Meditate 

1: confrontational attempting to be consensus 

2: consensus forced to be confrontational 

3: confrontational 

4: consensus wishing to be confrontational but actually consensus 

5: consensus pretending to be confrontational but actually consensus 

6: consensus defensively confrontational 

7: consensus mistaken for confrontational but actually consensus 

8: confrontational 

9: confrontational but will never admit it so, consensus 

Conniptions 

I just read that a conniption is a fit of violent anger or panic. 

Hmmmpf. 

I have conniptions with this definition. 

I thought conniptions were like little nips and grumbles. 

The pointed mumbling under ones breath that makes one conniptious. 

Judgement 

We all judge things all the time. 

I don’t think “being judged” is the perjorative that people load on it. It’s just the process of making a judgement. 

I learned a long time ago that a judgment doesn’t result in a right or a wrong. In most court cases for example, the Judge isn’t the arbiter of the truth or some absolute reason; his role is to just make a judgement (a decison) that everyone agrees (or is forced to stick with. Whether you (personally) agree with it has nothing to do with it. 

Bad judgment such as taking drugs, driving too fast, trusting the wrong person typically comes from a lack of experience. Or a lack of empathy. As you grow up you either learn from your bad judgments through direct experience, or by indirect feedback from others as to the way your bad judgment affected them (physically, emotionally). 

When we say someone has good judgment, I suspect what we are actually saying is that they have experience and opinions that allows them to make choices (or judgments) that result in (perceived) good outcomes. The good outcomes are likely those that closely follow societal norms. It follows that we all hope that Judges have good judgement. 

My judgments are based on experience and a lifetime of feedback which must have over time adjusted my behaviours. 

Whilst I know I must conform to social norms, I could care less for them. I tend to stick to the norms that make sense and mostly I follow my own rules. This isn’t so much because I am a rebel and more because i am genuinely a little bit different (probably Aspergersish) so I have had to figure some things out for myself. 

My judgments about people are based on a lifetime of studying them with fascination as to how we are all different. When I make a judgement about another person it’s not only based on the heuristics, but also it isn’t couched in the context of what other people have reported. Well it is – it must be – no man is an island, but for the most part my individual assessment reigns. 

I have met people that others “love” that I have thought are awful. And visa versa; I have met people that others find “weird” where I see only genuine. 

It might be that my judgement of people is coloured by the reflection of them that only I can see. And that is true for everyone. We can only see others through the lens of our own self. I may be more forgiving and accepting of weirdos, because I am one myself. 

What I do know is that typically I deliver my judgments (if asked) honestly and without worry about what the receiver thinks. Mostly I think people can tell that’s the case because all of our brains are little machines and it’s the subtleties that can make the difference. Since my judgment is delivered with sinceretiy most people are prepared to accept it without a little wonder as to whether that’s what she really thinks. 

So judgment and it’s authentic delivery are two different things. 

A judge could deliver a (perceived) good judgment with no genuine belief in it at all. We might all agree with his finding, but we would also find we don’t trust his judgment as it might apply to other things. We would, I suppose, smell the rat. 

If someone says they trust your judgment, likely it means they think what you are saying is in line with your underlying real beliefs.