Pastelland Forum

I'd say fairly decent.

Now: you can already see a problem with this question. This was part of a communication course I was learning about. Can anyone tell me what is difficult about it? (So, now proper food for thought)

Because to state faults would be considered impolite but to merely extol would be dishonest.

So what do people do in these situations?

1) Be vague
2) Be as neutral as possible
3) Avoid the question.

But different people will have different reactions to this, right? Some may take it directly (reactors, based on feelings), some may attempt to take the information anyway (promoters), some might use this vagueness as actual information (ie workaholics) and adjust to this, some may just take it as it was intended (meditators), some may react by physical forms (rebels) and...I forgot the last one. Oops.

But you see what I'm getting at?

So, the way people react to a statement is determined by their personality, and we can try deducing this by their reactions; is that what you mean?

Well, there IS the direct approach of attempting to answer the question as accurately as possible. I'm an extremely literal minded person and this was actually what I was trying to figure out how to do, not as much with a fear of offending, though that was in my mind, but because I really don't know many of you very well, so all I could have offered up would have been vague impressions.

This is a good example how people will react to a simple question, so you can imagine how these personality types will react to the entire world,right?

Ok, I'll attempt to do some moderating.

Boingo, is there any other points you wanted to make? It's an interesting topic, but it seems it needs more substance.

We also had left off on the naturalism and language discussions. Are we done with those or are there any other thoughts?