Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"...having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous"
If you boil that down to simple terms, you get someone who is trusting and not out for themselves first, and who believes that other people are well-intentioned and unselfish. You get someone who is not fake, which is supposed to be a good thing, right? Really, these traits are the glue of human relationships, because without trust and transparency you have no relationship, no real connection.
It's obviously not wise to believe that EVERYONE is unselfish, and you should trust everyone blindly. But it seems like even the most basic trust these days is labeled as naivety. It's like society as a whole has become so selfish, so greedy, and so corrupt that any unselfish act on the part of another person classifies them as prey, as someone to be taken advantage of.
My point is that the standards for what is considered "naive" seem to be changing. If you are a person who chooses to do the right thing, and yet everyone else around you does not, YOU are then the naive one, instead of the people around you being amoral jerks. Because if those people refuse to hold themselves accountable for their behavior, or simply don't care that they're behaving badly/harmfully, where is the justice there?
What was once normal, human behavior is now naive behavior.
"...having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous"
If you boil that down to simple terms, you get someone who is trusting and not out for themselves first, and who believes that other people are well-intentioned and unselfish. You get someone who is not fake, which is supposed to be a good thing, right? Really, these traits are the glue of human relationships, because without trust and transparency you have no relationship, no real connection.
It's obviously not wise to believe that EVERYONE is unselfish, and you should trust everyone blindly. But it seems like even the most basic trust these days is labeled as naivety. It's like society as a whole has become so selfish, so greedy, and so corrupt that any unselfish act on the part of another person classifies them as prey, as someone to be taken advantage of.
My point is that the standards for what is considered "naive" seem to be changing. If you are a person who chooses to do the right thing, and yet everyone else around you does not, YOU are then the naive one, instead of the people around you being amoral jerks. Because if those people refuse to hold themselves accountable for their behavior, or simply don't care that they're behaving badly/harmfully, where is the justice there?
What was once normal, human behavior is now naive behavior.
I don't think an unselfish act would mean you were naive...in fact I think anyone who thought so IS naive.
You're right about society having become more selfish, greedy and corrupt, especially our governments.
It's not an unselfish act that proves naivety though.
If you are a "person who chooses to do the right thing and yet everyone else around you does not", maybe instead of being naive, you are compassionate and caring.
Maybe being naive is what people who jump and ask how high, " when the gov, or some other official tells you to" are the ones who are naive.....the many many people (masses) who have a blind trust in others to know what's best for them....THEY might consider themselves intelligent, but in reality they're very naive.
Different people are bound to see naivete (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) where others might see optimism or faith. So, it is hard to generalize about "people" or what they think. But if several people have said you are naive, then perhaps you are.
The thing is that naivete can get you into trouble, because you trust too easily or imagine positive outcomes based on scanty evidence. If this describes you, then yes, you are naive. And you may expect to be hurt by this if you are constantly naive.
I have been called naive throughout my life. There is also this definition...
"Generally speaking, to be naive means you do not think enough. People who are "naive" tend to believe in whatever they are told, without questioning whether it is right or wrong. As for age, it can be anywhere from 1-100. Anyone who has not lived through and seen enough of this world is generally referred to as naive. " (urbandictionary site)
....and I have been called that because I have been very trusting of other people, have tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and I have been taken advantage of in certain cases, which resulted in me getting my feelings hurt, disappointment and resentments of other people who have taken advantage of me. I am becoming more aware to protect myself. I am trying to get to know someone better before I commit too much of my energy and time in relationships which could be toxic for me.
Now, I could pick apart all of the definitions of "naive" and feel quite "dumb" for allowing others to take advantage of me in the past. I could be a bitter, selfish person who only looks out for myself. Instead, I choose to continue being as nice as I can be to others, while paying attention to things they may say and do which are red flags. (Like the need to put me down, use me, etc.) I also choose to pay closer attention to the last sentence of the above definition, because to me it lets me know that all of us at one time or another can be "naive" and I am not alone.
I worked in a very intense, stressful manufacturing environment for many years and people would say things and if I listened to them and seemed to accept the information, they would call me naive. The information would sound logical and believable, so yes, I would take it into consideration, but not necessarily believe all of it. I wouldn't necessarily tell them "I don't believe you". So yes, maybe behind my back they would assume I believed it and would call me naive. So what? I don't care what they think or say of me. I had a job to do--I wasn't there to play games. These people tended to be the underbelly--the ones who were psychologically unstable and needed to play games. That's their issue, not mine. The issue wasn't about me being naive, it was about them needing to play games or put someone down. The men didn't like a woman working there. I guess they got their kicks out of making someone look dumb. If they were lying then I pity them. I don't feel it was about me. I had a job to do and I was trying to look into the problems carefully and find out as much as I could about what could have caused or contributed to the problem. If someone lied to me about it then shame on them. If a policeman is interviewing suspects, he is certainly taking all of it into consideration. If he is standing there with an impassive expression and listening to some hodge podge of BS coming out of someone's mouth, is he "naive"? I don't think so. He is just listening and taking it into consideration. We formulate our decisions after a period of time. Sometimes I may appear to believe someone but I find out other stuff down the road that makes me realize the person was lying. Do I go back to the other person and tell them "You lied to me?" no, not necessarily, especially not if they are psychologically unstable.
Basically calling someone naive is a form of a putdown but reflects on the person who is playing their little games, not on the person who is listening.
It's obviously not wise to believe that EVERYONE is unselfish, and you should trust everyone blindly. But it seems like even the most basic trust these days is labeled as naivety. It's like society as a whole has become so selfish, so greedy, and so corrupt that any unselfish act on the part of another person classifies them as prey, as someone to be taken advantage of.
Or, someone disingenuous with ulterior motives; wanting something in return. Sort of a like a set up for a later time.
"...having or showing unaffected simplicity of nature or absence of artificiality; unsophisticated; ingenuous. having or showing a lack of experience, judgment, or information; credulous"
If you boil that down to simple terms, you get someone who is trusting and not out for themselves first, and who believes that other people are well-intentioned and unselfish.
Really? I don't. I think it's quite a stretch to assume that being naive has anything to do with selfishness.
Seems like there's an agenda to this topic other than, "I was perusing my local dictionary today and found this."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
