Originally posted by Sip
View Post
2.) Eh, this one I am not sure about. I definitely admire those who can admit their mistakes, rather than blindly defending their mishaps. However, not everyone is like me. Majority feel that if the person has admitted to mistakes, they are bound to make others and are not as "authoritative" or "infallible" as they initially seemed to be. Also I've realized that in work situations, people will go to great extremes of defending their mistakes or trying to shift the blame. I think the consensus is not to allow others to notice your flaws. Having said that, do you still think that it's a quality to "nurture" in order to demand stellar respect?
3.)
You don't have to be an expert in everything to gain respect as long as you know what you don't know
4.) Agreed. Fear may inspire respect, but it's extremely or completely volatile. Based on inflated and superficially induced reaction. So.. fear may inspire respect, but respect doesn't equal fear.
So far we are down to only one absolute moral quality which can contribute to respect from others. That's not enough. Can one win full and solid respect by being totally moral and kind?
Originally posted by PepsiAddict
View Post
Originally posted by jgk3
View Post
I don't mean to be abrasive, but a dog is not a good example of the respect experiment. As long as you feed the dog and train it, it will love you no matter how much you beat it. It will do the same if you are kind to it.
I think all of you are confusing being a good person, or being labeled as such and being respected.
You can honestly say that you have not met that sweat aunt, or friend who is kind and sympathetic or empathetic, but when it comes to asking for serious advice or some reference not many would turn to them? Many people of that nature are great listeners, someone to vent or share intimate stories with, but if it came to a crucial decision or a point of view others rarely look in their direction seriously. Am I wrong?
Comment