It seems counterintuitive that when we look in a mirror we feel like we have so much control over what we look like and that we feel confident in what we see, but to the outside world we look almost like a completely different person.
John Walter started out by changing his hair part from right to left, creating the hair part theory, and discovered that his home mirror was actually showing him reversed. The hair part theory suggests that the way another person parts their hair correlates with the way your subconscious associates yourself when being assessed by others. Therefore, when looking in a mirror you see what you think you look like, when it actually shows the opposite of what you are to others.
The “True Mirror” was created to help others see themselves through the eyes of someone else looking at them, and completely changed people’s perspectives of themselves. It was a process to achieve one, as it was bulky and heavy in a very deep frame. You may feel like you have less control, because in the True Mirror your head turns to the left when you are turning to the right.
We can get so caught up in ourselves that at the same time we don’t even think about the fact that we don’t look the exact same to others. The True Mirror is still continued today, in hopes of spreading their stories about the mirror and hair parts.
It seems counterintuitive that to be happy, your life should be meaningful. It has been proven that even though your life may have things that mean something to you and give you a reason to keep going, you may not be happy in that state.
Author Viktor Frankl was arrested and was forced to be a therapist in a concentration camp, where he helped two suicidal inmates who thought they had nothing to live for. Frankl helped them realize they had at least one thing to live for, that they had some sort of meaning to their lives. These two people, and many others, may be unhappy but there is at least one reason for them to stay alive and keep living their lives.
Happiness, or a happy life, is about feeling good and feeling like your life is easy. People with a happy life lack stress and are in good physical/mental health; living without constantly worrying about the need to support themselves because it comes so easy to them. People will become happy when they achieve what they want.
When you put yourself into a situation where you are serving something bigger than yourself, it will cause higher levels of stress and force you to worry about that project all the time. This gives a meaning to your life, but are you really happy in the end?
It seems counterintuitive that companies tell people that when they buy a pair of shoes, another pair gets donated to someone who needs a pair. These “buy one, get one” advertisements give a false narrative to people who think they are doing something good, when they don’t actually know who they are helping.
Toms is a shoe company that told customers they would do exactly that, and after Sarika Bansal took a trip to Ethiopia, she discovered that the shoes from Toms are being given to students in schools there; a place where they can’t even enter without shoes on already. This proves that although these companies tell you you are helping to do good, they really aren’t even trying to help people who actually need it.
All of this contributes to these buy-one-give-one competing with local businesses, which isn’t good for them as it takes money from those owners. The aid should empower locals to become successful, not take their chances away. This is to help these places in need start to become a reliable source for supplies, such as shoes or food, and continue to help long term instead of just in the moment.
Dev
Joe Gramigna
alexmoran17
alivewit55
americangods01
anonymous123
Anonymous
azntaco
belldere
bigcounrty609
bigfoot9
bj112295
breadpatrol99
brxttyb
calamariii
cfalover
charlieclover
cherries267
chickendinner
chickennugget444
cocochanel715
comatosefox
crossanlogan
cswilliams15
dancingueen
davidbdale
disneylover2002
doglover846
dontquoteme187
douglasadams525
dt2018
faded26
fatjoe000
friendoftacos
frogs02
fromcasablanca
fulcrum66
giants19
gingerbreadman27
girlno3
gobirds115
goodmusician440
gracchusbabeuf
hiralp365
ifurreadingthisits2l8
ilovedunkinoverstarbucks
ilovenas
imaspookyghost
JalenHurts4Mvp
jasrielle2
jcirrs
jonnyb25
eagles21
kilotoon
kingofcamp
krackintheneck
Philip Ebenezer
Lily4Pres
littlecow24
ljkvng34
lokiofasgard24
luckyleprechaun1
marinebio18
minutemen14
mossmacabre
music0392
mymomshouldhavenamedmegrace
ndb1996
neferpitou626
nugget114
oatmealvibes
ohearnj8
palal24
peachesxo
philsfan1133
pinkheart84
pinkmonkey32
pitandthependulum22
queenrandom04
RowanAnnouncer
Rowan27
rowanstudent6
saltysurfer322
saycheese03
Senpai Pio
sinatraman17
sixfortyfive645
spaghettitacosforthesoul
strawberryfields4
suedejackson
sunshinegirl457
Shazammm
tarheel1999
teddysdoggydaddy
thatwonguyy
themildewmuncher7
Public Display Name
thirdlady226
tlap23
tmjj4345
toastedflatbread22
tpaz1
twofoursixohtwo
tyblicky2001
venom2929
vicarij0
wakeup5am
wildcuttlefish
wizzard201
xchuki
Lunaduna
zeek
ziggy026
zinny11
zipemup1
zoeyzoey0210
zzbrd2822
Counterintuitive Spring 2023 
I have so much to say about your Hair Part summary, LittleCow! I hope it won’t seem overwhelming.
First, a housekeeping note. My process on this assignment is to respond to just one summary in the hope that what I say will provide help for the others as well. (I’d never finish if I tried to respond to all three.)
—This is an unusual take, LC. My memory of the Hair Part Theory material is that it was primarily a reflection on recognizable celebrities and the surprising finding that a left hair part indicated, more or less, right-handedness, and with that a suggestion that the comber would be logical, practical, maybe analytical, not artistic and emotional. I’m willing to follow whatever you think is essential about the material. THAT, after all, is the nature of the PURPOSEFUL Summary: you USE the material to advance your own perspective. So, as I understand it, your take is that our mirrors deceive us. We think we see what the world sees (right part, for example), when in fact they see a flipped version of us (left part, in this case).
—I guess you could say he changed his hair part (thereby creating the hair part theory), but is that the way it went? Didn’t he first notice something about how people react to a right hair part and decide to change his as a result?
—The bold sentence is very unclear. “correlates with the way YOUR subconscious ASSOCIATES with you YOU think YOU look like” makes no sense to me at all.
—Certainly not “the opposite of what you are.” At most, it shows a version of your face reflected left-for-right.
—I’m completely mystified why you want this direction with your analysis, LittleCow. You ignored so much of the original story to concentrate on the way our mirrors distort our view of how we’re perceived, it’s a waste of time to focus on how the True Mirror functions. (Or so it seems to me.)
—Not clear on the point of this paragraph, LC. And the last sentence is a complete mystery. What does it even mean to report that “their stories about the mirror and hair parts” are still alive?
There is surely a counterintuitive observation in here, LC. It lies in the fact that we are not perceived as we see ourselves in the mirror. The Hair Part Theory suggests that people are strongly influenced (unconsciously) by subtle clues in our appearance that suggest character. That, combined with the fact that we LITERALLY don’t see ourselves as others see us, is a rich observation you seem to be on the cusp of making.
Edit your post or don’t edit your post to suit yourself, Little Cow. That’s your call, But I do expect you to respond to demonstrate your respect for the process. If you don’t, I’m less likely to torture you in the future with this sort of feedback. 🙂 Thanks!
LikeLike
Thank you for the feedback! I definitely see how some of my statements are confusing looking back on them, and your feedback makes a lot of sense. Thank you again!
LikeLike