Are you with me or against me?

Raikiri · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:54

dirtydog said:
I would say that most people we interact with are neither particularly for us or against us, but neutral. Work colleagues for example.

Ha, I would say most work colleagues are against you. Those below want your job and those above don't want you to take theirs

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:54

dirtydog said:
I would say that most people we interact with are neither particularly for us or against us, but neutral. Work colleagues for example.

How can a person be completely neutral if they have the possibility to effect you?

JimmyEatWorms · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:55

cleanbluesky said:
Your best friend. Is there no power struggle between you...

I can't say that there is...

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:56

JimmyEatWorms said:
I can't say that there is...

Disagreements? Co-operation?

JimmyEatWorms · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:58

cleanbluesky said:
How can a person be completely neutral if they have the possibility to effect you?

Are you talking about them having an effect actively or passively. If you class those having a passive effect on you as "not neutral" then there isn't a single person in the world that can be classed as neutral as every interaction you have will have SOME effect on you.

JimmyEatWorms · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:58

cleanbluesky said:
Disagreements? Co-operation?

Of course. But netiher of these things would indicate a "power struggle".

Kreeeee · 22 Jul 2007 at 13:59

cleanbluesky said:
Your best friend. Is there no power struggle between you...

If there was then he wouldn't be my best mate, surely that's part of the definition of best mate?

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:00

JimmyEatWorms said:
Of course. But netiher of these things would indicate a "power struggle".

Why not?

Are there no consequences to a disagreement? Why disagree in the first place?

JimmyEatWorms · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:01

cleanbluesky said:
Why not?

Are there no consequences to a disagreement? Why disagree in the first place?

How about you tell me why disagreements or co-operation WOULD indicate a power struggle.

cleanbluesky · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:06

JimmyEatWorms said:
How about you tell me why disagreements or co-operation WOULD indicate a power struggle.

It depends on the strength of disagreement and why people disagree.

For example, if two people disagree on a course of action then it will naturally become a power struggle. Person A will be at an advantage if person B goes along with their plan, just as Person B would be at an advantage if Person A goes along with THEIR plan.
Without the other, neither would be as effective. If both person A and person B are convinced that their individuals plans are vital, then it becomes a power struggle to see who can get the other to co-operate and how.

JimmyEatWorms · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:07

Wow. I'm amazed that you are able to form any kind of relationship if that is the way you actually think.

Bear · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:16

Against you definately

dirtydog · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:19

Bear said:
Against you definately

I'm usually for him. But when he makes threads like this...

Zefan · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:20

I see what you're trying to get at CBS. I'm not sure it has much to do with being neutral though.

True neutrality can only exist in someone that isn't totally aware of the situation. As soon as they begin learning who wants what and why they begin to weigh up how each eventuality could benefit them.

Of course it all goes on in the back of your mind, if I were to properly think like this all the time I wouldn't get anything done.

fini · 22 Jul 2007 at 14:43

cleanbluesky said:
Is there anyone who isn't either 'with us' or 'against us'?

Yes - Liechtenstein - about as neutral as your answers are vague

Shackley · 22 Jul 2007 at 15:18

cleanbluesky said:
Can a person be completely neutral in a situation?

It's an odd question, but I am wondering... if someone is in your environment with no reason to be there, do you not wonder whether they need to justify their presence?

Didn't you run almost EXACTLY the same thread a little while ago?

I think Scuzi has it just about spot on:

Scuzi said:
He wants you to think he is profound and intelligent. Just go with it

semi-pro waster · 22 Jul 2007 at 16:31

Why does it need to be so polarised? Just because you aren't wholeheartedly for something doesn't mean you are against it.

I'm beginning to think that psychology really must make forming healthy relationships difficult if you have to analyse situations in this level of detail all the time.

cleanbluesky said:
How can a person be completely neutral if they have the possibility to effect you?

And just because I'm feeling like being a grammar nazi, it should be "affect you". Maybe people cannot be entirely and objectively neutral but as already mentioned they can appear to be biased to such a small degree as to be effectively neutral.