Phone call as a test

I noticed a long time ago that my acquaintances answer the phone very differently. It’s not even about the words, they are just about the same: “Hello!”, “I’m listening to you”, “Petrov is on the phone.” Well, with different variations. And here are the intonations!

Some respond gloomily, and sometimes with mild aggression. The famous poet, with whom I had to communicate, answered as a man tired of fame, which he was tired of and only distracts from business. He was able to put so much accumulated anger into just the word “Yes” that even the official of the ministry cringed at the other end of the line. I called this voice “wolf” to myself. Others seem to deliberately greet the anonymous addresser, obviously welcome the caller, no matter who he turns out to be.

It is characteristic that both of them were equally benevolent in the conversation, knew how to listen and were sincerely interested in your affairs. After all, they have already imbued you, and sentry intonations are useless. But the answer is on the phone! Just a random way?

I began to talk about this subject with one person, then with another, and it turned out that this telephone response meant much more than one could have imagined. A call from an unknown person turned out to be an accurate test of the initial attitude of a person towards people.

Those who responded gloomily and aggressively admitted that they were suspicious of people. Even if an unknown person rushes to them with compliments and offers friendship, they assume insincerity in him and try to catch what benefit he wants to derive from a new acquaintance. In a serious polemist they see self-interest, a desire for superiority, a hidden intention to suppress, humiliate and, in the end, take your place. Caution, expectation of a dirty trick, protection of one’s territory – this, so to speak, is the starting position of such people in any initial communication.

Others, on the contrary, from the first moment proceed from the fact that a person is benevolent, sincerely interested in you or in business and is ready for sympathy. Therefore, they themselves treat him with sympathy and interest.

The former often turn out to be right in their fear and, from an everyday point of view, act, it seems, reasonably. The latter often run into meanness and deceit, innocently fall into a simple woven intrigue.

The first, which is typical, treat the second with respect: sincere openness testifies to wonderful human qualities, but … you can’t be so gullible (option: a fool). The gullible, at this reproach, smile shyly, admit that the suspicious are acting wisely, but for some reason this is not given to them themselves.

Today, when there is a caller ID or address book in the mobile, such testing by an anonymous call happens less often. But that doesn’t change things. The question still remains: which of these two relationships is preferable? In the moral superiority of the gullible, as we see, people of a cynical disposition do not doubt. But from a practical standpoint…

The moral side, as I said, I do not take into account, but the first variant of behavior, it seems to me, incurs much more losses in real life than the second.

A suspicious person is in constant tension. He constantly calculates options, spends his mind and feeling on this, time that, with an open character, could be spent more fruitfully and with great pleasure. He imperceptibly steals vital energy not from another, but from himself. It is not subject to calculation, and therefore falls out of the field of view of the rational mind. A trusting person lives easier, and moments of happiness in his life fall more often.

It is also impossible to calculate how many friendships, disinterested and creative relationships one has missed because of his suspicion and how much the other has gained. But it certainly is. A suspicious person receives not only less joy in communication, it is much more difficult for him to pave the way in his career, to cope with everyday life and other life problems.

Read more:

• I trust no one

Well, intrigue, deceit? To deceive, let’s look soberly, you can also be a cynic. Not by disposition, but by interest, temptation, appeal to ambition. It’s the same with intrigue. For the simple-minded, it is easy to weave it, for the suspicious it is more difficult. But for those who have planned intrigue, this is, as they say, a matter of technology. It’s not even more difficult. After all, it is sometimes easier to play on suspicion than on gullibility. A suspicious person, for example, is more likely to believe in a conspiracy against him than a gullible one. And the more rational it is to furnish him with an intrigue against others, based on their weaknesses, vanity, greed, etc. (because this corresponds to his idea of ​​uXNUMXbuXNUMXbpeople), the faster he himself will fall into this network, not noticing that he is being sacrificed for someone else’s adventure .

No, whatever you say, it is easier and more interesting for a gullible person to live. And safer.