Today I would like to briefly address an important question that can affect the level of acceptance you can commit to a message. In my view, this can be one of the very few most important questions related to appreciation. If someone does not appreciate you, would you ignore what they are saying?
Good message = bad message if there is no appreciation?
Imagine going to a website and reading a message that you like. You like what you are reading, hearing or feeling, and you think you can implement it into your life, or you think it would be a good part of something in this world. Now, upon further browsing around the site, you realize that the author or the blogger does not appreciate any reader, or does not appreciate readers a lot. How would you treat the message that you just read?
No appreciation = bad message?
Now imagine the other scenario: imagine going to a site or even to someone and noticing that someone does not appreciate anyone. Would you start ignoring what they are saying or not liking it, simply because they do not appreciate you and others?
In your view, is being appreciated by someone more important than what they are saying? Is showing appreciation more important, or is the message, regardless of who is saying it, more important?
Thanks for reading. Please let me know what you think.
I think that a message will always be coloured by the person sending it. It is pretty well established that people will more likely take on board information they overhear because there is no apparent motive for passing that information to you. Blogging is similar.
A blogger that places no apparent value on their readers is one that has selfish motives for passing on that information. I would suggest that by default that would tend to reduce the weight given to any argument.
Hi Andrew. Thanks for the response. So in your view, if I understood it correctly, the level of appreciation shown or committed to by a person plays an important role when you want to decide whether or not to accept a message presented by that person?
I agree that there are studies showing that people will accept messages presented in a nice fashion that they like. I personally love ignoring studies and finding out things and exceptions through different lenses. Thus, I like to look at the message and not only at how a person presents the message. If the presentation or appreciation is the worst of its kind but the message is interesting or makes sense, I will be more than interested in it. If appreciating other or not appreciating others shows or affects the message itself, then I keep it in consideration.
For example, a message on how to reduce hatred towards a certain ethnic group, coming from someone who only prefers their own ethnic group, can result in me liking the main message while not liking elements that favors only that ethnic group. Another example: a message on how to eliminate or curb racism, coming from someone who does not appreciate any of her/his readers because of not valuing online relationships in the same light as offline relationships, can get more attention and value from me even if the person goes on an online rampage to tell everyone online “I don’t have to respect you, you are online and people online do not care about each other.”
So, for me, message is important and so is the person presenting it, and not the presentation. I try my best never to focus on the presentation. Between the message and the person presenting it, priority can change to either the message or how the person acts in life in different things.
That is what I meant, but I meant it more in the sense that it is the intention behind the message that potentially creates the barrier. A lack of appreciation is a contributing factor in trying to determine the intention behind the message.
The problem with the examples you give is that the message is inherently good and logical. There is no reason to consider the motive because you already agree with the message. Even if the motive is entirely self serving with no thought to you at all, it is still a good message.
How would you react though if that same person was asking you for money to help further the cause? Would you spread some cash his way?
Hi again Andrew. Thanks for explaining a bit more; it gives me a way to explain myself more and express what I want to express. This is going to be a bit lengthy as for this I want to explain this in as much detail as I can quickly.
I see what you mean regarding intention now, and that is also what I was aiming at with my last paragraph in my previous comment: if the intention and the appreciation affects the message in any matter, I would consider that effect. Otherwise, I can try to focus on the message and see what merit it might have regardless of the person’s character or appreciation level. Of course, not considering the person’s character or appreciation level when analyzing their message also means that I will consider them all when analyzing the person her/himself. The entire point of my post and the comment: would a message be given less or more priority solely because of the way the message giver appreciates others online, whether or not the concept of appreciation applies to the message at hand? For me, reason is everything.
For me, motive is extremely important, and thus the first example I gave, I would consider the message to have as much harmful of a potential as being good, because the message conveyors’ message is aimed at something personal, like his or her own ethnic group, while not considering how other minorities or even the majority may be affected. Thus for me, I do not agree to the first message simply because it talks about reducing racism. I have to see why a person is saying it; in this case, the online blogging appreciation shown by that person would not play as big of a role as them being of the same minority group and why they want the ideas in their message to be accepted.
I also like and agree that “Even if the motive is entirely self serving with no thought to you at all, it is still a good message” as long as I can realize what the motives are. If I like the message, I may donate if I feel like it and if I have the money. For example, take the American Red Cross: I have dealt with the organization personally on deep levels and I felt no appreciation from them towards volunteers who had already volunteered before. Without volunteers the organization would come to a frightening halt. However, I still gave some part of my life to their cause and risked my life many times during different disaster emergencies, as I could not afford any monetary donation or help, simply because I believed in my message that people could be helped through the Red Cross. Even though I felt no appreciation overall from the organization as many people simply used the volunteers to do all the hard and dangerous work, for me, the thought that I could help people through them was the thing that I chose to be the factor to compel me to act.
A less physical example: I would be more willing to donate something to Ronald or Simonne or you or many other people here, if any of you ask for a donation when it comes to a topic of appreciation through blogging. I will not donate, in many cases, to the “professional” bloggers who show appreciation as an obligation because it makes money. Now, whether or not I actually do donate depends on my willingness level and the amount of money I actually have.
Even though the professional blogger may be writing many good messages and ideas, for me, the reason and the motive sometimes plays a more important role than the message. Without a reason, I think no message is good, regardless of whether it talks about something we like or something we hate. For me, reasoning is everything.
[For me, it's the reason behind different acts, thoughts and feelings. For you or others, it may be through a different lens like the motive, intention, purpose, etc. These lenses may also be considered the same if one is thinking hard enough for that sole purpose.]
I see what you mean Bes and I think that is pretty much what I meant as well; although I hadn’t thought it out that clearly.
I’m sure I will re-read these a few times just to make sure though.
For me part of the message includes the intent behind the action. Are the actions genuine? Are the actions sincere? If the actions aren’t genuine then what good is the message? Appreciation does not need to be public, although most of us will respond favorably when we are appreciated publicly. The truth is, if you are not sincere then the words may very well be considered hollow.
There is also something to be said of the human connection. For example, my friends and I share many interests. How demoralizing would it be to realize that these friends were simply agreeing with me or telling me what I would like to hear with no genuine attachment? Now what if this is applied to an organization? If the organization is insincere about the matter of appreciation, are there other areas where they are just as sincere?
What then does the level of expectation come to bear? Do I expect to be appreciated by a particular person in a particular manner at said time? The previous post by the gentleman mentioned the American Red Cross. Surely a large organization will appreciate their volunteers in a manner that is different from a small non-profit. Still, there is certainly someone who is in charge of the volunteers who could convey their appreciation.
If the message is genuine and it falls within the accepted range of expectations (one could even argue expectations from both parties) then there will be a considerable level of success achieved. If the message is insincere and falls short of the expectations, then there is little doubt success will not be achieved.