(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: So you could say that naivete is lacking in discernment, as is scepticism, using the analogy I have shared above. Or, if naivete is being oriented towards taking things at face value and accept what is offered, then it's opposite would be refusing to accept what is offered with a bias towards suspicion. So the balance lies with developing discernment for both opposites, as they are both assumptious positions. That's how I see it at least.
that's definitely a good way of putting it.
(11-12-2015, 06:10 PM)Nicholas Wrote: Also, I don't think going on 'vibes' as a discerning indicator should ever be underestimated. For me personally, a smile tells me all I need to know. It informs me whether I can trust the person or not. That said, this does not actually validate the data that a person I deem trustworthy has shared with me. More it informs me that they are not being knowingly deceitful. I cant quantify this type of smile like a body language expert might be able to, which is why I rely on the 'vibe' thing.
I wasn't in any way denigrating vibes; I definitely use it a lot!
The only other thing that I would add (which is not related to your example at all), is that sometimes fear-based thinking can sneak under the radar as 'vibes', and then it's only after the fact that one realises that one has acted out of a fear-based scenario, rather than really vibing with a deeper current of truth and intuition.
That is perhaps something that has made me a little wary of just trusting vibes; and yet, at the same time, if it's genuine good vibes, then being sceptical of it can delay the moment of action until the real moment has passed, and then it's too late.
So I guess the essence of my OP was about evaluating inputs, and the various burdenings we bring to the table even before we can assess a situation/data.