The thod to deal with such people is quite simple. The best way is to "counter-question". However, the approach to counter-questioning should be different for strangers and acquaintances.
If you don’t have much of a relationship with the person or it’s just a nodding acquaintance, when they ask, "Why don’t you do this or that?", you just need to answer: "How did you notice? You really pay attention to , huh?"
It may sound a bit sarcastic, but in reality, it’s shifting the topic to oneself, expressing that "you are paying too much attention to , and that’s your problem". Because we are not that familiar, yet you can notice imdiately when I change my personal items. This is obviously an inappropriate attention, pointing out the other party’s mistake, and at this point, it’s the other party who has to provide an explanation.
This kind of counter-question is actually very difficult to answer. If they affirm, it’s like admitting your charm, as even an unfamiliar person pays so much attention, noticing even small things like changing personal items, which clearly shows you are valued. But if they deny it, it makes them seem guilty. After all, they noticed even small details but still claim they’re not paying attention, as if trying to evade responsibility after doing sothing wrong. It pleases no one in either case.
As for acquaintances or people with a good relationship, you can counter-question: "Don’t you usually do this or that?"
Note, it’s not an attacking counter-question but a very natural one. For example, if you usually take the bus but choose to ride a bike today, and people ask you: "Why did you ride a bike today?" you just need to answer: "Yeah, don’t you usually ride a bike?"
At this point, generally, people will start talking among themselves. So might say they don’t know how to ride, others that biking is too much trouble, or so might ntion the benefits of their usual mode of transport.
If you look closely, you’ll find that it’s actually answering off-topic. After all, others are asking why you suddenly changed today, and not only did you not answer, but you also made another assumption to let others explain. However, this can naturally shift the topic from "you" to "biking," effectively taking the pressure off.
This is also a good thod to avoid answering others’ questions. No matter what question soone asks, you can use this trick. For example, "Have you eaten?" You can counter-question: "What did you eat for lunch?" It seems like discussing the sa thing, but actually, the focus has shifted from "you" to the act of "eating" itself. It doesn’t sound abrupt and can avoid answering the question.
Conversely, it can also avoid others from dodging the question. Once you suddenly notice that the topic has shifted from the person being addressed to a specific issue, it indicates soone is diverting the topic. At this ti, never follow their lead to shift the topic, but instead focus aggressively on the person themselves. No matter what others think about that issue, emphasize that person’s attitude in this matter.
In short, social combat is always a zero-sum ga. If you don’t want to deplete your emotions, you must deplete others’. If you don’t completely exhaust the other’s emotions, they will certainly find a way to deplete yours. So, everyone has to rely on their own abilities, first to strengthen their own ntal defenses, and then to strike hard. As long as you can exhaust the opponent’s energy, you’ll have peace.
Shiller roughly understood what Lois wanted to do. Actually, it’s simple: Superman is currently a bit too popular, which isn’t a good thing for him.
It might sound absurd, but if a person is both strong and has agency, then no matter what happens, the level of discussion will surely be explosive.
One might even say that a person who is both strong and independent is always feared. Call it jealousy or suspicion; in any case, the general populace won’t completely like such individuals because they feel these people are beyond social control.
Ordinary people build a society not only to band together for warmth but sotis also to control certain overly powerful individuals, binding them sowhat to the collective to make contributions to society. But if a person is powerful yet not socially inclined, people will feel that they cannot be controlled by social rules, hence considering such a person a threat to society.
Conversely, if a person is strong but also highly social, for example, having a family, children, hobbies like ordinary people, and sothing they really want in this society—even if it’s a vulgar pursuit of fa and fortune—people will feel at ease because they need this society, thus they naturally won’t do anything excessively harmful to it.
Superman, in the prior public perception, is evidently one of those individuals who is both strong and lacks sociality. People don’t know where he’s from, whether he has family or friends, what he likes; his integration into human society seems not to pursue anything.
So, if one day his true identity were revealed, it would absolutely cause a stir. People would think, no wonder your sociality is so weak, you don’t belong here at all, you’re an outsider, hence we cannot trust you.
For ordinary people, this is the most normal thought, because it’s these thoughts that have built up society and developed it into its current state. This is the original instinct humans rely on for survival, and it can’t be negated simply because Superman ans no harm, because historically, such vigilance has also helped human society get through several calamities.
```
User Comments
0 comments from readers