The One Who Speaks First, Seems to be the One Who is Most Believed

Someone once said to me, I've heard that you <insert assertion>. I felt a twinge of guilt as the accusation hit home, but then I mulled the incident over, and the more I thought about it, the more I realised that she was wrong, though it carried a vague thread of truth - I'd never done what she accused me of doing, or, I should say, what she said she'd heard about me. If I'd denied the assertion, would she have believed me or believed the other person? I suspect she would have believed what she'd heard about me, even without proof. And why was she so willing to believe someone else's assertion, without checking with me first?

I told someone else that I'd been accused of <insert assertion> and I thought she would feel compassion that I'd been being accused unjustly, but, instead, she looked at me, shocked, and I realised that she hadn't asked me if the assertion was true or not, she'd automatically assumed that it was.

This has application in law as well as in cases of bullying: If someone steps forward and makes an accusation about someone else, generally the accusation is seen as true. If someone is the first person to step forward to speak about a situation, generally that viewpoint is believed, because he or she was first to speak. Perhaps people should verify the authenticity of the accuser as well as the accused in all criminal cases, though of course, making an untrue accusation carries a huge risk of being found out and it's therefore bound to only happen infrequently.

The words we speak about others are powerful. Gossip is damaging. We may say we won't be influenced by gossip, but is that true? If I hear that someone is a backstabber, especially before I've met the person, will I be friendly towards such a person, or will I avoid getting close to the person? Of course I will most likely avoid the person. What do you think the person's reaction towards me will be should this happen? The person is likely to begin to act coldly towards me, because he or she will sense my reticence, and so gossip may become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Question what you are told about others. Maybe what you have heard isn't at all true.

Link to related blog post:



The Gossip Trap

Giving to Charity

There are countless causes in the world today and there's bound to be at least one charity to support each. Charities save lives and help people: feeding famine starved people, getting homeless people off the streets, saving animals. I trust that the organisations I donate to will use my money wisely and send aid to where it's needed most.

But I've realised that some charities may not be helping the community as much as they are seen to do, because of the following:

• Some non-profit organisations have large structures to support. They may own offices and employ a number of people. Money donated goes towards paying for the infrastructure of the charity first, before it gets given to the cause. This is necessary so that charities are able to provide advocacy and counselling and other services, but sometimes it means that the organisation could make a huge difference, but provides assistance selectively, due to budget constraints. As an example, this cancer charity is being investigated for allegedly only donating 1% of funds received to its cause: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/adelaide-based-national-cancer-research-foundation-under-investigation/story-fni6uo1m-1227164700449?sv=63692d8eca5960852e85bd6e72f8b54f
• People who work at charities may forget the reason they work there. For example, workers may complain about the starving, homeless person who hangs about at the door during lunch time when the office is closed and the workers are on their lunch break, yet the homeless person is the very reason the workers have a job.
• Large organisations may have the resources to help, but may use the resources sparingly and randomly. For example, I have heard of homeless people being placed into motels and given the food they need by a charity, but a homeless person I asked the organisation to help was given pamphlets only - I realised I could help the person more than the organisation was prepared to.
• I've seen homeless people being used in fundraising campaigns to fight homelessness. One particular person has been homeless most of his life, yet has been in contact with a charity for years. He said, at least the charity is there to listen to him or he would have no-one. Why hasn't he been helped? He may prefer being homeless, but it sounded as if he wanted to turn his life around.
• Choose carefully which charity to give towards - do you see visible results in the community? A large charity may provide more influence and resources than a lone spokesperson charity, but the smaller one may give more money directly to where it's needed.

Ultimately, make sure that any charity you support is doing the job it was created to do.

Reactions May Vary Widely Due to Outward Expressions of Anger or Anguish

Why do some people receive empathy for emotional anguish, whilst other people are ostracised? Recently I heard a psychologist say in a radio interview that it may be because some people show anger, which turns people away, whereas other people openly express sadness and pain and people have an innate drive to help those in obvious distress. Think of two dogs, both enormous. One dog bristles menacingly towards you when you reach out your outstretched hand, her snout drawn back as she growls softly. The only thing stopping her from biting you is a thick chain drawn taut. The other dog shivers as you approach her. She seems to wilt as you reach out and she yelps when you touch her. Your heart bleeds for this dog and you wish you could undo the abuse she must have suffered to so obviously lack trust. You stay as far as you can away from the first dog. You don't know that both dogs are pets who were mistreated in the same abusive background.


It is quite understandable that one would stay widely away from the first dog for fear of being bitten. This dog may be put down as a dangerous dog, yet perhaps she might become a family pet given enough time and love, but her behaviour may mean she is never given this chance. The second dog is obviously not a threat and is likely to find someone who is willing to devote energy to help her to recover. She may always remain reticent, but her obvious trauma ensures she will be treated with understanding and placed in a gentle home where her nature will be catered to. The exterior we show is what people see and they may react accordingly.