdue-ecn-cb.ARPA ut-sally!pooh pur-ee!pooh Roly-poly fish heads are never seen drinking cappuccino in Italian restaurants with Oriental women. . .
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/10/85)
Well, Frank, although I was a little annoyed that you reposted my entire
article, and glad I was on a 19200 baud terminal instead of my 1200 baud Mac,
I must admit I sympathize some with this "evil eye" notion. I think it
may be more of an Eastern European tradition than just a Yiddish one, since
my Eastern European ancestors apparently had the same idea, and they are
all Lutherans.
However, I don't see what this has to do with my original observation. Let
me explain it more by an anecdote.
Back when I was much younger, I believed there were things to be "learned"
from "wiser" people about social interactions, since I was always basically
a shy person and never felt very socially polished. I had a friend who also
had this idea, and was always trying to advise me. He had many female
friends, so I tended to believe him at the time.
Now, one day, I met a person in a sandwich shop named Alison. I thought
Alison was the greatest thing since sliced bread, because she seemed just
like me, somehow. Well, I wanted to tell her this, "Hi, I think you are
the greatest thing since sliced bread," etc., (well, not quite that way),
but this friend of mine always advised me "No, you mustn't do it that way!
Such honesty never works!" Instead, he proposed the sort of approaches
towards social interaction which you are often proposing here.
Well, being a shy person back then, I actually tried neither, and instead
one day after many tries just merely gave her a flower. Eventually I
discovered that she didn't like the sort of people who acted the way you
are describing. On the other hand, I discovered that most of the female
friends of this friend of mine didn't like the sort of people who were
all honest and ingenuous the way I was; they felt I didn't have this "class"
you have referred to.
This led me to realize the existence of these different viewpoints on
social interaction, which I have described in response to your comments.
I suspect that is why some people agree with you and some don't. I tend
not to agree with you many times, but then, I suspect many people like
the sort of socially polished image you seem to advocate, whereas I myself
are more like a painting by Andrew Wyeth. That's just the nature of human
variability, as I said before.
[What became of Alison? you are wondering. Well, she graduated and moved
away.]
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
Gur ArgArjf... n qlvat pbzzhavpngvba sbez?tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/12/85)
In article <1216@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a >reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many >times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily >"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches," What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before? - Tim Bessie
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/12/85)
>What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of >these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before? >- Tim Bessie Watch TV comercials for an hour, Tim. If you still think male-types and female-types are outdated, passe', or a moot point, then you are merely being naive (no offense intended). Despite "equality" of the sexes, types exist and even some of the most ardent feminists I know support different types for men a women, just not the ones we have today. -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "The Church of Fred has yet to come under attack. No one knows about it." -Rev. Wang Zeep
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/14/85)
In article <peora.1257> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >Well, Frank, I was a little annoyed that you reposted my entire article. Sorry about that. I just couldn't figure out which part to cut out. I'll try harder from now on. >I must admit I sympathize some with this "evil eye" notion. I think it >may be more of an Eastern European tradition than just a Yiddish one, >since my Eastern European ancestors apparently had the same idea, >and they are all Lutherans. However, I don't see what this has to do >with my original observation. You were bothered by the way a salesman tends to emphasize the advantages of his product, while ignoring the disadvantages and weaknesses. Similarly, some people are good at putting on a good front, making themselves seem better than they really are. I believe you expressed annoyance at the success of this (dishonest?) tactic. I have no sympathy for the guy who just plain _lies_ about his accomplishments. But I believe you should try to emphasize your most attractive qualities and distract attention from your faults as much as possible. These will come out soon enough anyway. But why expose them to someone before that person has first had a chance to appreciate your good points? To connect this to the evil-eye business -- The person afraid of the evil eye will dwell his disatisfactions. He is overly modest, feeling that pride not only goeth before a fall, but actually causeth the fall. Focusing so much attention on his faults, such a person begins to create a self-image based on them. This makes it doubly difficult to improve, since any new behavior will be seen as phony and unnatural. The Positive-Thinker, on the other hand, focuses his attention upon what is good (or improving) about himself, not because he is completely satisfied with what he sees, but because a positive self-image is necessary for proper growth. In other words, if you tell yourself that you are stupid, you will lose confidence in yourself, and the resulting anxiety will cause you to make stupid mistakes, thus confirming your self-image. If you tell yourself that you are intelligent, you will not be afraid to use your mind. The result is that, effectively, you will conduct your life in a more intelligent fashion. Similarly, if you tell yourself that you're a really sexy guy (in your own way), you will begin to behave in a manner consistent with your self-image. The result is that you WILL become sexier. So, when a person you know well seems to be promoting himself in a biased way, he is not necessarily dishonest. He may be merely focusing on the bright side. And let's face it. A person who often puts himself down in public is likely to do the same thing to his spouse, children, friends or employer, once he begins to strongly identify with them. Who wants to have someone like that around? Frank Silbermann
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/15/85)
>In article <1216@peora.UUCP> jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) writes: >>thing for me; that having known many male-type people very well, and a >>reasonable number of female-type people fairly well, I have observed many >>times that reasonably intelligent female-type people still get easily >>"taken in" by the male-type people with the cleverest "sales pitches," > >What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of >these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before? Glad you asked. I use these two terms because if I don't, a handful of people come out of strange corners and begin uttering hostile rhetoric because whatever word I happened to use offended them. The above terms connote nothing at all except a person's sex, and are based on a strange grammatical flaw in Niklaus Wirth's original book on Pascal. Having argued endlessly with Sophie Quigley, Beth@sphinx, and Jeannette Zobjbeck (sp.) over words for female people, and other irritating aspects of English syntax, I would rather not use any words at all than get into another argument. Disclaimer follows. (However, I have decided Jeannette is basically a nice person. This doesn't absolve the former two, however, who have never yet said anything to me that wasn't purely vindictive. However, it seems pointless to endlessly argue over mere words, especially when there is so little time remaining to do so... I hope you won't start another such argument in here; there is enough in net.flame already.) -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 [But, at the time you are reading this, probably in New Jersey]
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (07/16/85)
> But I believe you should try to emphasize your most attractive qualities > and distract attention from your faults as much as possible. These will > come out soon enough anyway. But why expose them to someone before > that person has first had a chance to appreciate your good points? Actually, I agree to a certain extent with your saying that people should emphasize their good points ... but to themselves. This certainly improves self-esteem, which is an important thing, especially in dealing with this process of initially meeting people, especially given the rapidity with which many people judge others nowadays. However, personally I believe in ``modesty'' and ``humility'' instead. Yesterday while trying to find a passage from Judith Martin to go along with my comments on coffee, I ran across a really outstanding quote on modesty. I wish I had it here, but it is at home; I'll put it down there in the signature line at some future time. But, basically, the idea is this. If you go around saying "I am X" and "I am Y," where X and Y are your most appealing attributes, and someone is attracted to these ... well, supposing you are right, and these are indeed your most appealing attributes... then what is left for the person to discover? It is all downhill from there. I would think that a relationship built on your humbler attributes, and merely fortified by your more spectacular ones, would be a much more durable one. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 [But, at the time you are reading this, probably in New Jersey]
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/18/85)
> >What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of > >these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before? > >- Tim Bessie > > Watch TV comercials for an hour, Tim. If you still think male-types and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > female-types are outdated, passe', or a moot point, then you are merely > being naive (no offense intended). Despite "equality" of the sexes, > types exist and even some of the most ardent feminists I know support > different types for men a women, just not the ones we have today. > Charles Forsythe Charles, you should be ashamed of yourself. I wouldn't condemn a mass murderer to an hour of TV commercials. On anyone with 1/4oz. or more of intellect, the effect is roughly similar to that of a frontal lobotomy. {-: -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "To those who love it is given to hear Music too high for the human ear." --Bruce Cockburn
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/18/85)
Frank Silbermann: >> But I believe you should try to emphasize your most attractive qualities >> and distract attention from your faults as much as possible. These will >> come out soon enough anyway. But why expose them to someone before >> that person has first had a chance to appreciate your good points? J. Eric Roskos: > However, personally I believe in ``modesty'' and ``humility'' instead. >If you go around saying "I am X" and "I am Y," where X and Y are your most >appealing attributes, and someone is attracted to these ... well, supposing >you are right, and these are indeed your most appealing attributes... >then what is left for the person to discover? It is all downhill from there. >I would think that a relationship built on your humbler attributes, and merely >fortified by your more spectacular ones, would be a much more durable one. > >It is strange that I, a shy person, should write so much in here ... >which is why I am going to take a vacation, now, from writing in here, >lest I become an oppressive dogmatist. > J. Eric Roskos > 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 ^^ > [But, at the time you are reading this, probably in New Jersey] ^^^^^^^^^^ Suppose it turns out that your more spectacular attributes are NOT important to your new SO, after all. What you now have is a woman who doesn't appreciate your strong points, but accepts you despite your weak ones, because, after all, she isn't such a great catch, either. I would expect such backward reasoning from someone who WORKS IN FLORIDA, and then goes to NEW JERSEY ON VACATION! Just kidding, Eric :-). Frank Silbermann
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/19/85)
-- > However, personally I believe in ``modesty'' and ``humility'' instead. > Yesterday while trying to find a passage from Judith Martin to go > along with my comments on coffee, I ran across a really outstanding > quote on modesty. I wish I had it here, but it is at home; I'll put > it down there in the signature line at some future time. > > Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos This one, perhaps (my personal favorite)? "People who have titles that are not officially recognized should be even more careful in [using them]. Your Baroness von This and Contessa di That are badly in need of such a lesson. Never mind what happened to the baron or the conte--the German and Italian titles themselves have been legally abolished and are used only socially, by courtesy. The best way to ensure their use is by protesting, 'Oh, no, we're just plain Hapsburgs now, like everyone else.' Your ladies could try the now fashionable Proud American routine that goes, 'Please, I can't bear to be called princess--why I was born and bred in Grand Forks, North Dakota.'..." -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 18 Jul 85 [30 Messidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***