She described an interaction that she was present for and how she read it. You were not there, and so instead of reading the actual situation, you are imagining what it could have been like and wondering why she didn’t interpret it in any of those ways. That makes no sense.
they’ll probably understand and respect that."
You’re right, they probably will! Except the small percentage that don’t and become so dangerous that women feel the need to shut any man down, just in case.
Correct, I do not trust this person’s ability to accurately read the emotional expressions of other people, given that she entirely invented a motive of the other person, with no provided evidence to justify this other person’s motive as being actually real, and then interpreted/framed the entire story using this as a narrative device.
There are reasons why eyewitness testimony is considered the lowest quality of evidence in both legal and scientific settings: our memories are highly malleable and innacurate, this is affected by many factors.
This person is literally the definition of an unreliable narrator.
Yeah, you know your own inner thoughts, with high to perfect accuracy.
You cannot mind read someone else’s intentions and inner thoughts to anywhere near that same level of accuracy, especially not without explanation.
When you interpret other people’s actions through the lense of what you assume they are thinking, their presumed motivations, you are projecting your expectations onto them, and your experience of them is then molded around this.
Also, entirely random, stranger v stranger, male on female violence, is considerably more rare than say, the likelihood an average person will be injured or die in a car accident, or even die from a serious fall… or entirely random, stranger v stranger, male on male violence.
Male on female violence is a serious problem, but this is between men and women who know each other and are not strangers, who are family members, coworkers, partners, ex-partners, etc.
She described an interaction that she was present for and how she read it. You were not there, and so instead of reading the actual situation, you are imagining what it could have been like and wondering why she didn’t interpret it in any of those ways. That makes no sense.
You’re right, they probably will! Except the small percentage that don’t and become so dangerous that women feel the need to shut any man down, just in case.
Fucking seriously. Internet armchair psychiatrists are nuts.
Correct, I do not trust this person’s ability to accurately read the emotional expressions of other people, given that she entirely invented a motive of the other person, with no provided evidence to justify this other person’s motive as being actually real, and then interpreted/framed the entire story using this as a narrative device.
There are reasons why eyewitness testimony is considered the lowest quality of evidence in both legal and scientific settings: our memories are highly malleable and innacurate, this is affected by many factors.
This person is literally the definition of an unreliable narrator.
Yeah, you know your own inner thoughts, with high to perfect accuracy.
You cannot mind read someone else’s intentions and inner thoughts to anywhere near that same level of accuracy, especially not without explanation.
When you interpret other people’s actions through the lense of what you assume they are thinking, their presumed motivations, you are projecting your expectations onto them, and your experience of them is then molded around this.
Also, entirely random, stranger v stranger, male on female violence, is considerably more rare than say, the likelihood an average person will be injured or die in a car accident, or even die from a serious fall… or entirely random, stranger v stranger, male on male violence.
Male on female violence is a serious problem, but this is between men and women who know each other and are not strangers, who are family members, coworkers, partners, ex-partners, etc.