Don't read this!
- Thread starter pulse2
- Start date
Recommended Videos
And that's why you thought to look besides being told to do the opposite, which is what I find most people would do unless they are certain there is a risk to go with it. The same thing could be said about the instruction to not jump off a cliff, you already know what will happen so you won't do it, but if I said there was a hole in the floor and there is something amazing at the bottom of it, don't look though, you might fall through, you may just feel inclined to take the risk JUST to see the amazing thing of interest.Laith said:
When I tell you to think about elephants, what do you think about? Elephants.pulse2 said:But yet here you are reading it
Here's a question, its pretty common for a child to do exactly the opposite of what they are told to do, I guess it's just the rebellion in us all (unless you have / had incredibly strict parents), but do you think we ever really "grow out" of that trait? Do we still do that as adults? And if so why? Do you do everything you are told to do or do you do the opposite, if so, how often?
To me I suppose it depends on who has given me an instruction and how much I respect that person, but I can't deny, I often feel the urge to do exactly the opposite of what I'm told, JUST to see the reaction or curiousity becomes unbearable. Unless it involves danger, I'm not that stupid ¬_¬
Few more questions just for fun:
- Lets say that you saw a big red button saying 'DO NOT PRESS', would you press it?
- If you saw a door that said "There is something VERY interesting behind this door, but you are not allowed to enter under any circumstances", would you enter?
- If someone leaving the room warned you that under no condition must you peek into a room, would you still peek once they are gone?
People can always trace the origin of an idea back to it's source.
Inception.
I think it just depends on your disposition and how you were raised. Some people are just contrary by nature--if they realize what they are doing is what others want, they do the opposite. I've known people like this. They usually crave attention.pulse2 said:
Personally, I only feel the need to be contrary when I am angry at the person. It's never just a matter of "doing the exact opposite" though, that is just childish and it gets no specific point across. I will find another way to do it, or bargain with my grievances to make them known and what I would like the other to do about it (something like "I'll vacuum if you stop antagonizing me about not doing it yesterday.")
That all depends on the context. If I'm in some abandoned building somewhere and something says do not press I will likely not press it, but if it's a big red button on a playground or in a funhouse of course I will press it.
The thing is, in today's modern era, it is expected that anything that has an immediate danger should be accompanied by a very SPECIFIC warning that states exactly why it is dangerous and what will happen. Simply saying "DO NOT PRESS" says nothing about what it will do, so if the button was made recently it can be assumed that because no immediate risk was labeled, there is no immediate danger from pressing the button.
For your second example, of course I would look. Again, calling it "interesting" is not calling it "dangerous," so unless there is another different sort of present danger (like it being at work, and there being a risk of losing my job if I look) then I may reconsider. But again, things today are labeled much more clearly than that.
And the same goes for the third. If I am at risk of losing my job, or if how much trust the person has in me is of importance, then I would not look, but I would probably ask. If not, I would ask.
But what overpowers all of those situations is one thing you've failed to flesh out: Context. Context is the one, make-or-break thing that is missing here when it comes to making decisions like this. Of course I read your thread even if it said "Don't read this!" There is no inherent risk in clicking on a thread on this forum. I know that, and everybody knows that.
But if a sign says "don't read this!" next to a pedestal containing some sort of glowing book that's ticking like a timebomb, then many might choose not to read it simply because of the appearance of danger.
I already did that, never again. (Fucking Beiber man...)pulse2 said:
Whether or not I do something is generally not dictated by being told to (or not to) do something, I do something based on if I want to do it. As for this thread, I had read all the other threads on the latest threads box and I'm bored, so I clicked here out of curiosity.
If there was a button which only said "DO NOT PRESS", I would question the reason for the existence of such a button, figure it's some sort of ironic prank, and press it anyway
If there was something very interesting behind such a door and I wasn't allowed to enter, then it is obviously either a) a ploy to get people to enter, or b) a way for people to brag about something. If it was the former I would not enter, and if it was the latter I would definitely go in. No way of knowing which it is. Play it safe
If someone walked out the entry door, I would assume that since the person was just in the room, and walked out unharmed, then it must be safe and the "very interesting thing" won't hurt me, and i would go in
If there was something very interesting behind such a door and I wasn't allowed to enter, then it is obviously either a) a ploy to get people to enter, or b) a way for people to brag about something. If it was the former I would not enter, and if it was the latter I would definitely go in. No way of knowing which it is. Play it safe
If someone walked out the entry door, I would assume that since the person was just in the room, and walked out unharmed, then it must be safe and the "very interesting thing" won't hurt me, and i would go in
I entered because I assumed this was going to be a troll thread that the OP censored, and was going to figure out what it was about because I'm morbidly curious.
As for your examples, no, no, and no. I've watched "The Black Button" and such other films a bit too much.
(In The Black Button, pressing the button made you go to hell. Sure, the guy was invited to press it with rewards and such, but it was still clearly schmuck bait.)
As for your examples, no, no, and no. I've watched "The Black Button" and such other films a bit too much.
(In The Black Button, pressing the button made you go to hell. Sure, the guy was invited to press it with rewards and such, but it was still clearly schmuck bait.)
Damn it! I've been tricked!
In order: no, yes and yes.pulse2 said:
Mission Impossible, presumably.ms_sunlight said:
I answered yes to all 3 of those questions. If a door had just said "Do not enter" in a boring way instead of "There is something VERY interesting behind this door, but you are not allowed to enter under any circumstances", then I probably wouldn't though. In all 3 of those examples someone clearly wants me to disregard them, or they wouldn't have designed them in that way.
Why would a door specifically state that there was something interesting behind it if I wasn't supposed to enter?
Why would someone create a big red button, if not for the express purpose of being pushed? (The only people who create big red buttons which they don't want pressed are video game bad guys, in which case you probably should press them anyway).
Why would someone specifically point out that they didn't want me to peek into a room, and thus immediately draw my attention to it?
I'm pretty sure I would be safe in the assumption that none of these things were going to harm me, and so curiosity would get the better of me.
Why would a door specifically state that there was something interesting behind it if I wasn't supposed to enter?
Why would someone create a big red button, if not for the express purpose of being pushed? (The only people who create big red buttons which they don't want pressed are video game bad guys, in which case you probably should press them anyway).
Why would someone specifically point out that they didn't want me to peek into a room, and thus immediately draw my attention to it?
I'm pretty sure I would be safe in the assumption that none of these things were going to harm me, and so curiosity would get the better of me.
I thought about hamburgers. Thanks, mate, now I'm hungry.Griffolion said:
OT: I would open/activate/do whatever you suggested, only to satisfy my curiosity.
I'd say so. Some people do, some don't.pulse2 said:
Yes.
It is probably because a lot of people don't enjoy following orders without understanding the reason for the order.
If I understand the reasoning behind the order, and agree wih the order, I will follow it. If I don't agree with the reasoning, I won't follow the order. I don't have a clue how often I disregard orders, but I would guess it is quite often.
I would be tempted but I probably would resist the urge. If only because a "do not press" button is schmuck bait on the level of an "atomic core" button.
That door I would probably look in. If only because the person said it was very interesting and I shouldn't look at it. It is on the level of parents saying "you can't do fun things because I said so". If he (or she) didn't want people to look in there, he or she shouldn't have said it was interesting.
No, I would not.
