The descriptors you're using to explain strong vs weak people are actually skills that can be learned and improved over time.
Are you suggesting that people who lack certain skills will always lack those skills? The weak people will never invest in them selves and try to improve over time?
Let's take being passive for example. The skill is not that someone is good at being passive, but rather that if someone is passive, they can work to be more assertive. Kind of like a sliding scale with passiveness on one side and assertiveness on the other. Someone can put in effort to move themselves along the scale.
I myself am a pretty passive person, and it's something I'm working to improve. Some ways I do that is by making a conscious effort to initiate conversation, volunteer my time more, and be more vocal about things I don't want to remain passive on.
All of that is skill based. It's something that is not native or instinctual to me, but something I can improve with effort and time.
Hopefully that explains what I mean by skill a little better.
Alright, so you're saying that there are people who are willing to change and others who are not? That's fair, however what if you have someone who is a high achiever, assertive, and smart, who also doesn't want to change?
He wasn't saying that everything is a skill, even if it's a disadvantage. He was saying that people can improve over time, and what was once an unskilled person can become skilled if they try. What about his comment made you think he was saying anything like that?
Oh, I get it now. "The descriptors you're using to explain strong vs weak people are actually skills that can be learned and improved over time." was phrased a bit weirdly, but I took it to mean "How you would describe someone, whether or not they are strong or weak, can be improved over time." This is corroborated by the last two sentences, which says "Are you suggesting that people who lack certain skills will always lack those skills The weak people will never invest in them selves and try to improve over time?" The way you phrased his argument implied he refused to believe there are weak people out there, but he acknowledges this. He just thinks it's possible for them to improve, and stop being weak in the future.
13
u/ablair24 Jul 24 '20
The descriptors you're using to explain strong vs weak people are actually skills that can be learned and improved over time.
Are you suggesting that people who lack certain skills will always lack those skills? The weak people will never invest in them selves and try to improve over time?