If we do not blame people for things, we are not angry at them. That is already part of the logic of our emotions. Thus, someone behaving appropriately as part of a game we agree to engage in is not an object of hostility. If, however, he seems to have gone out of his way to injure me, I will be angry, which is appropriate, at least until I learn differently. Similarly, disagreement need not reflect personally on one, and, in any case, is not a malicious injury, but a part of the process of refining opinion and seeking truth. On the other hand, if someone in the seminar seems to be unnecessarily sarcastic, he will be widely disliked, for maliciously demeaning his interlocutors. And, again, unless there is a mistake, this is appropriate.
I have no intention of allowing other people to control my responses. I have no intention of giving them that sort of power over me.
This, in my opinion, is the most revealing thing you said in this post. Identifying honest emotional response as "weakness", you will have none of that. Of course you do not want to lose control, but that is different from supposing that you are absolutely impervious.
Reputation is, by its nature, general. It is not what someone thinks of you, but what people tend to say about you to one another. Thus, the concern is not primarily with the person who is determined to dislike one, but with onlookers.
I have met people who knew who I was through an alumnus, where it had a bearing on the business we were conducting. It is not always predictable.
Perhaps "quiz" is too strong. But unless one is simply insincere on line, it does reflect on one, and allows one to test oneself. For example, I may not be so "pendantic" in normal social intercourse, but I am when I am in seminar, or even a serious enough conversation informally. So it is not irrelevant....... |
