PebHmong Discussion Forum
General Category => Debate Central => Topic started by: w1s3m0n on February 08, 2018, 07:22:00 PM
-
What do you think is more important and why?
-
What do you think most people seek? And following that would be trust. In my opinion they are equally important. You can’t have love without trust and you don’t have trust without love.
-
neither exist without the other...but trust would be a more valuable asset.
-
If you trust me, I'll blackmail you.
So it is not the love or trust issue from you to me but the real issue is with myself.
Sometimes, what I think may scare me. I don't even love or trust the self.
Or even driving without a driver license or insurance, it is the world that scares me. I don't hit them but when they hit me, I'm fawk scenario.
I've learned to love and learn to trust but only at the cost of mistakes.
Deep and meaningful
-
What do you think most people seek? And following that would be trust. In my opinion they are equally important. You can’t have love without trust and you don’t have trust without love.
Can you love someone you cannot trust? What about your child who you cannot trust but love?
I think people seek love but will accept trust because love is hard.
neither exist without the other...but trust would be a more valuable asset.
I firmly believe love exists alone without needing anything. Trust does not need love. I trust my banker who I don't give a flying duck about. I love my so-and-so who I don't trust for shit.
-
So a relationship voided of all trust and love is a business transaction.
Thus why I tell folks to enter a relationship without expectation and to save yourself from a hurtful relationship, bring no sympathy into any relationship.
So what if you do them wrong? They'll get stronger in their next relationship so you are doing them a favor.
I fake the love till I make it. Been doing this since the 80s when i figures out what horny was.
-
Can you love someone you cannot trust? What about your child who you cannot trust but love?
I think people seek love but will accept trust because love is hard.
I firmly believe love exists alone without needing anything. Trust does not need love. I trust my banker who I don't give a flying duck about. I love my so-and-so who I don't trust for shit.
you don't understand love. when you grow up you'll see it differently. trusting a banking institution without love is not a way to explain the exemption of love. :2funny: :idiot2:
-
you don't understand love. when you grow up you'll see it differently. trusting a banking institution without love is not a way to explain the exemption of love. :2funny: :idiot2:
Age is just a number here with so much immaturity. :( :( :( :(
-
Age is just a number here with so much immaturity. :( :( :( :(
it's no wonder you don't understand the difference between trusting a loved one and trusting a bank then :2funny: :idiot2:
-
it's no wonder you don't understand the difference between trusting a loved one and trusting a bank then :2funny: :idiot2:
Well you trust your love ones with your life and you trust your banker with your life savings.
There I said it.
-
So if your love ones and your suitcase filled up with your life savings were to fall into a river, who do you save?
I'd save my love ones cuz $20 is not enough to bury nobody.
-
it's no wonder you don't understand the difference between trusting a loved one and trusting a bank then :2funny: :idiot2:
Trolling still eh? You having fun yet?
-
For me, love is more important. When you love someone with your entire heart, you willingly put your trust in them. It's a sacred connection between people. I think if you love someone without allowing trust to grow between you two, then you aren't doing right by them or you either. Trust is great also but life is better with love as the priority.
Thank you Asharia. You are the first person on PH to succinctly reason your position why love is more important than trust. Because you first love, then you first trust! Love is a sacred connection.
-
A LOVING and COMPASSIONATE WORLD
A child was in the pathway of a semi-truck. A stranger saw the child will be killed in a tragic accident. There was only enough time to choose between the child or the person. The person ran across the street and pushes the child forward and the semi-truck hits him. Lying in a pool of blood, a stranger asked, why did you save this child at the cost of yours? The stranger replied, I'm old, and I've lived a good life...This child deserves to experience a good life.
A TRUSTING WORLD
A child was in the pathway of a semi-truck. A stranger saw the child will be killed in a tragic accident. There was only enough time to choose between the child or the person. The person/people watch in horror as the truck runs over the child. Nobody saved this child.
Of the two stories, what is inspiring to you?
-
You believe that trust is first then love because you say, "In order to achieve love, you must have some level of trust first." How does a mother trust a newborn? How does a stranger who takes a personal sacrifice get their trust? If trust is the underpinning of love, and love is merely a higher order of trust, why do we see moments of no trust yet actions that are irrational to the model... In my opinion, the order matters because the order predicate everything else... Trust me, I know I'm going against the grain.
Clearly someone does not know about the pyramid of human emotional development. Trust is at a lower platform than love. Love is the apex. If you understand how scaffolding works, then my work is done. If scaffolding is foreign to you, then I'm done; go educate yourself.
Your confusion may be partly due to the fact that people in loving relationships take each other for granted, and this may lead to mistrust and resentment. Suffice to say that this pyramid is dynamic, fluid if you will, but in order to achieve love, you must have some level of trust first.
I'll add...why is it that after almost 100 years of psychology and sociology we don't feel better about each other. We live in a world of less trust, fake news, less love, in-authenticity, etc... Maybe the models are wrong. Would one say, the proof is in the pudding? Even if we say people are ignorant to the model, then why the change over time as these theory are diffuse by "thought leaders" to followers.
Btw, I'm not an expert or a researcher in this field of human emotional development. I only became interested in these concept through trying to understand myself and my relationships better. Lastly, do share your model by pasting a link.
-
people in loving relationships take each other for granted
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o Is that really love? Is that why we have 50% divorce rate? My personal quest to understand more about love is precisely that point. I feel EXACTLY that way and it bothers me. Am I really love because of my utility? What happens when I have no utility? Is there still love? So why not just call it utility?
I've been reading stoic philosophy for some reason. Seneca and Augustus.
-
Trust is more important than love... if you don't have trust, you don't have love.
-
I'm not a fan of Freud, but he did influence other scholars. Read Freud and his once hopeful student Carl Jung. Their are many credible early childhood models. The two that I subscribe to are Maslow and Erikson. Good luck.
The premise of your example with mother and child is flawed. That argument is a fallacy. By the way, most of the entertaining arguments in PH can be categorized into specific types of fallacy. Google fallacy, then read some of the heated discussions here; and you will find fallacies in their discord. Once you understand that, the humor will enlighten you. Have fun.
In behavioral management, and as a people manager, I apply Maslow and Erickson day to day. I do this downward, laterally, and upward. I find their work to be very practical in understanding normal people needs and wants, and in anticipating what/how to manage people to build trust, engagement. Modern management style tend to use theory Y management style...inspir e people vs theoryX management style...be skeptical of people and use (utility) people as an means to an end of production/profits. Everything I practice here is all about utility of production and profits through the manipulating human emotion to achieve the highest level of performance in people. They call this leadership. All these relationship are highly based upon trust. I trust my employees will do a good job, and they trust me I will give them good raises and promotion. This is what a transactional process is - I do A for B. I put my $$ in the bank, and they give me 1% APR.
In your model of love, you have said love is on the apex and there are scaffolding and that scaffolding is the pyramid, Maslow and Erickson. In addition, in your view on loving relationship, a loving relationship can be people taking each other for granted. For sure you are very much a utilitarian on the concept of love. I'm not. I think love is sacred and you don't. Your form of love might be eros and phileo...I try to seek forms of love that are unconditional, agape. Everything else, I don't consider love. My natural state is to serve and give so I don't really do the eros and phileo...in those cases it's friendship...i t's trusting.
In my world view, I see love above trust because love is sacred. Love brings warmth. Trust can be manipulating and cold because trust is often negotiated: I do X for Y. Trust dies when it is not reciprocated. Love doesn't die, it endures. Don't believe me. Test it. Anyone who requires constant negotiating in I do X for Y, is not a loving relationship, it is a trusting relationship. For example, in the Hmong culture, we talk about love as an exchange of energy and time. That's not love. That's trust. Perhaps it is why many Hmong people see trust as higher because that's what we care most about.
In Brene Brown work on the anatomy of Trust she talks about BRAVING (boundaries, reliability, accountability, vault, integrity, non-judgement, generosity). Nearly everything in the Hmong culture of love can be seen within this context. Most relationship can be seen within this context. The reality is, we have many, many trusting relationship, and we have VERY FEW loving relationship. Some may HAVE NONE. It is why the great Roman Philosopher and Christian Apostile, St Paul wrote, 1 COR 13, EPH 5, and perhaps the most insightful point on love by this great philosopher/apostle is the following:
1 COR 13:2 "If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing." I argue most people fall into the latter categories...t heir love is not authentic in the romantic definition. When you have nothing to give, you will know if they love you.
-
saying I trust you is the same as saying I love you..
if you ever tell someone you love you don't trust them no more... there's no love no more..
if you love someone you don't doubt your trust in them..
if you trust someone you don't doubt your love for them..
In my opinion, you can't have one without the other...
-
The topic here is really about how you order your life and not so much about what is right for everyone. There is no right/wrong way to order your life. We see a lot of people order their life through trust because they need that sense of reliability. That's great because we all need a sense of security and reliability. High trusting relationship will do that. I'll just say this about love...love is sacred and when you find a sacred relationship you'll know. Penguin love.
-
A LOVING and COMPASSIONATE WORLD
A child was in the pathway of a semi-truck. A stranger saw the child will be killed in a tragic accident. There was only enough time to choose between the child or the person. The person ran across the street and pushes the child forward and the semi-truck hits him. Lying in a pool of blood, a stranger asked, why did you save this child at the cost of yours? The stranger replied, I'm old, and I've lived a good life...This child deserves to experience a good life.
A TRUSTING WORLD
A child was in the pathway of a semi-truck. A stranger saw the child will be killed in a tragic accident. There was only enough time to choose between the child or the person. The person/people watch in horror as the truck runs over the child. Nobody saved this child.
Of the two stories, what is inspiring to you?
Those two scenarios have nothing to do with love or trust.
-
Those two scenarios have nothing to do with love or trust.
Elaborate.
-
Elaborate.
1st scenario doesn't indicate that the man saved the child because of love.
2nd scenario doesn't indicate that nobody saved the child because of trust.
-
In the beginning:
1. trusting too much
2. lusting and caring so much
The aftermath:
1. betrayed by the ppl
2. lost interest and repeat in endless cycle