And a bit about whether hitting a child is good or not Or rambling about how language can limit us and lead us to misjudge the essence of things

Or language and the binary trap it sets

Once, Feng asked a quite interesting question: Why do some people treat outsiders very well, but with their family, they just look for reasons to put them down?

Upon reflection, the notion of "good" mentioned here is not really good. Humans are creatures driven by "incentives", roughly translated as acting based on "benefits," or the fear of losing "benefits."

This concept of benefits - interest is not limited to money, material things, power, but can also be in emotions, feelings, or sometimes - rarely - the satisfaction of "ideals."

Depending on the object and the context - situation, an action towards that object will be executed.

If we label that object - in that context - as not satisfying us, we usually do nothing. Or we will show an attitude of refusal to help - unwillingness to exert effort. For example, seeing a poor person in dire need. Sometimes we are moved to help. But if we see a poor person gambling or drinking, we refuse to help.

So, judging a person as good or bad is extremely difficult. There are countless objects and countless possible situations where we haven't observed the behavior of that individual, so making an overall conclusion is not advisable.

For example, the person asking the question above doesn't see the situation where an outsider is in a medical emergency versus a family member in a medical emergency; the family member might be helped while the outsider might not.

And the person asking might only see that individual spending time drinking happily with outsiders but not with family, for example. I've rambled on just to say that making a general conclusion about something is not easy. And the way the question at the beginning is phrased easily creates biases and leads to stereotyping (stereotype). However, based on past experience - old data, we can still predict how a person will tend to behave with a certain object + a certain situation.

Let's get back to "good." I've gone a bit far. Each person has a different concept of what action is "good." Like whether parents hitting children is good or bad. For me, to judge good or bad, two basic factors are needed: The mindset of hitting and the technique of hitting. Hitting a child to make them better, recognizing their mistakes, and wanting to be strict to correct bad behavior. Here, we have the right mindset. But hitting out of frustration from outside, taking it out on the child, or having poor understanding and wanting high achievements while providing little input. Hitting out of frustration with life and oneself. That's the wrong mindset. The technique of hitting. How to hit. Where to hit, with what. When I mentioned the above, many might think of violent hitting with a stick or belt on the buttocks, etc. If skilled and knowledgeable, there are many non-violent forms of hitting. Using words, demeanor, logic, policy frameworks to control psychology. I've seen people who just sit and glare, and their children are scared to misbehave again.

And of course, the highest level is recognizing potential mistakes and setting up mechanisms for children to fear those mistakes without committing them. This requires very high wisdom to set up. And with the mindset + technique framework, using terms - concepts like "good" "bad" to evaluate something is VERY LIMITING. If we must use a model to evaluate an event, I prefer a range of scores or using concepts like "quality" "standard". I've rambled on again just to say that besides cognitive errors, language also misleads us in problem identification.

However, there is still "good" To demand a person to do something of "high quality" - "high standard" is sometimes an overly stringent and unreasonable demand. So after a round of arguments about the word "good," I'll temporarily consider "good" to mean "having good intentions," "having a heart," "being sincere." Sometimes naive, poor in technique, but "having a heart" is good enough. However, when most people use "doing well," they usually expect an action that "APPEARS GOOD" and yields results that "SEEM GOOD." The heart, the intention, is not important. "Appears good" and "seems good" because sometimes it looks shiny and good on the outside but is rotten and bad on the inside. Who knows? And for most of us, and if unlucky enough to be ungrateful, the ability to sense "good intentions" "sincerity" "heart" is difficult. The ungrateful often judge by the outcome, while the intention behind is secondary. Plus, if it's not our own business, we evaluate others' affairs very casually and without good faith. Sensing the heart of someone is almost absent. This part is a somewhat forced definition of "good." And it must be added because of our inherent indifference and ingratitude.

Finally, after several quite lengthy sections, the answers to the original question would be:

1. How does the questioner understand "good" at which level, aspect?

2. Good - bad with family - outsiders in what context?

3. The person performing the good - bad action with what mindset - method?

4. The person doing good to outsiders, is it for their own hidden benefit or purely with good intentions?

5. The action not being good to family, is it truly not good (with bad intentions) or simply the person using high techniques that we, with our lower perspective, evaluate as bad? For example, not helping a family member with gambling debts because we want them to experience extreme hardship before helping, but helping outsiders because at that moment (context - situation), it would greatly benefit both parties.

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8...

9. I've gone on at length because each individual has a different framework for recognizing - understanding "good." But for me personally, I only need a simple factor to judge an action as good or bad: That is the intention - the heart - the sincerity. For me, a person doing something "good" means their heart, when doing it, wants good for the object. Selfish thoughts are fine, humans are not saints, but at least there must be sincerity - a heart directed towards the betterment of the object. Just having "a good heart," even a little, is "good." Accumulating enough good over time, the technique will gradually improve. Like you're a mother wanting to cook well for your child. If you have a fervent heart for your child, you'll naturally go from zero to hero over time. Oh, the topic of motherhood intelligence is interesting. I'll discuss it another time if I feel like it.

10. If we only use this simple definition of good to answer the original question, the person doing that is not doing good. They are simply "investing" in outsiders because outsiders bring benefits and "not investing" in family because family doesn't bring benefits. That's all. Hehe. Don't just focus on the surface; try to sense the underlying and background behind. If you can see it, everything might be simpler - or more complex - than you think. Wishing everyone a day doing many "good" things. Hehehe. Reading this post makes my head spin.

"Sometimes we are really bad at asking questions. And if we invest in asking questions, then sometimes we already have the answer."