Skip to main content

Your knowledge doesn't help me

The correct way to read that statement is to emphasize the second word:  I'm not interested in your knowledge; I'm interested in your actions.

This refrain was my frequent response to my daughters when, following when I would remind them about one of their responsibilities, they would answer something like, "I know that I have to do that."  Great, acknowledgement is the first step, but there are several more (not always 11 ... heh).  This boils down to the old saying that "Words are cheap" -- something I wish I had realized before I spent a few years getting a degree in English.  ( :-) ... but I still would have gotten it, 'cause I got to read all those cool books.)

A similar situation would arise when we would get onto one of the girls and she would say, sarcastically, "Well I'm sorry!"  I would calmly say, "No, you aren't."  In that case, she really was not.  Even if she was serious, though, I would usually push back.  "Don't say you are -- SHOW you are."  Like the writer's credo to "Show, don't tell" implies, good apologies are not qualitative statements but are instead quantitative acts.

An important corollary to this idea is that there are times when words -- even the "right" words -- are actually harmful.  They obscure the fact that what is needed is action in a classic (though probably unconscious) bait-and-switch -- I came in looking for a way to heal our relationship, and you gave me meaningless words.  Even when words would help, saying them too early, or at the wrong moment, can still be bad, especially if the sentence or the context devalues the statement with either an explicit or implicit " ... but," as in "I'm sorry, but ..." or "I love you, but ..." or "Thank you, but ...."

This post dovetails with an older one indicating my preference toward action.  It actually clarifies it a bit, and I'm trying to say that I don't consider words to be an "action," just like I don't consider words to be anything but the first step in an apology, a promise, a declaration of love, a giving of thanks, or virtually any other meaningful act that we have somehow come to associate with throwaway lines.  The statements may be necessary, but they are not sufficient.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How to read the Bill of Rights

The legal rights in the Bill of Rights didn't exist until the 20th century Social media has been abuzz with the Bill of Rights, and in particular the 1st Amendment, recently. Many posts, explicitly or implicitly, trace the Bill of Rights to the Founders.  That's wrong and leads to a poor understanding. A proper reading of the Constitution and the law reveals that, while the text was written then, these rights did not apply even on paper to the states until 1868, in fact until the middle of the 20th century, or even into the 21st century for the 2nd Amendment. “It is a Constitution we are expounding.” The Constitution sets out principles and goals, structures and limitations, and we must never forget that . It is law -- the highest law of the land , in fact -- but it is not code , which is detailed and often attempts to be exhaustively complete and explicit. The Constitution was written to provide a framework of balances by a group of  flawed aristocrats trying to rebel from ano
Post a Comment
Read more

Election 2016: Why Hillary’s conflated scandals are unconvincing #ImWithHer

This is part of a series of posts on Election 2016 . To be honest, I’ve stopped listening to most of the scandals about Hillary. That’s not because I think she is perfect or would never do something scandalous, but because the noise of obvious crap, generated over 3 decades, has made me jaded about spending any time investigating stories by people who think Killary is a fascist Communist. To be clear, I think she is an imperfect human. We don’t subject most politicians to the kind of scrutiny that Hillary has faced – how much do we know about George and Laura’s relationship, or his struggles with addiction, for instance?  But she isn’t perfect.  I think she is a bit paranoid and has a tendency to “circle the wagons” at the slightest sign of problems, and I think she is a fierce competitor that swings first and asks questions later. Like all successful politicians, she is willing to spin the truth to meet her needs, and she comes across, in crowd settings, as a bit fake.  Unlik
Post a Comment
Read more

Astrologists and racists, or this is where the party ends

How are astrologists like racists?  There could be a funny one-liner response to that, I'm sure, but the answer I'm looking for is simple:  They are lazy thinkers. I'm going to spend a few paragraphs here doing a cursory job of debunking both viewpoints and showing why they are lazy, but I'm not going to go into much detail, as that's not the real point I want to make. Astrology:  Really?  You honestly think that 1/12th of the human race will have the same general set of experiences based on when they were born?  (This is assuming the "normal" Zodiac, though a similar thing can be said about, for instance, the Chinese Zodiac, and this is ignoring the silliness added in by distinguishing between "Sun signs" and "moon signs.")  Do you realize that these signs were based on people believing some quite inaccurate things about the stars (like virtually anything besides that they are gaseous giants that are light years away)?  Did you kno
2 comments
Read more