The Boy Who Cried Wolf | A story read by generations, understood by none.

[mitchellicious]

DC wrote that

DC / Sillyputty email chain resulted in this

 

[deleted]

I miss The Nomad.

 

[imvictor]

posting for later.

 

[mo matik]

First world problems. It's a simple test. Tell the story to a bunch of kids. Include the facts of the story (boy alone to guard etc). Have them choose what moral they take from the story. That's the point. Why make it complicated? Of course most stories can have a main point, a secondary point, etc.

The point of that story is an about an individual. It's not a story about society, or collective thought. It's about how your actions as an individual have weight. The story would of could of been written a different way if the point was to highlight the 'stupidity' of the villagers/society.

OP your take is not different, it's just wrong. Reading comprehension fail.

"The point of that story is the individual." But why is the focus on the individual and not on the villagers?

"It's about how your actions as an individual have weight" There are many lessons that go over lying. But in this story, it could go either way given the core presented to kids you mention. Why do all kids accept this story the same way? Why is it assumed that the villagers are right to leave the boy with the responsibility of calling them over to warn them even after they knew he didn't take the job seriously?

The boy becomes a scapegoat for the village. Rather than actually do anything or concern themselves with the wolf, they THINK they are concerned with teaching the boy honesty. Among other possible delusions.

The point I'm making is this is a logical conclusion to the story we don't hear or think about. And it accurately describes our apathetic society on major issues that SHOULD matter to us but do not. Things like war, the surveillance state, global warming, etc. I could go on.

My position is, as long as people continue to blame the boy without fully understanding this logical conclusion to the story and why it applies to our own society in a thoughtful way, we will never be able to care about things that should matter to us. We will always procrastinate on important things, collectively and individually.

 

[mo matik]

You takin NT way too serious brah. Pullin stats and doing math

Internet forums are just a reflection on society bro. But more specifically, young men entering or just having entered "adulthood".

View media item 485502

I miss The Nomad

The dude with the blue guy in his avatar? Why do you have to wait for him to ask the questions on your mind? You're completely free to discuss stuff on an internet message board. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

View media item 485501

 

[solidus snake]

The dude with the blue guy in his avatar?
 

Dr. Manhattan.

You ever read Watchmen?

 

[Mark Antony]

waah waah waah everyone doesn't want to partake in my post, they're all stupid and lazy!

 

[stillin729]

Dude is so hurt, pulling stats and posting stupid gifs, comparing porn addictions

 

[mo matik]

I'm not trying to insult anyone by calling them stupid or lazy. If you feel that way, that's completely assumed on your part because you want to shift your focus from the story I'm talking about, to me.

I've been a part of this community since '05. I love NT. I wanna converse with my NT brethren. I want you guys to share your thoughts rather than just lurking and thinking about it for a second but then ditching it for *** shaking gifs or something. I know how it works. I'm human too.

What I think I'm offering here is a simple exercise in thought, and it should be valued above, for example, a Charlston Chews Appreciation thread. Those are my thoughts and I'm not sorry for feeling that way. If you think it's valuable too you'll participate in the thread.

 

[moderndarwin]

"The point of that story is the individual." But why is the focus on the individual and not on the villagers?

"It's about how your actions as an individual have weight" There are many lessons that go over lying. But in this story, it could go either way given the core presented to kids you mention. Why do all kids accept this story the same way? Why is it assumed that the villagers are right to leave the boy with the responsibility of calling them over to warn them even after they knew he didn't take the job seriously?

The boy becomes a scapegoat for the village. Rather than actually do anything or concern themselves with the wolf, they THINK they are concerned with teaching the boy honesty. Among other possible delusions.

The point I'm making is this is a logical conclusion to the story we don't hear or think about. And it accurately describes our apathetic society on major issues that SHOULD matter to us but do not. Things like war, the surveillance state, global warming, etc. I could go on.

My position is, as long as people continue to blame the boy without fully understanding this logical conclusion to the story and why it applies to our own society in a thoughtful way, we will never be able to care about things that should matter to us. We will always procrastinate on important things, collectively and individually.

Well thought out. Basically you are saying is that we are hardwired (as individuals) to see this story a certain way, and our society is also hardwired to see it that way. However, looking at it from a different perspective (the why was he the only one etc perspective) is a better perspective for humanity.

I agree. However, that goes against our nature. I thought your comments were about the story as it was written, not as it should have been written. I agree that there is a better way to write the story and a better moral to teach. However, given the stylistic nature of the story, the message the author intended, and the target audience the message makes sense. For teaching children (which I do) you can't expect them to grasp world concepts from a story. It has to come from society (a.k.a teachers, parents, community). This story is about teaching a simple moral. Could a better moral have been taught? Yes. Would children truly understand and implement it? I don't think so. Is the message of, "don't be a liar" an important one to teach a developing kid? Yes, because lying is a root problem. In a sense it's a gateway problem. If a kid is willing to lie they would be willing to do other stuff since they can lie about it. If they truly understand how big of a deal lying is it creates a foundation for learning more complex thoughts.

As a personal example, one of the few major major major things I remember from elementary school is when I got caught lying. I didn't do my homework (4th grade) and so I had to get my mom to sign a homework slip that acknowledged that I told her I didn't do my homework. I didn't want to get yelled at so I just initiated my mom's name and gave it to the teacher. The teacher got suspicious and called my mom to confirm. Of course this led to a parent-teacher conference and I've never seen my mom so disappointed in me. I felt terrible. Still feel bad and stupid about it to this day. It sowed the seed of doubt in her and that is something that is not easy to gain back. Maybe that is why I feel so strongly about this story.

 

[mo matik]

For teaching children (which I do) you can't expect them to grasp world concepts from a story.

Interesting. I might disagree, though I have no experience with teaching children. Why do you think we couldn't engage children in a conversation about this story? Everyone hears the core of the story the same way as it is offered in the small quoted text, but we all make assumptions that fill in the blanks.

We should be able to teach kids how crucial those assumptions are. We should try and get kids conscious of those assumptions.

I have a personal story that's comparable to yours. Same scenario. But for me, the shame never really taught me anything. I would continue to get missing homework slips, forge them, and take the risk of getting caught throughout middle school. Rarely, I would give the slip to my father because he really didn't care. I still felt terrible about it of course, wracked with guilt, but those emotions didn't translate to a change in behavior.

I haven't thought about that in a long time. Thanks for the insight.

Basically you are saying is that we are hardwired (as individuals) to see this story a certain way, and our society is also hardwired to see it that way

Kind of. We are plastic as individuals. Society buys into the assumption that the individual is to blame, and thus teaches that to children.

 

[mo matik]

View media item 485649
No one else eh? What if I convinced some womenz to come up in this piece? Oh shnap here comes one now!

View media item 485653

 

[captnaj phd]

I always welcome an opportunity to examine a well-established concept from an alternative point of view. Hell, it's how I pay my bills sometimes. That's really all this thread is, it's not discarding the original moral, it just looks at the story from a different angle...and a very valid one, considering the real-life implications of the conclusion: if those who provide a service fail at that service, continuing to employ them is bad strategy on your part. We only need to look around to see how relevant that is.

Much appreciated, OP.

 

[mangudai954]

I'm not trying to insult anyone by calling them stupid or lazy. If you feel that way, that's completely assumed on your part because you want to shift your focus from the story I'm talking about, to me.

I've been a part of this community since '05. I love NT. I wanna converse with my NT brethren. I want you guys to share your thoughts rather than just lurking and thinking about it for a second but then ditching it for *** shaking gifs or something. I know how it works. I'm human too.

What I think I'm offering here is a simple exercise in thought, and it should be valued above, for example, a Charlston Chews Appreciation thread. Those are my thoughts and I'm not sorry for feeling that way. If you think it's valuable too you'll participate in the thread.

This is where I disagree. Now, I've started countless threads touching on politics, the economy, ethnics, morality, and general news in science and have been disappointed at times when they've received little to no attention compared to others topics. But whether or not someone wants to engage into a discussion on such things or not, is their prerogative. To me it comes off as arrogant to say that someone SHOULD or HAS to read and/or engage into a conversation about A instead of B. Not everyone comes to Niketalk or any other internet forum for the same reasons. Some people may not have time to engage into such topics or even have the interest, as an example.

 

[mo matik]

To me it comes off as arrogant to say that someone SHOULD or HAS to read and/or engage into a conversation about A instead of B.

I understand what you're saying. It's wrong to impose values on people that don't agree with those values.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of NTers DO value what I'm presenting in this thread, they just don't fully realize it. What this thread is about is changes is perspective leading to realizations about ones self and ones social environment. Self realized knowledge, not externally taught information.

If you look at Edward Snowden and the massive surveillance state, and ask yourself, why are people focusing on Snowden? Why aren't people able to focus on the surveillance state he's exposing? I'm saying this story is entirely relevant to that.

If you care and wonder why people aren't more organized and active about issues that SHOULD matter to us like war, global warming, or the massive debt, or inequality, I'm saying it has A LOT to do with understanding the conventional version of this story, it's prevalence and place in society.

You can look at every and any child fable and break it down to whatever you want it to mean to you

It's not about uncovering the "true" version of the story dude. Did people historically put someone in charge of the sheep that would have to call the entire village over at the first sight of a wolf? No. Being a shepherd is a solitary job. It only takes one person to really protect the sheep. But the boy calls the village over because it's symbolic.

So I'll say again, it's not about uncovering the true version of the story, it's about understanding why one version of the story is dominant over others.

Everyone knows the core of the story presented in the quote box in the first post. We all fill in the the blanks with assumptions. Why are certain assumptions leading to the boy receiving the blame more prevalent than the society receiving the blame?

 

[nycknicks105]

I appreciate your insight, Mo Matik. But let's be real here. Some of what you're trying to say doesn't make sense and wont make sense to many people. I think you're looking too much into a simple, basic, straight forward story with a straight forward moral.

I get what you're trying to say, but the boy is a liar and got what was coming to him

No one is questioning why the people made him stand guard, it's just about what happens when you lie

 

[deleted]

The dude with the blue guy in his avatar? Why do you have to wait for him to ask the questions on your mind? You're completely free to discuss stuff on an internet message board. The only thing stopping you is yourself.

You have a condescending attitude toward anyone who recognizes your thread as the contrived mess that it is.

The Nomad is just so much better at that.

 

[mangudai954]

I understand what you're saying. It's wrong to impose values on people that don't agree with those values.

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of NTers DO value what I'm presenting in this thread, they just don't fully realize it. What this thread is about is changes is perspective leading to realizations about ones self and ones social environment. Self realized knowledge, not externally taught information.

If you look at Edward Snowden and the massive surveillance state, and ask yourself, why are people focusing on Snowden? Why aren't people able to focus on the surveillance state he's exposing? I'm saying this story is entirely relevant to that.

If you care and wonder why people aren't more organized and active about issues that SHOULD matter to us like war, global warming, or the massive debt, or inequality, I'm saying it has A LOT to do with understanding the conventional version of this story, it's prevalence and place in society.
It's not about uncovering the "true" version of the story dude. Did people historically put someone in charge of the sheep that would have to call the entire village over at the first sight of a wolf? No. Being a shepherd is a solitary job. It only takes one person to really protect the sheep. But the boy calls the village over because it's symbolic.

So I'll say again, it's not about uncovering the true version of the story, it's about understanding why one version of the story is dominant over others.

Everyone knows the core of the story presented in the quote box in the first post. We all fill in the the blanks with assumptions. Why are certain assumptions leading to the boy receiving the blame more prevalent than the society receiving the blame?

I think you give people too much credit. I honestly think most just don't care. Not enough to actually do anything about it anyway.

I suppose it depends on the topic, I also believe that most people feel helpless to change it. So instead of focusing energy on something like NSA surveillance they just acknowledge it and carry on hoping for the best.

 

[gmsboy1]

interesting take, only have one problem with it

I always thought the boy was just a regular boy, not the security guard for the rest of the village. A civilian, warning others just because that type of ish happens in that village.

and you are absolutely right. The boy was never appointed guardian/lookout. Pedictably, op skips this,
but continues to lament how nters would rather post in less [insightful, thought-provoking threads].

Edit: This reminds of an example to tie-in my point of you can't change parts of the story and say look at it from a different perspective.
I actually read this on NT.

Why did the chicken cross the road?
To get to the other side.

See nothing in the story changes but if you think of the other side as the euphemism for death (instead of the literal other side like the joke intends) it changes perspective. Blew my mind reading that.

 

[halftime]

You "look at me, im deep" dudes are horrible

 

[mo matik]

All this condescension y'all perceive coming from me is assumed on your part.

I got mad love for NT and the community here. I grew up on NT . It's why I'm being active in this thread. My intentions are good. We can't help ourselves, or one another, without some minor confrontation.

I honestly think most just don't care. Not enough to actually do anything about it anyway.

WHY don't people care though? It's not logical to not care when you hear the news that your rights are basically nonexistent anymore. But most people are logical, right? It's because they are able to care about something else in place of it. So they care about the boy. They care about Snowden. They don't concern themselves with the wolf. And the reasons themselves range just like you think. Just like the author presents in the original post.

Perhaps you knew wolves were coming, inevitably; there was no stopping them. And rather than try and fail, you didn't want to be the one blamed.

Or perhaps you expected that because he lied about the wolf, that there was no such thing as wolves. Not: he lied because there are no wolves. Since he lied, therefore there are no wolves.

The justification itself is irrelevant. What matters is that they shifted the blame from themselves to the boy. How they shift it (i.e. the reasoning) is trivial.

 

[mo matik]

and you are absolutely right. The boy was never appointed guardian/lookout. Pedictably, op skips this,
but continues to lament how nters would rather post in less [insightful, thought-provoking threads].

Edit: This reminds of an example to tie-in my point of you can't change parts of the story and say look at it from a different perspective.
I actually read this on NT.

You guys are close but not there yet.

The author adds to the story, clearly. He/she adds assumptions to the original CORE story presented in the quote. Everyone gets that core story as a kid, but they don't get all the assumptions related to the story. They are taught those assumptions.

The author here is changing the pre-established assumptions of the story, but it still applies all the same. In fact it applies in a very logical way, presented in the post.

So the question this post is really trying to get at is why are the most popular assumptions leading the faulting the boy the most dominant form of the story? When the core of the story can just as easily be understood to blame the village, why aren't we taught growing up to blame the village?

Ever hear the phrase "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." Why don't we think of this quote when we hear about the boy who cried wolf?

 

[curbsideprophet]

OP I somewhat support what you were trying to do. Enticing different thoughts is the only way to provoke alternative perspective.

BUT, this is NT.....We aint fully bout that life. You know that. This was to be expected.

With that said, I personally think you're reaching a bit. The message behind this story is plain and simple, but perhaps there was more to begin with.....

Spoiler: Warning%3A%20Spoiler!

 

[donmega]

Might be a reach OP, but it's still an interesting take on the fable. Not bad.

 

[mo matik]

This was to be expected.

It was, in all honesty. I expected confrontation. That didn't keep me from trying though.

The story YOU understand is plain and simple. But you have to be aware that, a society that blames the boy in this story is projecting their blame onto him. They are really to blame for not having acted when they were first fooled by the boy.