Conference quark::human_relations-v1

My most hated platitude is one someone recently mentioned:

Give me courage to change things I can,
patience to accept things I can't change,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Jim.

Sometimes fixing the symptom WILL lead indirectly to fixing the root...
But, as Mike said....fixing the symptom is only a temporary measure....
Someday, somehow the root of the problem must be addressed.

/kath

    re: .2 Jim,
    
         I'd be interested in hearing your reasons for that platitude being
    your most hated.
    
    ASP

    In each of the cases in the base note, the root of the problem
    was looked at, but it was decided it was more beneficial at the
    time to treat the symptom.
    
    I think the "pompous platitude" that you stated comes from too many
    people treating JUST the symptom without even looking into the root
    of the problem.  After analysis, if treating just the symptom works
    for you, fine.  But it is really only the tip of the iceberg.
    
    	El

    
.1>    	Fixing the symptom is always a temporary solution.

Not always. In many cases, fixing the root cause could be a
temporary cure (after all, it did come up the first time around).
For instance, internal stresses that were cured by analysis (a very
long term effort) have been known to recur (I am quoting a
psychologist discussing a 'cure' for nail biting). 

On the other hand, fixing the symptom could be very final. For
instance, people who quit smoking (in many cases, a symptom for a
deep seated problem) simply by exerting strong will power and
staying quit for life. 


.2>	My most hated platitude is one someone recently mentioned:
.2>
.2>	Give me courage to change things I can,
.2>	patience to accept things I can't change,
.2>	and the wisdom to know the difference.

That's not a 'platitude', but, yes, I am not surprised.

I even know what word in there you hate most.


.3>	Sometimes fixing the symptom WILL lead indirectly to fixing
.3>	the root...

Certainly. For instance, if a person suffers from low self esteem
but learns to behaves as if they didn't. That would reflect in the
environment responding, slowly starting to treat the person with
respect, promoting satisfaction and pride in the person, which
reinforces the environment's action, which promoted more pride in
the person, which... 

That's positive feedback in action. When you're feeling low, just
try standing in front of a mirror, smiling, laughing, joking at your
image (this is best done when alone in the room - preferably, in the
house). In a while, you will definitely feel better. How can that
be? All you treated is the symptom (the 'long face'), not the root
of your sadness. Yet, it does cure - not just the symptom, but the
underlying cause, as well. 

Also, in many cases, the bothersome aspect **is** the symptom, not
the root cause. 


.6>	But it is really only the tip of the iceberg.

I agree with everything you say. But (to borrow your own metaphor),
if I have managed to remove the tip of the iceberg and all I have to
do is navigate a ship over it, should I really care if the rest of
the ice is still way down under the ship?
    
-- Ron 

    Well, personally, I think that part of wisdom is recognizing when the
    symptom *is* the problem. It's often hard to tell the difference, and
    the success in all your stories comes from recognizing what the *real*
    problem is.
    
    	Jon

platitude - a trite remark, statement or idea.

trite - overused and commonplace; lacking interest or originality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

We  sometimes  use  these  terms to defend ourselves from truths which we
would  rather  not  face.    I  remember talking with a friend once about
problems she  was  having  with  her ex-husband.  She seemed to be on the
verge of telling  her  kids what a jerk their father was (probably true).
I told her that  she could only make the situation worse by involving the
kids.  (In doing so,  she would essentially have been guilty of the thing
she was mad at the ex-  about.) I made the statement that it wasn't fair,
but that nobody ever said life was  fair  (or words to that effect).  She
responded that she was sick of hearing that  old  platitude!!!    I  said
nothing  more,  but  I  remember  thinking that she was  using  the  term
platitude to avoid facing what she knew to be a fundamental truth.  

There really are platitudes,  but  we always have to evaluate our reasons
for applying these labels.   Our  society is geared to instant solutions.
When we hear something said that  suggests  a  difficult  solution, it is
tempting  to  apply  a  negative  label,  in  an  attempt  to  render  it
meaningless.  Sometimes time-honored wisdom may be cloaked in platitudes.


Just another abstract thought...

rng

I second .8 .  The key is determining the real problem in context,
and dealing with that.

Each example in .0 describes a real problem, and something more easily
recognized that looks like a problem, but in context, isn't seriously
getting in the way of the important objective.

If a solution works as intended allowing one to achieve some objective;
it has solved the real problem with respect to that objective.

I think it is possible to classify many problems into some general catagories,
and make useful generalizations about different approaches to solving them.
Are these generalizations meaningful?  It depends on what people interpret
them to mean.  What is meaningful to one, can be meaningless to another.

How should we respond when we hear something that appears to be meaningless
from our perspective?  Critisize it as meaningless, or try to understand the
speakers perspective and what they meant (even if we disagree)?

- Peter

    	I am basically a READ ONLY user in this file ... until now ... this
    	note really hit home.
    
    	Ron,
    		From your Base Note I could probably come very close to
    	guessing your age and education. 
    
    		You appear to be very intelligent, and probably well
    	educated ... but ... you seem to have hit one of my hot buttons
    	with your comment about doing a job well.
    
    		You didn't state it this way, but I've always heard this...
    
    			"A Job worth doing is worth doing well"
    
    		What a novel concept!! 
    
    		You can take that to the lowest level or highest level that
    	you would care to ... it will always apply.
    
    
    	Let me give you one more "Platitude" to add to your list,
    
    	Goes something like this:
    
    		It is much better for one to be thought of as a fool than
    	for one to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.
    
    
    

    re .0
    
    1) Fixing the "real problem" in this case was iffy.  It might not have
       worked.
    
    2) This one was only a temporary problem.  It required only a temporary
       solution.  (The seasick fellow.)  If he were required to live out
       his life on a ship, there would probably be more motivation to find
       a permanent solution.
    
    ...just a couple observations.

    Re: .0
    
    Your doctor just told you you have cancer.  One of the symptoms was that
    your hair fell out.
    
    You go to the local CVS.. you buy hair re-grower...
    
    Your hair the next morning is now a full head of hair..
    
    Does that mean you no longer have cancer...
    
    Seems to me that is what you are trying to say in your base note.
    
    think about it....
    

    
    
    
                 I really don't understand your reasoning behind your
             "fix the symptom not the cause" idea.  It just doesn't
             make any sense at all to ME.  If you fix the cause, there
             won't be any symptoms.  The reverse is not true.
    
                 I must have misunderstood.  I'll have to go back and
             re-read it.
    
    
                                                    CMD

    Ron, I understood your point in the self-esteem note.  But your
    black-and-white positioning just pits platitude against platitude. 
    Not that there's anything wrong with that - it seems part of the
    natural process of conferencing - but opposing "platitudes" are nothing
    to get so riled up about either.
    
    First, your examples of symptomatic treatments which fixed the root
    cause sound an awful lot like smart treatments of the root cause.  Even
    in cases where the root cause was not directly gone after, treatment
    was not _just_ symptomatic, but took into account the need not to
    aggravate the root cause - for example, walking with a cane rather than
    using casts and massive pain-killers without regard to the healing of
    the ankle.
    
    The short term goal of relieving the most painful symptoms can
    interfere with long-term goals which are sometimes unstated.  One easy
    way for the self-esteem noter to avoid painful scenes is to avoid being
    close to anybody.  This may count as a symptomatic treatment, but it's
    hardly supportive of a "real cure".
    
    To paraphrase some Buddhist text, elimination of pain is not as
    important as rehabilitation of the invalid.  Some pain is necessary and
    rehabilitation is not complete just because the patient can stumble
    from bed to chair and back.
    
    Also, although a constant caveat of "a cure might be impossible" is
    helpful in reducing the ego damage caused by relapses, there are
    conditions in which some hope of an eventual release is necessary.
    
    It's not that you're wrong in saying that the statement which ticked
    you off isn't universally applicable; it's just that it's hard to make
    _any_ remarks to which the same objection can't be made.  I'd prefer to
    look at how well the platitudes at hand apply to particular cases.
    
    
    Ending on the rude tone that the topic title calls for, I've noticed
    replies which use quotes without considering context or source.  In
    this conference, for example, it seems common to quote "better to have
    loved and lost" as though the phrase ended "than never to have lost at
    all"; I've also seen Shakespearian villains or buffoons quoted
    approvingly with an "as Shakespeare says".  Stuff like that strikes me
    as funny instead of irritating, though - even when I do it.
    
    Ray

    	For the past two summers, I've had a recurring problem. My legs get
    small eruptions that are not hair or pimples. They are in fact, Staff
    Infection of a very low grade. I've been to the doctor every time one
    begins to surface. Treatment: Antibiotics for 7-10 days and the problem
    goes away for 2-3 weeks. 
    
    	I asked the doctor(s) to idg a bit deeper and find the cause. So we
    scraped them for a tissue sample (That's how we discovered staff).
    They've taken at least a half gallon of blood and another half gallon
    of urine. 
    
    	They've been unable to find the cause. I only get them on my legs
    but I'm concerned. It's easy to treat the symptom, not so easy to cure
    the disease. They still don't know and the colder weather is here so I
    don't expect to see them until next June.
    
    	The meaning of this: There is little satisfaction in treating a
    symptom. There is success and joy in curing the disease. 
    
    Ken

This is going to be long. I'll be responding to all replies up to 
.17.


.7>	.6> ... people who quit smoking ... and
.7>	.6> staying quit for life. 
.7>
.7>    	That's still temporary, Ron.

Are you serious? Quitting smoking FOR LIFE is temporary? Do you know
of anyone who resumed smoking after life? 
    
    
.7>	I cannot think of one example where treating the symptoms,
.7>	... results in a permanent solution.

I can think of many. I believe the only treatment for autism is
based on attacking the symptoms. Whatever cure is achieved tends to 
be permanent. 


.8 and .10 actually read the base note. I did not say, as some
others seem to think, that a cause should never be treated. I simply
objected to the notion that the only solution is **always**
treatment of the cause and that treating the effects (symptoms) is
The Great Mistake. 
    
I said that to solve a problem arising out of a cause and effect 
situation, analysis and evaluation are called for. I said that in
many (actually, I said 'most') cases, treating the cause is not cost
effective, timely, expedient, or, indeed, possible and then, treating
the effects makes sense. 


.9>	platitude - a trite remark, statement or idea.
.9>
.9>	trite - overused and commonplace; lacking interest or originality.
.9>
.9>	Sometimes time-honored wisdom may be cloaked in platitudes.

By your own definition, platitudes are trite, meaningless. If they
express wisdom (time honoured or not) they are no longer
'platitudes'. 


.10>	The key is determining the real problem in context, and
.10>	dealing with that.

Thanks you.


.11>	From your Base Note I could probably come very close to
.11>	guessing your age and education ...

I fail to see how my age, education, level of intelligence or shoe 
size have to do with the subject under discussion.


.11>	"A Job worth doing is worth doing well" ... What a novel
.11>	concept!!
.11>    
.11>	You can take that to the lowest level or highest level that
.11>	you would care to ... it will always apply.

This is a digression, but what the hell...

No, it does not 'always apply'. It assumes that the value of a job
is a binary quantity (it's either worth doing or it's not) and that
quality of execution is also a binary quantity (well done or not
well done), while in the meaningful reality, both are analog,
continuous quantities. 

So, you weigh qualities on a continuous scale. You weigh the
required resources on a continuous scale. You weight the
desirability of the results on a continuous scale. You then make a
decision as to whether to do the job or not. If affirmative, both
quality and 'wellness' of results could attain any value in a range.

As a result, I find that many jobs are worth doing ONLY if poorly
done. I recently put up shelving in my garage. Rather than spend $80
and work two days to do it well, I spent $30 and worked one day. I
got exactly what I expected: battleship strong and unsightly job.
Not 'well done' at all, but exactly what needed. 

I used to play chess in earnest. I used to read books on strategy,
openings and styles. I used to replay famous games. One day I
discovered it wasn't as much fun as playing a game for relaxation and
company with a good friend. It was certainly worth doing, but was
certainly not worth doing well. 


.11>	Let me give you one more "Platitude" to add to your list,
.11>
.11>	It is much better for one to be thought of as a fool than
.11>	for one to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.

I could have replied by suggesting you should have thought of that 
**before** posting your reply.

Instead, let's explore a prevalent noting style in this --and
other-- notefiles. When people encounter a notion they disagree
with, they retort by telling their respondent that he's a fool (or a
jerk or worse). They immediately 'win the argument', since the
respondent (who very seldom is a fool or jerk or worse), recognizes
who he or she is dealing with and drops the discussion.

Another related strategy is to float an insulting remark, expecting
readers to associate it with the intended target, who, of course,
cannot respond since they were not directly named. As a taste of
what I mean, here's a general statement: I despise gutless twits. 

It's OK to refute a person's argument or idea as foolish, especially
if one can demonstrate where his thought process has gone wrong.
But whoever says the person himself is a fool marks his own
intelligence as questionable.

Well, your statement, above, is not a platitude. It is not trite or 
meaningless. The idea was expressed --albeit in other words-- by 
Benjamin Disraeli. If you had any reason to bring it up, by all 
means, let's hear it.

    
.12>	This one was only a temporary problem.  It required only a
.12>	temporary solution  (The seasick fellow.)  If he were
.12>	required to live out his life on a ship, there would
.12>	probably be more motivation to find a permanent solution. 

Quite true. The solution should address the problem. A different 
problem would have required a different solution; maybe, even one 
that addressed the root cause.

    
.13>	... on motion sickness ... Seems that seeing the horizon and
.13>	the ocean is key to avoiding sensory conflict ... the asbestos
.13>	tent would've made the situation worse.

Lucky for us, NACA's study wasn't out when this happened. This 
fellow didn't realize it shouldn't have worked for him.
    
    
.14>	Your doctor just told you you have cancer.  One of the
.14>	symptoms was that your hair fell out. 
.14>
.14>	You go to the local CVS.. you buy hair re-grower... Your
.14>	hair the next morning is now a full head of hair.. Does
.14>	that mean you no longer have cancer...

Another noting ruse... you assign to someone a real stupid idea. You 
then bash them for being so stupid...

I never implies that fixing a symptom will remove the cause. I said
that often, the real problem (I said "the bothersome aspect") stems
from the effects, not the root cause. I used the words 'judgment'
and 'evaluation', which you seem to have missed.

But, let's take your example at face value. If my problem is related
to loss of hair only, than, yes, I'd run to CVS to get the stuff
(BTW, I wish they actually carried it :-) ). I wouldn't bother with
curing the cancer, since it won't bring back the lost hair, even if
I was successful. 

If, on the other hand, I was concerned with the lesser problem of
dying of cancer, the hair issue would be irrelevant. I would
certainly go for cancer treatments. Further, I would view cancer as
an effect and search for the cause, to deal with it too. For
instance, if I thought the cancer was brought on by overexposure to
the sun, I would avoid the sun. 

In general, medical problems, as a class, seem to require dealing
with the root causes of problems, IN ADDITION to the symptoms (If
you had malaria, your fever would also be treated, not just the
disease). Emotional or psychological problems --not to mention
organizational ones-- tend to benefit more from dealing with the
symptoms, maybe because the causes are so difficult to get at.

I don't think hard and fast rules apply. You have to study each case
on its own merit and determine what are the causes, effects, and
problems. Only then can you make an intelligent decision. 
    

.14>	Seems to me that is what you are trying to say in your base
.14>	note.
    
No, it wasn't. Read it again and see.


.15>	If you fix the cause, there won't be any symptoms. The
.15>	reverse is not true.

This is not always true. (If your hair has already fallen out, 
curing the original cause won't bring it back). When it is, it
could be irrelevant (fixing the cause, as we have already seen, may
be too expensive, too time consuming or just not possible to do.
Then, I don't care if it will alleviate the symptoms). 


.16>	I understood your point in the self-esteem note.  But your
.16>	black-and-white positioning ....

I didn't realize my stance was black and white. I thought I said one 
must **judge** and **evaluate** each case on it's own.

As a matter of fact, what I was objecting to was a flat, all
encompassing statement that 'treating a symptom is The Big Mistake'
(complete with capitals, no less, I believe), delivered in a
supercilious, pompous manner. 


.16>	First, your examples of symptomatic treatments which fixed
.16>	the root cause sound an awful lot like smart treatments of
.16>	the root cause.

Again, I did not say that treating a symptom will cure the cause. I
said that it will solve problems stemming from that symptom itself,
which --in many instances-- may be all that's needed. 

If it does indirectly help to affect the root cause (for example,
positive feedback), that's serendipity at its best. 

I think your other objections in .16 and elsewhere, concerning low
self esteem, are well taken. I still think people will be better off
if they do treat the symptoms, at least as a hedge until they are 
able to produce better results by a more thorough treatment of the
deep rooted causes. 


RE: .17,

You describe a medical problem that probably does require treatment 
of the root cause. Meanwhile, treating the symptoms (by antibiotics) 
did seem to have solved your immediate problems, didn't it?

-- Ron

    Re: .0
    
    >In many cases (no... in **most** cases), going to the root of the 
    >problem is too risky, too inexpedient, impractical, too expensive, too 
    >time consuming, not possible, or just plain wrong. 
    
    I don't know about **most** cases, not having made an exhaustive study. 
    Sometimes, as you have illustrated, addressing the root problem is the
    less effective way to go.  Coping techniques allow you to get the job
    done.  However, most of your examples are problems with a small scope. 
    Coping will get you through the short-term quite nicely.  The question
    is, how effective is it in the long-term?  For example, if you're
    getting a surprise visit in less than an hour, you can just sweep the
    dirt under the rug.  Eventually, however, you're going to have to clean
    the room (unless you like filth).  Sweeping stuff under the rug is a
    coping technique with limited effectiveness, since the rug has a
    limited capacity to cover filth.
    
    In the case of the torn tendon, the tendon was the root problem.  By
    declining to have an operation, your friend was not declining to
    address the root problem.  Rather, he was satisfied with a partial
    solution -- near optimal, but not optimal.
    
    In the case of the seasick technician, the sight of the waves was the
    cause of the distress -- the root problem.  Sea sickness was the
    manifestation of that problem.
    
    In the case of the nail biter, you're only assuming that her
    high-strung nature was the root cause of her nail biting.
    
    In the case of the crack under the deck, you haven't really explained
    what the basic problem is.  Is it the crack that's the problem?  What
    is problematical about the crack?  What danger does it present?
    
    I'm willing to believe there are times when the most effective response
    is to just cope.  I'm not willing to believe that it's the appropriate
    response for *most* situations, though.

    
	>Give me courage to change things I can,
	>patience to accept things I can't change,
	>and the wisdom to know the difference.
     
    This 'platitude' is attributed to St Francis of Assissi. AS many alrady
    know, St Francis was engaged to be married, and as the day got close,
    he too got closer to his betrothed. When he expossed her breasts to his
    carresses, he found they were rotted black with cancer, and ran from
    her to the monastery, where he remained. 
    
    St Francis, lover of Nature and Natures ways (animals and stuff),
    is one of the few Saints many Protestants also recognize.
    
    Platitudes, like any other sort of advice, will often seem 'stupid' if
    followed mindelessly. 
    
    Religions experience the same sort of problems, exspecially when
    attempting to 'follow' a certain book many claim to be 'THE' basic
    truth. 
    
    The problem with 'doing things right' depends on 'who determines
    whats right', right ?