Shir, I think your perspective is interesting, and obviously has a lot of thought behind it.

I do need to note that "suspicious" and "intriguing" have 2 entirely different meanings, and which word you choose colors how I read what you're saying. (I also VERY much realize that English isn't your first language, and so what I'm about to ask isn't an attack on you, it's just a request for clarification based on your word choice.)

So when you say this:

But anyone who'll try to market to me just the personal experience without any other information/aspects is "suspicious" (or intriguing) to me.

do you mean that you are interested in finding out more ("intriguing"), or you think that person is being dishonest ("suspicious")?

Because those are 2 totally different things. I know that yesterday you used the word "suspicious," and that's what set me off, personally. Because "suspicious" = "dishonest" (or suspected of being dishonest), and so that's how I took your meaning.

If you mean "intriguing," as in "hey, tell me more about your experience," that's very, very different.

I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense, Steph, and it helps me to be clearer.

When someone tells me a personal experience, I can either think it's intriguing or suspicious - but either way, most chances are that I'd like to hear more. This is my bottom line, actually: I'd love to give personal experiences every credit I can, but I need to hear more to get a perspective. Doesn't matter if I'm turned off or on by the story - I want to get the full details. It's not that I think that the other person is necessarily dishonest, or even fascinating - but that it's so hard to be aware to external aspects of a personal experience, that I can't judge solely on that.

I think that a part of me is so persistent about it because I don't do it enough, but I'm very aware of the price (the slipping line of life I wrote about). The price of forgetting it just scares me.

Is it clearer now?

If you're on Medicare, epidurals and c-sections should not be covered. Because there's no real need for them

In general, I agree with this, now if they were talking Medicaid that would be a different story.

My new officemate thinks the federal government is using GPS to spy on everybody.

Does he realize they are called GPS receivers, not transmitters?

It's not that I think that the other person is necessarily dishonest, or even fascinating - but that it's so hard to be aware to external aspects of a personal experience, that I can't judge solely on that.

Is it clearer now?

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

I just want to make sure I'm reading you right before I reply.

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

Difficult question. Not all, not most, and the ones who do are probably salesmen of this-and-that. But I think that some can be dishonest - not on purpose, but because we're all humans. Like, I know I'm colorblind (actually, color-shade blind, since of what I know, women can't be color blind. Sorry, too lazy to come up right now with the term in English, but that's the sorta-translation from Hebrew). So if a person will ask me what I think of a color, I'd say my opinion but will also mention that I'm color shade blind - which is something which I couldn't possibly know without an external perspective, and not because I was trying to deceive anyone.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth. Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes. So I ask around.

It's not that I think that (most) people are dishonest on purpose - they're being people. And that's why it's my responsibility to make sure I'm getting the full details and perspective.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth.

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes.

That doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. It means you don't have a frame of reference for it. Those aren't even remotely the same.

I just continue to have a problem with the idea of assessing someone's own personal experience as dishonest. Like, "This dessert tastes like shit." "What? You are a liar, because *I* love it!" The first person isn't being dishonest; their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

I understand wanting to know more if you don't have a frame of reference for something (i.e., I've never given birth, what is it like?), but I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Yes, as you wrote - "suspicious" from my-inspiring-to-be-as-wholesome-as-possible-perspective. Not theirs.

their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

In my world, most of the first persons are trying over and over to convince the second persons that the dessert, in fact, tastes like shit. I never said people (or my thinking) are easy.

I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

Please, please, please take "believe" out of it. "Understand" is the verb. Because I do, in fact, believe that their description is how they felt about it. But I'd understand people and their experiences better given a frame of reference. So the experience only doesn't count much on my "belief-o-meter", so to speak. Not because they're lying or trying to trick me - but because I could relate to them so much better, as human beings, given something more than just a personal experience. Otherwise, it's just thin description (to my perspective).

What do you know. I guess it's really all. about. me. (in the end).

for Hil's officemate: [link]

Happy Belated Birthday, Erin!!

In general, I agree with this, now if they were talking Medicaid that would be a different story.

Bwahaha - I didn't catch that, but um, yeah.

Please, please, please take "believe" out of it. "Understand" is the verb.

In this case, "suspicious" is not the word you want to be using. Because "I'm suspicious of what you just said" is synonymous with "I don't believe you."