Likability Verses Capability

I don't think you're arrogant; I think you're confident, but I like confident people. You're a very knowledgeable person, and you want to know everything there is to know, and that's not a problem; the problem is, you want to know things you aren't eligible of knowing. You're so smart that you just assume you're right, and when you assume, sometimes, you assume wrong. That's just the way the game of assumption works, which is why you shouldn't play it when you don't have to, because then you put yourself at risk of losing when you don't have to, and it doesn't have to be because you didn't play smart but because you didn't get lucky. Your love for a conclusion evokes you to jump to conclusions, but not so fast; there's a clock, but it has time on it. However, assumptions allow one to question one's self, and since you like to "iron out the wrinkles," as you metaphorically put it, you shouldn't mind me joining you in your game and making some assumptions of my own. I may be the best opponent you've ever had, because we all have our pros in life, and just as you appear to be very introspective, I'm extrospective. You have, let's say, great vision, because you can see out of your eyes miraculously well, but how well can you see out of another's eyes? You've stated you weren't understanding me, and although I may not agree with all of the things you were saying, I understood them. We could've reversed sides, and I could've defended your side of the argument just as well as I had my own. I can convince people of things I don't even believe, myself, simply because I understand them and how to explain them. It's my understanding that you may be a tad fixated on logic, which, ironically, isn't very logical. You strike me as the kind of person who would tell me I can't live without breathing, and I'm the kind of person who would hold my breath while remaining alive, and therefore, proving you wrong. You know you're right? Did you know both of us could be right? You think you're a ten because you put five and five together, but I can put four and six together and be just as much of a ten as you. You think I'm wrong? You think I'm not being logical? You think there's no logic to what I'm saying to you? You think I can't make as much logic out of it as I want to? I could tell you that grass is red and make logic out of it, because I'm extrospective, and I can see through another's eyes. The grass could very well be red through someone else's eyes, in which perceive green as red. [1] If you've ever watched Film Theory, you would understand that, in a world where anything is possible, you can make logic out of anything. Perhaps it is only you who has made a false conclusion in saying I did. Saying one is kind means one has brought one's self to be kind in some way and at some point, while saying the exact opposite, that you feel must exist, would be to say the person has not brought their self to be kind in any way nor at any point, which would be an estimate no one is eligible to make about another person, being that no one has observed the entirety of anyone's life but their own, and even having observed their own life, that doesn't mean they can recollect the entirety of it, making one unable to even calculate their own acts of kindness, let alone someone else's. I would say Britney Spears is kind, if she is who she presents herself to be, because, although never having the chance to meet her, I, as well as many others, have had the privilege to observe both her and her kindness, to a certain degree, which would be through the media. It's true she may very well not be what she portrays herself as, but neither may anyone else, and instead of accusing every person I see of being a con artist, I'm going to give some people the benefit of the doubt. Saying I classified Britney as kind and Christina as mean is more correct but is still incorrect. I estimate Britney as kinder, but that doesn't mean I estimate Christina as mean. Christina can still be kind without being as kind as Britney. I agree that I could've said kindness has a better chance at being likable, but that would've been beyond the point, because the point wasn't whether kindness or capability has a better chance at being likable but whether likability or capability has a better chance at success, and kindness was only used as an example of likability for clarification. What's the point of going beyond the point (other than procrastinating the point)? Most of the time, it's a positive ability, to be able to see below the surface, it is, but sometimes, when you go beyond the point, you take away from the point, and you never get to the point. It's hard to dispute kindness relating to likability when it's used as a synonym for it in the dictionary. [2] You can be as opinionative as you want, but I'm being as factual as I can to avoid misconceptions. If people like kindness, then kind people would be likable, making one's ability to be kind one's likability. You can argue that some people don't like kindness and that everyone has their own definition of what's likable, but considering we don't know each other's personalized definitions of everything, it'd be smart to go by definitions we should both know, which would be the ones defined by a common dictionary. I could argue that "any" workplace doesn't necessarily mean "every" workplace. "Every" means all, while "any" means at least one. "Is there every flavor left?" is equivalent to "Are there all of the flavors left?", while "Is there any flavor left?" is equivalent to "Is there at least one flavor left?", meaning my statement could be interpreted as "Kindness has a better chance at success in at least one workplace.", making your misinterpretation of it not my mistake but yours. However, I won't argue. I will agree that I should have said "some" or even "most." Above was just an example of how one can make logic out of anything to make anything add up in one's favor. I won't make that mistake again, but I don't regret making it this time, because it made for a great debate that you may not have taken part in otherwise, considering you agreed with me, apart from that. To be honest, I guess I didn't specify what workplaces because I wasn't referring to any workplace in particular. I don't want to say I meant all, because there's an exception for everything, but I meant all minus the exceptions. I said "success," for lack of a better term, but I think what I meant was "survival." I think likability/kindness has a better chance at survival than capability/talent, because, even if you're not capable, if you're likable, people will like you, and people will want to help you, because they'll want to see you succeed and survive, while, even if you're capable, one person alone is only capable of so much, and if people don't like you, they won't want to help you, because they won't want to see you succeed nor survive. Likability can lead to capability, while vice versa can't be said as easily. I can't tell you how many times I've told people this, that they can potentially live off of kindness, because kindness has the potential to get you a free drink, free meal, free ride, even free hospitality, or whatever you need, and even whatever you want. Kindness doesn't only apply to softening strangers, if you're the suspicious type, but can apply to softening friends and family. The kinder you are to the world, the kinder it's more likely to be to you. Not to say that talent and skills aren't of value, because entertainment is worth a lot, but nothing is worth more than companionship. I really do believe that most people believe that. How can I ever thank you for this great debate? I can't thank you enough. I hope you've learned from me as much as I've learned from you. Good luck! Make the best debater win. Resource(s): [1] http://www.colourblindawareness.org... [2] http://www.thesaurus.com...