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

[curbsideprophet]

Additionally, I think one valuable idea that should be taken away is that you should always leave at least 2 people on lookout.....Everyone seemingly has nothing else to do anyway since they come running whenever the kid gets bored and plays practical jokes. Give him some damn company!

Or toss some decent yambs his way and I swear the only thing he'll be lying about is his pipe game.

 

[curbsideprophet]

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.

I fully agree that the village is at fault here.

I agree they should have acted upon the second occassion. Some reprecussion should have been given from the first instance, but it's a case of failure and oversight.

Yet, this IS a fairy tale and logic is appropriately thrown out the window. Which makes it seemingly difficult to make applicable in our own realistic lives. I mean there's a lot of unanswered questions here:

What was this kid's incentive? Couldn't he have just said **** it and walked away?

What purpose would he have had to behave accordingly?

Child Labor Laws? Endangerment? Mama don't play dat....

If they actually came the 3rd time and saw the wolf, would they be right to disregard his fist two lies?

COULDN'T THEY HEAR HIM BEING EATEN??!!!

 

[gmsboy1]

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?

No, you can't add/change the story and have it apply the same. The fables are constructed around the principle they are trying to convey. Not the other way around. They're not assumptions because once you start to change aspects of the story then they don't work. If the Grasshopper in the Ant and the Grasshopper was born lame or mentally ******ed then it's the ant's fault for not showing compassion and letting ol boy die during the winter except that the point of the story is preparedness, hard work, diligence, etc.

 

[mo matik]

We ALL add to the story with our assumptions.

The significant thing is to understand why the assumptions of the mainstream version of the story transfers blame from the villagers to the boy, when the villagers should be blamed for not having acted after they were fooled multiple times.

 

[mangudai954]

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.

I see what you're saying and I still disagree. There have been countless news report and books written by people who worked for or were affiliated with the NSA in the past where there wasn't a human protagonist. Subjectivity plays a part as well.

But most people are logical, right?

Overall? Not completely, no(imo). Someone can be a mathematician and also a hardline racist because they view peoples that don't look like them as inferior. Even if they can't provide unequivocal proof.

 

[gmsboy1]

The significant thing is to understand why the assumptions of the mainstream version of the story transfers blame from the villagers to the boy, when the villagers should be blamed for not having acted after they were fooled multiple times.

Because In the story as it's meant to be told the blame is on no one but the boy. The village can't afford to put him in timeout because they need as many eyes as possible, they can't set up a a counter/confirm system when he cries wolf because time is of the essence, and they expect/hope him to realize that consequences are dire (later proved since he nearly got eaten, and in most version DOES get eaten; how come the saying "there is a time and a place for joking" doesn't apply to the boy in your bizarro version?).

But: if you want to change elements the story, present it as a deeper perspective that keeps us from understanding real-world issues, all while not claiming to be condescending despite posting stats of other threads that are less thought provoking getting more views and pictures of Morpheus because you're going to lift the veil from our eyes; go for it.

 

[mo matik]

So now we all add to the story? This dude is all over the place

What was the point of getting so defensive then, when people told you how they viewed the story as?

I have a feeling OP got his own version from google, and stuck with it because the dude that wrote it seemed like he knew what he was talking about.

Stop worrying about me. Look at all your posts in this thread and tell me they all don't focus primarily on me and not the story.

Why are you ignoring the things I'm writing, to focus on figuring out who you think I am? Why not focus on what I'm trying to say?

So what am I really? What is this thread really? Is this all just paranoid stoner talk like you said earlier? Or am I just a crazy guy who doesn't actually believe any of this, but rather googled this story and is sticking to it just because?

 

[mo matik]

But: if you want to change elements the story, present it as a deeper perspective that keeps us from understanding real-world issues, all while not claiming to be condescending despite posting stats of other threads that are less thought provoking getting more views and pictures of Morpheus because you're going to lift the veil from our eyes; go for it.

Tell me, if I hadn't expressed this material with some measure of confidence in it's deeper message and value in this perspective, how would it have been received here? It would have immediately been pushed to the margins never to be seen again. I know this because I've been around the block. I've been making failed threads since 2005 I don't mind being the bad guy on the internet where I'm safe. As long as I'm able to, in your words, lift the veil from your eyes

 

[koudie from brooklyn]

 

[gmsboy1]

What makes you think this thread hasn't failed? Are you changing the perspective of this thread too?

 

[mo matik]

This thread has yet to end, so I don't know if it has failed or not.

All I know for certain is that the perspective presented in the blog is insightful and valuable for people to understand. That's what I'm trying to present to others. If I'm at least able to plant the idea in some people I'll feel like the thread was successful. Besides, some posts are already positive, so I know some NTers already found this exercise in thought valuable.

 

[ninjallamafromhell]

And when you send a boy to do a man's job but still treat him like a boy, then the problem isn't the boy, the problem is you.

Someone's mad that they were told to mow the lawn and got in trouble for not doing it/messing it up

 

[mo matik]

I see what you're saying and I still disagree. There have been countless news report and books written by people who worked for or were affiliated with the NSA in the past where there wasn't a human protagonist. Subjectivity plays a part as well.

But those messages were also ignored. That's what's significant. Not so much how you ignore the message, but why?

Overall? Not completely, no(imo). Someone can be a mathematician and also a hardline racist because they view peoples that don't look like them as inferior. Even if they can't provide unequivocal proof.

Ok, change the question. How do most people self identify? They consider themselves logical rather than illogical, right? You consider yourself logical, so do I. And yet, we make illogical choices all the time. How does this happen? Why does this happen?

Because a lot of times we would rather blame the boy rather than blaming ourselves!

 

[stillin729]

OP is trying to be think like Einstein but instead more like Frankenstein

 

[mo matik]

View media item 486162

 

[freeze]

Mr. Fantastic called, said 'Stop Reaching.'

 

[lobotomybeats]

The only thing you are to learn from that fable is to not tell the same lie three times.