Action or reaction?
What do you believe is a better indicator of someone's character, their actions or reactions?
| actions | 62 | |
| reactions | 66 |
Ask Your Question today
What do you believe is a better indicator of someone's character, their actions or reactions?
| actions | 62 | |
| reactions | 66 |
Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find your way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves.
That's very Tao. :)
I've never shared any of my poetry on here, partially because on the off chance that any of them are any good I'm nervous about posting them to the internet outside of any sort of copyright protection or without a watermark of some sort, but this tempts me to reply with one
Be as the brook...
When you're surprised you can show a really bad behaviour, even one you yourself would find offensive. You can act like a fucking asshole for split second, but that's because you were taken aback. I don't think that defines someone's character at all
I guess reactions are less planned so might give a truer insight into how someone genuinely is.
There isn't strictly a difference but I know what the OP was getting at. :P
I'm assuming an action would be an unprompted behavior, while a reaction is a response to someone else. For example, an action would be a child doing his chores without being asked. But if his parents had to ask him to do chores, his unhappy grumbling would be a reaction.
Ok. I don't understand why you'd think one would be a better measure of character, though. I get what dappled say about reactions being less planned, but isn't everything we do just a string of reactions to different stimuli? Also, am I supposed to be planning my actions? I thought I sort of understood how other people work, but now I'm starting to think I don't.
Let's imagine this:
A person never visits his parents and they are not in contact at all. He doesn't seem to care about them. This is an action.
But suddenly his parents die and he becomes extremely sad and depressed. This is a reaction.
Even though the first action of making a decision to not stay in contact could be because of some stimuli, there's still a clear difference between an action and a reaction: Actions require CONSCIOUS DECISIONS. Reactions do not.
I believe reactions are more of an instinctual response. While it still holds some meaning to the person's character, it is not as dominant as actions. Actions are the way one leads his life. Not reactions.
I've come to thank for your action. I have really enjoyed pondering over this ever since you posted it.
I voted for reactions, instinctively. After reading the comments here, going about my busy day, coming back to read other comments, thinking about this when going to bed, etc. in a circular motion, I realized I'd chosen reactions considering the spontaneous ones, as they'd be an expression of one's instincts, of what would be one's true nature. My thought process is now lost in my mind, but it was of much value to me. In the end I concluded that character is not exactly defined by one's nature alone and that there are also delayed reactions, so I hit a standstill. I'm curious to know what you think of it yourself.
Really, it's been very interesting. Please provide us with more questions like these. My favorite post in a very long time. :)
Thanks, I'm flattered. It's nice to hear when people like my contrbutions.
I think my gut reaction would be reactions. They are more telling of the subconscious, but you can't always take it at face value. The same is true with actions. Actions are planned. It is often what you want other people to see in you. This does not mean it is a false indicator, only a partial one. You have to ask yourself, "what was the intent behind that action?" Why did that person donate to charity, for the image, or the joy of giving? Is one reason better than the other? When you see an accident, is your instinct to stop and help, or ignore it and carry on per usual? What if you were late in picking your child up from sschool? Is that a valid reason to ignore the scene and assume the next person will tend to it? We may never know the reasoning behind someones's actions and/or reactions to any given situation. But I do think we are often too quick to judge motive in many cases and this drives actions in some people. We can't always control reactions in the same manner. So our reactions can point to the nature of our actions. Does that make any sense?
A very good question indeed, and a tough one with no definitive answer.
In my opinion reaction is more indicative of true nature. Actions afford the luxury of premeditation, no matter the timespan given. People are seldom caught off-guard by their own actions. Reactions are less often premeditory, and more often instinctual, given that people react to opposing and external actions beyond their control. I would deduce that this allows a greater window into the individuals true nature to surface. There is a large grey area between the two though, and as such it is impossible to give a "correct" answer; only an educated one based on observation.
Reactions you can't control, meaning they show nothing about your character. Actions you can, meaning they can show something about your character. In reality, neither can give an accurate insight.
Anyway, you have to define what someone's "true character" means first. I don't believe such a thing even exists.
I know what I believe is a better indicator, but there isn’t really a right or wrong answer here. I was curious how other people would make the distinction. What is more important to you? Someone’s default behavior in a situation, planned and calculated; or an automatic response to a stimulus that doesn’t allow for much thought about the outcome, you just react.
I think it's actions because we can't really help our reactions, but we can make differences through our actions. There's also initial reaction, which isn't really fair to judge people by because they might already be aware of how wrong their initial reaction is which is why they take actions to prove that they aren't as bad as their reactions make them seem.
Reactions as they have less choice over it so more of the real them shows through.
I personally feel that a reaction is a bit more revealing of a person's character. A reaction is quick and subconscious, so it is less susceptible to design. Lots of people may act nice or friendly because they desire to manipulate someone, for example, but being caught off-guard could reveal their true nature.
I don't mean for it to sound pessimistic, just an example.
All action is a reaction.
Even something as simple as being angry is a reaction against a situation, and the situation a reaction against X and X a reaction and etc etc.
But I see what you're getting at. And to me the answer would hinge on the understanding of the circumstances; whether they be irrelevant (finding out that there is no more strawberry) or earth shattering (someone slapping you across the face or flattering you).
I believe your actions show you at your best, generally speaking. Those are the things you've put thought into, the things that are your every day and make you who you are.
Your rections show the darker side of you... not necessarily bad, but more often.. they show your pains, your fears, your insecurities... these are things that everyone has and tries to hide, but they bubble to the surface nonetheless because people would rather lock them away than confront them.
I think both are good indicators, usually. There are conscious reactions as well as unconscious, the latter of which is the uncontrollable/instinctual behaviors. A reaction to someone scaring me wouldn't really show my character, but my reaction to your dirty joke would somewhat.
I also think there are some actions that people do out of a feeling of obligation. Lots off guys will hold a door open for a woman, but that may be out of an obligation rather than solely being nice to her, so things like that aren't good indicators. Also, a lack of "positive" action (not holding the door open) is not always indicative of a negative character.