Recently something just came up to my mind and I wonder how many people would say that this theory is true. It goes like this: When two person interact with each other, there is bound to be times where there are disputes...so, when either one of them gets angry first and not saying it, he would generally have the final say over the dispute and most of time, things would swing to his way. This is because, the person who gets angry first creates an impression that he's right and the other is definitely definitely wrong no matter what...and the other is forced, whether to like it or not, to apologize and make up...even, even if in fact, the person who did not get angry was not even doing anything wrong...well, at least to him...when a person apologizes, its like saying that the angry person is right and correct. Who wants to differ an angry person?
Won't this promote an unhealthy way of thinking? The person actually doing wrong is being admitted to be doing right while the other would question himself and he wouldn't know whether he was actually right.... So, the fact is that, to gain the upper-hand in a dispute would be to gain support from other people, say things louder like you're right, get angry first and always make the other person look like a fool with nonsensical arguments that may seem to make some sense. Well, that's the way of life: The Survival of the Angriest...
No comments:
Post a Comment