u/John_F_Oliver

People talk a lot about social skills, but I honestly think the way this concept is usually presented is pretty unsatisfying. Most of the time, when I see content about developing social skills, the focus is on things like posture, gestures, tone of voice, word choice, or learning how to listen more attentively. To me, those things should simply be the bare minimum not something treated as a special “skill,” but rather a natural human condition, since we are inherently psychosocial beings.

If you really look at it, most discussions about social skills are actually centered more around other people than around yourself. In other words, they focus more on how to influence the way others perceive you than on how you genuinely adapt and relate to the people around you. That’s exactly the part I dislike. In my view, it should be the opposite: social skills should be about your ability to adapt to others and to the environment you’re in.

The concept of social skills is extremely broad, so I think it’s important to narrow it down a bit. Take communication, for example. A lot of people define being a “good communicator” as having refined vocabulary, a pleasant tone of voice, and being clever with words. But to me, a good communicator is simply someone who can successfully convey their message to anyone, adapting the way they communicate depending on the person and the context.

Because honestly, what’s the point of speaking in an extremely polished and refined way if you’re in an environment where communication works completely differently? In a rough neighborhood, a hostile setting, or even in a war zone, that kind of communication would probably have very little effect. Communication changes depending on the environment. That’s why I believe communicating well means being able to sync yourself with the context around you. If the environment is aggressive, communication naturally becomes harsher. If the environment is calm, communication becomes calmer. The important thing is to feel like part of that environment instead of sounding completely disconnected from it. Without that sense of alignment, there’s barely any real transmission of the message you’re trying to convey.

I think the same idea applies to listening. People usually say that being a good listener means paying attention to what someone is saying. To me, it goes beyond that. A good listener is someone who can understand the emotions behind the words and grasp what the other person is truly trying to communicate, without immediately jumping into interpretations or judgments.

A lot of the time, while someone is still talking, we already start thinking things like, “They’re only saying this because they want something,” or “There’s another motive behind this.” The moment that happens, the listening stops being genuine and turns into premature interpretation. In my opinion, truly listening means fully absorbing the message first and only forming conclusions afterward. It’s like reading an entire book before judging the story instead of making assumptions halfway through it.

I also think this applies to behavior in general. If someone carries themselves in a more sophisticated way, it makes sense to adapt to that energy. If someone has a more street-oriented or rough personality, you naturally step into that social language as well. That doesn’t mean copying the person entirely, but rather creating behavioral compatibility. To me, that’s what social skills really are: adaptability.

At the end of the day, I don’t think social skills should be seen as the ability to make other people adapt to you. I think they should be seen as your ability to adapt to others. Because if you constantly need other people to change in order for interactions to work, then maybe the social skill was never really yours to begin with.

People talk a lot about social skills, but I honestly think the way this concept is usually presented is pretty unsatisfying. Most of the time, when I see content about developing social skills, the focus is on things like posture, gestures, tone of voice, word choice, or learning how to listen more attentively. To me, those things should simply be the bare minimum not something treated as a special “skill,” but rather a natural human condition, since we are inherently psychosocial beings.

If you really look at it, most discussions about social skills are actually centered more around other people than around yourself. In other words, they focus more on how to influence the way others perceive you than on how you genuinely adapt and relate to the people around you. That’s exactly the part I dislike. In my view, it should be the opposite: social skills should be about your ability to adapt to others and to the environment you’re in.

The concept of social skills is extremely broad, so I think it’s important to narrow it down a bit. Take communication, for example. A lot of people define being a “good communicator” as having refined vocabulary, a pleasant tone of voice, and being clever with words. But to me, a good communicator is simply someone who can successfully convey their message to anyone, adapting the way they communicate depending on the person and the context.

Because honestly, what’s the point of speaking in an extremely polished and refined way if you’re in an environment where communication works completely differently? In a rough neighborhood, a hostile setting, or even in a war zone, that kind of communication would probably have very little effect. Communication changes depending on the environment. That’s why I believe communicating well means being able to sync yourself with the context around you. If the environment is aggressive, communication naturally becomes harsher. If the environment is calm, communication becomes calmer. The important thing is to feel like part of that environment instead of sounding completely disconnected from it. Without that sense of alignment, there’s barely any real transmission of the message you’re trying to convey.

I think the same idea applies to listening. People usually say that being a good listener means paying attention to what someone is saying. To me, it goes beyond that. A good listener is someone who can understand the emotions behind the words and grasp what the other person is truly trying to communicate, without immediately jumping into interpretations or judgments.

A lot of the time, while someone is still talking, we already start thinking things like, “They’re only saying this because they want something,” or “There’s another motive behind this.” The moment that happens, the listening stops being genuine and turns into premature interpretation. In my opinion, truly listening means fully absorbing the message first and only forming conclusions afterward. It’s like reading an entire book before judging the story instead of making assumptions halfway through it.

I also think this applies to behavior in general. If someone carries themselves in a more sophisticated way, it makes sense to adapt to that energy. If someone has a more street-oriented or rough personality, you naturally step into that social language as well. That doesn’t mean copying the person entirely, but rather creating behavioral compatibility. To me, that’s what social skills really are: adaptability.

At the end of the day, I don’t think social skills should be seen as the ability to make other people adapt to you. I think they should be seen as your ability to adapt to others. Because if you constantly need other people to change in order for interactions to work, then maybe the social skill was never really yours to begin with.

People talk a lot about social skills, but I honestly think the way this concept is usually presented is pretty unsatisfying. Most of the time, when I see content about developing social skills, the focus is on things like posture, gestures, tone of voice, word choice, or learning how to listen more attentively. To me, those things should simply be the bare minimum not something treated as a special “skill,” but rather a natural human condition, since we are inherently psychosocial beings.

If you really look at it, most discussions about social skills are actually centered more around other people than around yourself. In other words, they focus more on how to influence the way others perceive you than on how you genuinely adapt and relate to the people around you. That’s exactly the part I dislike. In my view, it should be the opposite: social skills should be about your ability to adapt to others and to the environment you’re in.

The concept of social skills is extremely broad, so I think it’s important to narrow it down a bit. Take communication, for example. A lot of people define being a “good communicator” as having refined vocabulary, a pleasant tone of voice, and being clever with words. But to me, a good communicator is simply someone who can successfully convey their message to anyone, adapting the way they communicate depending on the person and the context.

Because honestly, what’s the point of speaking in an extremely polished and refined way if you’re in an environment where communication works completely differently? In a rough neighborhood, a hostile setting, or even in a war zone, that kind of communication would probably have very little effect. Communication changes depending on the environment. That’s why I believe communicating well means being able to sync yourself with the context around you. If the environment is aggressive, communication naturally becomes harsher. If the environment is calm, communication becomes calmer. The important thing is to feel like part of that environment instead of sounding completely disconnected from it. Without that sense of alignment, there’s barely any real transmission of the message you’re trying to convey.

I think the same idea applies to listening. People usually say that being a good listener means paying attention to what someone is saying. To me, it goes beyond that. A good listener is someone who can understand the emotions behind the words and grasp what the other person is truly trying to communicate, without immediately jumping into interpretations or judgments.

A lot of the time, while someone is still talking, we already start thinking things like, “They’re only saying this because they want something,” or “There’s another motive behind this.” The moment that happens, the listening stops being genuine and turns into premature interpretation. In my opinion, truly listening means fully absorbing the message first and only forming conclusions afterward. It’s like reading an entire book before judging the story instead of making assumptions halfway through it.

I also think this applies to behavior in general. If someone carries themselves in a more sophisticated way, it makes sense to adapt to that energy. If someone has a more street-oriented or rough personality, you naturally step into that social language as well. That doesn’t mean copying the person entirely, but rather creating behavioral compatibility. To me, that’s what social skills really are: adaptability.

At the end of the day, I don’t think social skills should be seen as the ability to make other people adapt to you. I think they should be seen as your ability to adapt to others. Because if you constantly need other people to change in order for interactions to work, then maybe the social skill was never really yours to begin with.

Sou uma pessoa que passou por muitos problemas na vida. Praticamente desde pequeno vivi em modo de sobrevivência, sem ter muitas opções de escolha sobre o rumo da minha própria vida. Por causa disso, acabei adotando uma mentalidade de que basta ter apenas o necessário e que, se for para conquistar algo, isso precisa ser muito bem planejado, nunca movido apenas por prazer.

Hoje, na fase adulta, racionalizo muito tudo o que faço. Quase nunca tomo decisões pensando em prazer ou realização pessoal e dificilmente gasto dinheiro com algo que não seja realmente necessário. Por isso, minha meta de vida atualmente seria continuar trabalhando como “pião”, mas vivendo em um ambiente estável, onde eu tenha certa segurança de não ser demitido e receba um salário razoável.

Conversando com meus colegas de trabalho, muitos enxergam isso de forma negativa. Dizem que eu deveria buscar desenvolvimento profissional, alcançar cargos maiores e sair desse tipo de função. O problema é que eu não tenho vontade de assumir cargos de liderança, principalmente pelo nível de estresse que eles trazem e pela maior pressão e instabilidade que, estatisticamente, costumam envolver.

Cheguei a conversar com o assistente administrativo, que seria o próximo degrau de promoção para mim, e as responsabilidades dele parecem insanas. Sinceramente, não vejo compensação em passar pelo estresse que ele enfrenta, sendo que o que eu mais quero é paz e sossego.

Acho que a única situação que talvez me faria abrir mão dessa zona de conforto seria se eu quisesse construir uma vida com alguém, em vez de continuar solteiro. Enfim, queria ouvir diferentes perspectivas e opiniões sobre essa situação e saber o que vocês acham disso.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on a different perspective regarding happiness. Even though happiness is a subjective concept, people’s understanding of it tends to follow a similar pattern. Many philosophers argued that the pursuit of happiness is inherently frustrating and that achieving a state of complete or permanent happiness is impossible.

Now, looking at this from a psychological perspective, what do you think about that idea?

Based on various studies and observations, it could be argued that achieving absolute happiness is practically impossible, much like some philosophers suggested. The central issue is that sadness and negative experiences are part of the very definition of happiness itself. As paradoxical as it may sound, happiness cannot exist without sadness, just as sadness cannot exist without happiness. Both coexist and shape one another.

One interesting experiment related to this topic was “Universe 25,” conducted by researcher John B. Calhoun. In the experiment, mice were placed in a utopian environment with unlimited food, water, and shelter. At first, the animals appeared to thrive, but over time they began developing abnormal behaviors, social interactions deteriorated, and eventually the entire mouse society collapsed. While humans are obviously not mice, the study explored not only behavioral changes but also the brain’s chemical responses related to pleasure and well-being, which, when overstimulated, appeared to contribute to that collapse.

This experiment may help explain why some people remain unhappy even when they seemingly have everything. Happiness is not necessarily found in the final achievement itself, but in the process and in the way we experience that process. In other words, true happiness may not lie in the reward at the end, but in the path taken to reach it. Some studies suggest that people who value and enjoy the process of pursuing their goals tend to be happier than those who focus only on the achievement itself.

From this perspective, happiness could be understood as an endless pursuit, where the act of searching for it is already part of what we call happiness.

Eu vejo os relacionamentos de uma forma bastante específica, mais voltada para a naturalidade e para a construção gradual ao longo do tempo. O que faz sentido para mim não é a ideia de um vínculo que surge por momentos marcantes ou por algum tipo de esforço direcionado, mas sim algo que vai se formando a partir da convivência comum. A proximidade, na minha visão, deveria aparecer como consequência de interações simples e repetidas, até que a presença do outro se torne algo familiar e espontâneo. Esse tipo de vínculo me parece mais autêntico do que relações que dependem de intensidade imediata ou de situações especiais para acontecer.

Essa forma de enxergar relações não está ligada apenas ao campo amoroso. Na verdade, ela se aplica principalmente a relações sociais e de amizade, que é o tipo de convivência que eu pretendo manter. O que mais faz sentido para mim é a ideia de companheirismo: uma proximidade tranquila, em que duas pessoas possam compartilhar momentos comuns sem que a interação precise ser constantemente estimulada ou conduzida. Algo que se sustente mais pela continuidade da convivência do que por acontecimentos específicos, e que possa se desenvolver naturalmente conforme o tempo passa.

Uma parte importante dessa visão está na ideia de espontaneidade. Eu tendo a pensar que uma relação funciona melhor quando existe um certo nível de naturalidade desde o início, mesmo que ainda seja algo simples. Não se trata de esperar intimidade imediata nem profundidade precoce, mas de sentir que a interação pode acontecer sem esforço excessivo ou sem a necessidade de um processo muito prolongado até que se torne confortável. Para mim, o vínculo ideal é aquele que vai se moldando conforme o momento, sem depender de ocasiões muito específicas ou de uma adaptação constante entre as pessoas.

Essa maneira de pensar vem muito da impressão de que algumas conexões parecem surgir com certa facilidade entre as pessoas, como se existisse um tipo de sintonia inicial que permite que a convivência flua com naturalidade e depois se aprofunde com o tempo. Isso me levou a valorizar a ideia de que a proximidade deveria surgir mais como um processo orgânico do que como algo que precisa ser conquistado passo a passo. Na minha perspectiva, quanto mais espontânea é a interação, mais genuína ela parece, porque a naturalidade não depende de esforço consciente para existir.

Ao mesmo tempo, eu reconheço que essa forma de ver os relacionamentos pode ser um pouco idealizada. É possível que a maioria das relações humanas envolva mais adaptação e construção gradual do que eu imagino como natural, e que a espontaneidade muitas vezes apareça apenas depois que certo nível de convivência já foi estabelecido. Por isso, eu mesmo fico em dúvida se essa visão corresponde a algo realmente comum ou se ela se aproxima mais de um ideal pessoal que talvez não seja tão fácil de encontrar na prática.

O ponto central dessa reflexão é a ideia de que existe um tipo de conexão que não pode ser produzida diretamente. Diferente de outras coisas na vida, não é algo que possa ser obtido por esforço consciente, planejado ou acumulado aos poucos de forma controlada. No máximo, as condições podem favorecer o surgimento desse tipo de vínculo, mas o próprio vínculo parece depender de um tipo de sintonia que simplesmente acontece ou não acontece. Por isso, a forma que encontrei de resumir essa visão é a seguinte: há coisas que parecem simples por natureza, mas que não podem ser conquistadas, compradas ou dadas — apenas geradas.

I see relationships in a very specific way one that’s more centered around naturalness and gradual development over time. What makes sense to me isn’t the idea of a bond that forms through big defining moments or deliberate effort, but rather something that slowly takes shape through ordinary day-to-day interaction. In my view, closeness should emerge as a consequence of simple, repeated interactions, until the other person’s presence starts to feel familiar and effortless. That kind of connection feels more genuine to me than relationships built on immediate intensity or special circumstances.

This way of seeing relationships isn’t limited to romance. If anything, it applies even more to friendships and social connections, which are the kinds of relationships I value most. What makes the most sense to me is companionship a calm kind of closeness where two people can simply share everyday moments without the interaction constantly needing to be pushed forward or actively maintained. Something grounded more in the continuity of being around each other than in specific events, and that naturally deepens over time.

An important part of this perspective is spontaneity. I tend to feel that relationships work best when there’s some degree of natural ease from the beginning, even if the connection itself is still simple. It’s not about expecting instant intimacy or premature emotional depth, but about feeling that interaction can happen without excessive effort or without needing a long adjustment period before it becomes comfortable. To me, the ideal bond is one that shapes itself naturally around the moment, without relying on very specific situations or constant adaptation between people.

A lot of this way of thinking comes from the impression that some connections seem to happen effortlessly between certain people, as if there’s an initial sense of compatibility that allows interaction to flow naturally before gradually becoming deeper over time. That led me to value the idea that closeness should arise more as an organic process than as something that has to be carefully built step by step. From my perspective, the more spontaneous an interaction feels, the more genuine it seems, because true naturalness doesn’t depend on conscious effort to exist.

At the same time, I recognize that this view of relationships may be somewhat idealized. It’s possible that most human connections involve far more adaptation and gradual construction than what I instinctively think of as natural, and that spontaneity often only appears after a certain level of familiarity has already been established. Because of that, I sometimes question whether this perspective reflects something genuinely common or whether it’s closer to a personal ideal that may not be so easy to find in reality.

The central idea behind all of this is the feeling that certain kinds of connection cannot be produced directly. Unlike many other things in life, they can’t simply be achieved through conscious effort, planning, or controlled progression over time. At most, the conditions can encourage that kind of bond to emerge, but the bond itself seems to depend on a kind of mutual resonance that either happens or doesn’t happen. That’s why the simplest way I’ve found to summarize this perspective is this: some things may seem naturally simple, but they cannot be earned, bought, or given only generated.

My PC is low-spec, and after watching some YouTubers play, I’ve noticed something odd. Even when I search for the same games they play, it feels like Roblox analyzes my system and just avoids showing games that are too demanding for my computer.

Is this just my impression, or has anyone else experienced this too?

As human beings, we tend to judge what’s around us. In itself, that’s not a problem it’s part of our nature, functioning as an analytical mechanism that helps us conserve energy, make quick decisions, and gather information efficiently. The issue arises when we’re not aware of this process, or of how we judge the environment we’re in in different ways, each person in their own way. This lack of awareness makes it harder to deal with it properly, leading to various difficulties and making it harder to manage normal human flaws.

Recognizing this tendency in myself, I’m aware of how I judge certain people or situations. At the same time, I can see how problematic it can become, because the way I evaluate someone often turns into something dehumanizing and overly complex for dealing with relatively simple human behaviors. At first, I don’t usually judge someone with much complexity, since I don’t have enough information yet. But as I get to know a person better, my judgment becomes more detailed.

Naturally, as you get to know someone, you start to see both their positive and negative sides which is completely normal. Based on that, I developed a personal framework I call “Tolerable Evil,” where I try to measure, in my own terms, how tolerable a certain “negative trait” or behavior is. And that’s exactly where the problem starts. From a biological standpoint, our perception is limited our eyes and brain don’t capture reality perfectly, and each person’s perception is inherently flawed. On top of that, there are emotional and psychological factors tied to our inner world, which shape how we perceive external reality (what could be described as a “personal perspective of reality”), as well as behavioral reinforcement mechanisms that influence how certain actions become repeated or internalized.

These three pillars biological perception, psychological construction of reality, and behavioral reinforcement form the basis of how I judge others. Each one is already complex on its own; combined, they become even more so. Within this framework, I see judgment not just as a reaction to how the external world affects someone, but mainly as an evaluation of how that person responds to it, whether in a positive or negative way. This shows up through how individuals express their actions.

To simplify it, I use a general baseline: when someone shows high positivity toward another person, they express it through affection, like a hug; with moderate positivity, maybe a handshake; with low positivity, just a verbal greeting. On the negative side, high negativity shows up as hostile behavior (either direct or passive), moderate negativity as abrupt distancing, and low negativity as a kind of fake positivity.

Based on that, I form something like a behavioral average. If someone stays within that range, I try to be constructive and maintain a functional relationship, avoiding unnecessary conflict. But if they fall below that baseline, I tend to see the interaction as not worth it, since it likely carries a negative predisposition.

This distinction matters: when someone is within that range, I interpret it as them judging my actions; when they fall below it, I see it as them judging me as a person. And those are very different things. Judging actions allows for adjustment you can change behavior or compensate with more positive actions. But judging the person tends to be fixed: regardless of what you do, the overall perception is already set. Positive actions become the bare minimum expected, while negative ones carry disproportionate weight.

For example, imagine someone who dislikes being spoken to loudly and has relationships with two people, A and B. If they see A more positively, when A speaks loudly, it’s easily forgiven or even justified. But if they see B more negatively, the same behavior isn’t accepted there’s no room for justification, and it may even be interpreted as intentional negativity.

This also highlights how easily we can be influenced in how we perceive others, whether positively or negatively. But that influence often says more about the person being influenced than about the one doing the influencing, since it usually just reinforces a perception that was already there.

Another important factor is repetition. I don’t just look at how someone behaves toward me, but also how they act with others more generally. Even so, I recognize a central issue in my way of judging: I often stop seeing the individual as a human being and start treating them more like a kind of statistic.

That makes my interactions significantly harder, because the reality is that all of us, to some degree, have flaws and create problems often shaped by how we were raised. By approaching things in a more analytical and less human way, I end up limiting my relationships, with the only clear positive being a greater tolerance for other people’s flaws.

As human beings, we tend to judge what’s around us. In itself, that’s not a problem it’s part of our nature, functioning as an analytical mechanism that helps us conserve energy, make quick decisions, and gather information efficiently. The issue arises when we’re not aware of this process, or of how we judge the environment we’re in in different ways, each person in their own way. This lack of awareness makes it harder to deal with it properly, leading to various difficulties and making it harder to manage normal human flaws.

Recognizing this tendency in myself, I’m aware of how I judge certain people or situations. At the same time, I can see how problematic it can become, because the way I evaluate someone often turns into something dehumanizing and overly complex for dealing with relatively simple human behaviors. At first, I don’t usually judge someone with much complexity, since I don’t have enough information yet. But as I get to know a person better, my judgment becomes more detailed.

Naturally, as you get to know someone, you start to see both their positive and negative sides which is completely normal. Based on that, I developed a personal framework I call “Tolerable Evil,” where I try to measure, in my own terms, how tolerable a certain “negative trait” or behavior is. And that’s exactly where the problem starts. From a biological standpoint, our perception is limited our eyes and brain don’t capture reality perfectly, and each person’s perception is inherently flawed. On top of that, there are emotional and psychological factors tied to our inner world, which shape how we perceive external reality (what could be described as a “personal perspective of reality”), as well as behavioral reinforcement mechanisms that influence how certain actions become repeated or internalized.

These three pillars biological perception, psychological construction of reality, and behavioral reinforcement form the basis of how I judge others. Each one is already complex on its own; combined, they become even more so. Within this framework, I see judgment not just as a reaction to how the external world affects someone, but mainly as an evaluation of how that person responds to it, whether in a positive or negative way. This shows up through how individuals express their actions.

To simplify it, I use a general baseline: when someone shows high positivity toward another person, they express it through affection, like a hug; with moderate positivity, maybe a handshake; with low positivity, just a verbal greeting. On the negative side, high negativity shows up as hostile behavior (either direct or passive), moderate negativity as abrupt distancing, and low negativity as a kind of fake positivity.

Based on that, I form something like a behavioral average. If someone stays within that range, I try to be constructive and maintain a functional relationship, avoiding unnecessary conflict. But if they fall below that baseline, I tend to see the interaction as not worth it, since it likely carries a negative predisposition.

This distinction matters: when someone is within that range, I interpret it as them judging my actions; when they fall below it, I see it as them judging me as a person. And those are very different things. Judging actions allows for adjustment you can change behavior or compensate with more positive actions. But judging the person tends to be fixed: regardless of what you do, the overall perception is already set. Positive actions become the bare minimum expected, while negative ones carry disproportionate weight.

For example, imagine someone who dislikes being spoken to loudly and has relationships with two people, A and B. If they see A more positively, when A speaks loudly, it’s easily forgiven or even justified. But if they see B more negatively, the same behavior isn’t accepted there’s no room for justification, and it may even be interpreted as intentional negativity.

This also highlights how easily we can be influenced in how we perceive others, whether positively or negatively. But that influence often says more about the person being influenced than about the one doing the influencing, since it usually just reinforces a perception that was already there.

Another important factor is repetition. I don’t just look at how someone behaves toward me, but also how they act with others more generally. Even so, I recognize a central issue in my way of judging: I often stop seeing the individual as a human being and start treating them more like a kind of statistic.

That makes my interactions significantly harder, because the reality is that all of us, to some degree, have flaws and create problems often shaped by how we were raised. By approaching things in a more analytical and less human way, I end up limiting my relationships, with the only clear positive being a greater tolerance for other people’s flaws.

Nós, como seres humanos, temos o hábito de julgar o que está ao nosso redor. Isso, por si só, não é um problema, pois faz parte da nossa natureza enquanto mecanismo analítico uma forma de poupar energia, tomar decisões rápidas e obter informações de imediato. O problema surge quando não temos consciência desse processo e de que julgamos o ambiente em que estamos inseridos de diversas maneiras, cada indivíduo à sua própria forma. Essa falta de consciência impede que lidemos bem com isso, gerando diversas dificuldades e dificultando a amenização de falhas humanas.

Reconhecendo essa tendência em mim, tenho consciência de como julgo determinadas pessoas ou situações. No entanto, percebo o quanto isso pode ser problemático, pois a forma como avalio alguém muitas vezes se torna desumanizada e excessivamente complexa para lidar com comportamentos humanos triviais. Em um primeiro momento, não costumo julgar alguém com grande complexidade, já que ainda não possuo muitas informações. Assim, meu julgamento vai se aprofundando à medida que conheço melhor a pessoa.

Naturalmente, ao conhecer alguém, percebemos tanto seus aspectos positivos quanto negativos o que é completamente normal. A partir disso, desenvolvi uma filosofia que chamo de “Mal Tolerável”, na qual existe uma métrica, dentro da minha própria concepção, para avaliar o quanto determinado “mal” é tolerável. E é justamente aí que reside o problema. Tanto do ponto de vista biológico considerando as limitações da visão humana e a forma como o cérebro interpreta a realidade, sendo cada percepção inevitavelmente imperfeita quanto sob aspectos emocionais e psicológicos, relacionados ao nosso mundo interior e à forma como ele molda a percepção do mundo exterior (o que pode ser entendido como uma “perspectiva de realidade”), além dos mecanismos de reforço de comportamento, que influenciam o quanto certas atitudes se tornam recorrentes ou internalizadas.

Esses três pilares percepção biológica, construção psicológica da realidade e reforço comportamental fundamentam meu julgamento. Isoladamente, já são complexos; combinados, tornam-se ainda mais. Dentro dessa lógica, entendo que o julgamento sobre um indivíduo não deve partir apenas de como o mundo externo o afeta, mas principalmente de como ele lida com esse mundo, seja de forma positiva ou negativa. Essa métrica de positividade e negatividade se manifesta na forma como o indivíduo expressa suas ações.

De maneira simplificada, estabeleço uma base geral: quando um indivíduo apresenta alta positividade em relação a alguém, ele demonstra afeto, como um abraço; com positividade média, um aperto de mão; com baixa positividade, apenas um cumprimento verbal. Já no campo da negatividade, uma alta negatividade se expressa por comportamentos hostis, ativos ou passivos; uma negatividade média, por afastamento abrupto; e uma negatividade baixa, por uma falsa positividade.

Com base nisso, faço uma espécie de média comportamental. Quando alguém se mantém dentro dessa média, busco agir de forma resolutiva, visando uma convivência harmoniosa e evitando conflitos. Porém, quando percebo que essa média está abaixo do esperado, concluo que a interação pode não valer a pena, pois tende a ser marcada por predisposições negativas.

Essa distinção é importante: quando alguém está na média, interpreto que a pessoa está avaliando minhas atitudes; quando está abaixo, entendo que ela está julgando a minha pessoa como um todo. E essas são coisas muito diferentes. Julgar atitudes permite correção basta não repetir o comportamento ou compensá-lo com ações mais positivas. Já o julgamento da pessoa em si tende a ser fixo: independentemente das atitudes, a percepção geral já foi definida, e ações positivas passam a ser vistas como o mínimo esperado, enquanto as negativas ganham um peso desproporcional.

Um exemplo disso: imagine alguém que não gosta que falem em voz alta com ele e se relaciona com duas pessoas, A e B. Se essa pessoa tem uma visão mais positiva de A, quando A fala alto, o comportamento é facilmente perdoado e até justificado. Já no caso de B, que é visto de forma mais negativa, a mesma atitude não é aceita, não há espaço para justificativas, e o comportamento pode ser interpretado como algo intencionalmente negativo.

Isso também evidencia o quanto somos influenciáveis na forma como percebemos os outros positiva ou negativamente. No entanto, essa influência diz mais sobre quem é influenciado do que sobre quem influência, já que, na maioria das vezes, apenas reforça uma percepção que já existia previamente.

Outro fator relevante é a repetição de comportamentos: avalio não apenas como alguém age comigo, mas também como se comporta de forma geral com outras pessoas. Ainda assim, percebo que há um problema central na minha forma de julgar: muitas vezes deixo de enxergar o indivíduo como um ser humano e passo a tratá-lo quase como uma estatística.

Isso dificulta significativamente minhas interações, pois a realidade é que todos nós, em maior ou menor grau, temos falhas e causamos problemas muitas vezes por conta das formas como fomos criados. Ao adotar essa abordagem mais analítica e menos humana, acabo reduzindo minhas relações, restando como aspecto mais positivo apenas a tolerância em relação às falhas dos outros.