Obsession with others
Sometimes we really like to hear about so-called others. In this way, we somehow forget about ourselves, our joys and our sorrows. We also forget that those who talk about others have not told us anything about themselves and may also be obsessed with this person, especially given the fact that we like to hear about others.
Why would we talk about others and/or analyze them sociologically and psychologically and in any other way is a good question. A good question is also whether we get appropriate information from these people who talk about others. And of course, there is also a corresponding doubt about their professional qualifications for personally analyzing others and an even greater doubt about their personal culture, so that they also disseminate their findings. However, when listening to rumors or the truth, we may also bump into the principle of illegal information gathering and dissemination of rumors.
In principle, we should talk about others to the extent that their actions directly or indirectly affect us, or have a direct or indirect effect on us and our property. Data about others should be different under the Personal Data Protection Act.
It is already difficult enough under this law to obtain data about someone who causes us harm or does not pay for damage or costs or even shames and insults or states false or even harmful or incorrect data about other people, which is then transmitted through the "halo" effect. At least in principle, we should know the old Slovenian saying in this social area, which warns us that we must be on good terms with the village slanderer, otherwise she will destroy us with her tongue. This saying also warns us not to ignore the fact that if someone is excessively involved with our data and our affairs for one reason or another, there is also the possibility of malice or blackmail.
A good test of interest in others, which can border on obsession with a certain person, is the fact that we can obtain information when we need it. Such cases include a broken window, a burglary, a car theft, an assault or some other criminal act, and such persons could help in finding the perpetrator. If, in the event of such an act, we encounter silence and ignorance of the circumstances and persons, and if they otherwise had a lot of information about a person or even about you and your property, it is better to avoid such persons.
We often encounter the paradox of personal data protection and obtaining information about persons who, in one way or another, cause us problems or even harm. However, we also encounter the paradox of incorrect data that we have obtained from others and, of course, the paradox of the provability of incorrect information. The data that we obtain from others, we could also say according to the "say, show" system, is best treated with caution. Curiosity and/or control over others and their property and/or affairs can be a clear warning about the questionability of personal characteristics. In principle, the sociological rule of research based on general rather than personal characteristics of others applies. We obtain and analyze information about others when we need it.
People who like to talk about others and analyze them should be tested for professionalism and, of course, the truthfulness of their statements when there is a real need to obtain information, for example, when a crime has been committed and the perpetrators have been found. And of course, we should also take into account that we do not need information about others and that if we need information about others, we should obtain it from reliable sources. In fact, it is better to stick to official data that can be verified.
Komentarji
Objavite komentar