Today's post is about teaching the readers how to maintain long distant term friendships.
So, firstly, what you need is a positive attitude (as you ALL can see from the photo alongside. SEE how I SMILE and exude my positivity).
Call me a NARCISSIST, but this photo contains an important lesson which comes next.
The important lesson is.... REMEMBER to HOLD YOUR PHONES in your hand or give them to your friend to TAKE PHOTOS OF YOU (as I did). This step would guard you from diseases caused by radiation and will increase your life expectancy (Yup, an increased life expectancy is one sure way to maintaining LONG term friendships).
Secondly, you need a good sense of humor (as you can see from the photo alongside. I am pretending that I have a gun in my hand, and I am shooting my friends with my imaginary gun. YES, I have an amazing sense of HUMOR!!!)
Observe my body language.
I am neither too confident (I am holding the gun in my right hand. I know I am a good shooter, but I also know I am not the best shooter around) nor too underconfident (I have a sharp focus on my target).
BAAM! and I took a shot!
Here's me with my friends.
SEE how I act like a boss.
Again, confidence is the KEY to maintaining long term friendships.
Here's me with Tarun (The science kid).
My friend shot the photo while he was busy calculating the optimal reflection/refraction ratio for his specks lens in the photo.
YES, Tarun. Your specks look perfectly fine in the photo!!!
Here's me with my other friends (Left: Ayush, Right: Tushar).
NOTICE the order of our height.
Seems like it pays after all to be the one in the middle. (The one of the left has to bend a little and the one on the right has to rise up a little, but I can just stand with my NORMAL height.)
Leadership skills are so important for maintaining good friendships.
NOTICE how I am leading into the photo.
Also, notice the tree in the backside. (did you get the joke?)
NO? (look closer!!!)
The tree appears as if it is a crown on the top of my friend's (Ayush's) head.
Now you got it?
YUP! I am an EVIL PHOTOGRAPHER :P
And this is where we end our today's tutorial. I hope you enjoyed your lesson today, and would continue visiting my blog to keep yourself updated with my life in Korea.
BYE.
Really leadership???
ReplyDeleteFor friendship..haha
Yeah, why not???
DeleteSEE, if you don't have leadership skills, you can't be a good leader then, if you are not a good leader, then you can't have followers, and if you don't have followers, you don't have friends!
Friendship is a sort of mutual following, so both friends need to be good leaders to get into a long lasting friendship.
Actually, leaderships and friendships are very different things.
DeleteYour explanation about followers is interesting... in political points. You can also talk about leaders in business. But to have followers doesn't mean you have friends. It could even mean that people actually follow a leader because they're afraid of him, at least they respect him. It doesn't mean they like him (though they may like his ideas).
Friendship is not something you command or premeditate. Friends are friends because they just get along well. We need friendship because we need affection. There is no hierarchical stuff or any idea of control here. Or it will be unhealthy: someone who is submitted to his "friend" could feel stifled and think very hard about break the relation.
Then, to think that friendships are based on leaderships induces that "the leader" actually forces the others to be his friends, so that he's scared of not being liked for the natural way he is.
Just remember that your friends "follow" you because they care of you. Friendship is based on free and natural feelings. I don't think your friends here need a leader to guide them in their own lives. They're able to do it by themselves, as each person who is in good health on this planet.
Two things!
DeleteFirstly, I said "You need to be a GOOD leader" not just any kind of leader. A GOOD leader is not one who forces his followers to do what he wants them to do, but sort of convinces them to do what he wants them to do (Just like a GOOD friend will not force the other person to do what he wants, but convince him).
Secondly, I talk about MUTUAL leadership. There is no single leader, but each individual is a leader in the relationship. So, no one is really forcing or subjugating the other, but each of them is doing that to each other as per the situation (Isn't that friendship is about, right?)
So, by this: I conclude that friendship is about mutual leadership, and that one needs to be a good leader to be a good friend.
Do you agree?
"Good leader" ? It just makes non sense. Sounds like someone who behaves like his friend's father or something.
ReplyDeleteBut I got it. In fact, you should talk about individuality's freedom rather than leadership. Let's say that someone leads its life, and so, that it doesn't want its friend to decide for it. Leaderships are just too... hierarchical and strict. That's not the same.
And, no, I think this kind of behavior is not specific of friendships. If you want to move on in your life, you have to convince all people around you of your individual existence, one way or another. So here, you actually talk about human relationships in general.
Friendship = people who get along well, respect each other, hang out, enjoy the moments, help the other if there's a need to, make confidences, keep confidences secret (= honesty, sincerity) and so on. Friendship is something quite intimate.
I wonder where you learned debating "connection failed" for you seemed to be invoking almost all the known logical fallacies known to men in a single comment.
DeleteFirstly: You are using the strawman fallacy. Do you think any of the "Good leaders" in history were like fathers to their followers? I don't think so.
Good friends are also good leaders to their friends (Of course, if the friends don't trust each other, then they cannot follow each other too, and the sort of relationship between a leader and a follower (the relationship of trust, trust that the leader would lead the followers to the correct destination.) can't happen between them. ) .
Leadership is too hierarchical? Wait, you haven't yet understood my point about "mutual leadership". "Mutual leadership" is a sort of leadership between two people where one of them is the leader at some times, and the other is the follower at other times. There is no "too much" hierarchy in this format. One of them is the leader and the other is the follower. BAAM! that's it. Leader and follower.
Yup! you seem to get my point in the third paragraph of your comment. It is about human relationship in general, and friendship is one of those human relationships, and so, as a result, leadership becomes on of the core skills in maintaining friendships.
And before I end this, here's a ad hominem for you!
"friendship is something quite intimate". SAYS SOMEONE WHO SLEEPS WITH THEIR FRIENDS!!! ;P
I get what you meant now. But still, I don't think the term of "leadership" is appropriate. I like the idea of freedom and individuality. Friendship does respect these two notions.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you think like me that being a "leader" makes part of all human relationships, then there's no need to advice it specifically for friendships. Because it's a daily behavior, and so we don't act differently with our friends.
There are situations in which one of the friend is more "fragile" than the other. There's an imbalance between the two personalities but it doesn't mean this friendship cannot work. I think you may have thought about this saying: "the relationship of trust, trust that the leader would lead the followers to the correct destination". So maybe we're agreed here.
There are two possibilities :
1. The leader's actually selfish, so he just doesn't care of his friend and totally leads their friendship. So the other follows him.
2. The leader cares a lot of his friend, and so as soon as his friend feels sad (or whatever), he accompanies him, giving advices and consoling him. But his friend chooses if he follows these advices or not.
Yeah, I think we're quite agreed, finally. But talking about leadership in this situation is totally useless.
In fact, I think there's no any advice to give concerning good friendships. It's just something which happens naturally, and if it doesn't work at all, then... we simply don't talk about friendship anymore. That's all.
As for the little provocation at the end of your comment. Yeah, true... and so ?
And just for your personal information, little boy: this is not an "ad hominem", because this fact doesn't contradict any of my argues.
Firstly, my little insult at the end of my previous comment was, in fact, "ad hominem". In case you don't know what ad hominem is, it means "to the man" and it basically means that the argument is regarding "the person" rather than "the idea".
DeleteSo, say: if someone says "we should choose Johnson as the new security chief" and to this I reply "Why Johnson? He is a wife beater! ", this would ALSO be adhominem, since I am making an argument to "the person", and not directly criticizing the idea of johnson being a security chief (as per his past records and skills).
So, "connection failed", ad hominem is not about contradicting anyone's argument, but about making an argument that is related to the person, and is irrelevant to the current situation.
Secondly, I am glad we have FINALLY agreed.
And Lastly, it is important to mention that "leadership" is important to friendship because there are people (like you) who don't think it is important, or that the two are not related, and so, someone like me has to point it out to them.
There you go, "connection failed", you have been SERVED!
You really should check the definitions of some words before using them. And so you will avoid to be ridiculous when you are self - assured like that.
ReplyDeleteThere are two meanings in "ad hominem". The first one is what you said. The second one is that you use a fact in your opponent's life to try to contradict its concrete argument. Indeed.
But fine, let's say you are right:
"ad hominem is not about contradicting anyone's argument, but about making an argument that is related to the person, and is irrelevant to the current situation."
Your little remark about me did refer to our conversation concerning friendships. But, it was not an argument in itself. It doesn't lead you anywhere. Or then, tell me what did you want to show me ?
I think It was simply an useless and childish provocation (as USUAL). Therefore there is no need to go further.
I never thought "leaderships" were not important. I just think it's not a good term regarding friendship. Friendship is about mutual respect and empathy. But don't worry, I know what you wanted to express and I quite agree.
"Connection failed", I hate to do this but check this out:
Deletehttps://www.google.co.in/search?q=define+ad+hominem&oq=define+ad+hominem&aqs=chrome..69i57.3141j0j1&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8
According to this, ad hominem means:
1. relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"
2. (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
As I said, ad hominem is "to the man" as the first definition puts it. If you make a comment regarding the PERSON than the ideas or arguments that the person puts forward, you are committing ad hominem.
The second definition puts it forward quite clearly, so I don't think I need to explain it.
And yes!!! It was a CHILDISH provocation, just a means to reply to your childish provocation of using the STRAWMAN arguments regarding leaders being generally selfish and dominating.
What did I want to show you? I wanted to show you that I CAN TOO use logical fallacies, and that you should NOT act like you are the only one who can do it.
And yeah, this is EXACTLY where we should end this discussion. It is getting WAY OUT OF proportion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete