Please and Thank you.

[c20H25N3o]

Why do we say please and thank you?

How does...

Little son: Mummy can I have a drink please?

Differ from

Little son: Give me a drink mummy.

And when the mother hands her boy a drink how does

Little son: Thank you mummy.

Differ from

Little son: *Silence* *Drink Slurp Drink*

What do please and thank you matter? What overall purpose do these phrases have in our thinking? Are they important? Please explain your answers.

Thanks ;)

c20

[ProCop]

Why do we say please and thank you?


c20

"Please" is a smile transfered to linguistics.

[dsdsds]

I think teaching “please” and “thank you” is very important. It is one of the first things we learn to do in order to get what we want. Individuals, groups, and nations can get what they want by one of 2 methods: 1) being nice and persuasion or 2) by force. Likewise, babies or young children can get what they want by either being nice or by pulling tantrums (by force). It is important to show children that they can be more successful in achieving their needs and wants by “being nice”. The darker side is that we are actually teaching them to be hypocrites and deceitful by “acting” nice and asking with a fake smile to get what they want. Unfortunately, these are the tools required to live and be successful in today’s world.

[beyondtimeandspace]

The two phrases are incomplete. The left out parts are meant to be understood. It is like saying "Love ya." This phrase is obviously incomplete, and the missing part is "I." The "I" is understood though, and when a person says "Love ya," it is understood that the speaker means that he/she loves whomever is being spoken to. The full phrases that you are asking about are "If it pleases you," and "I thank you."

The first is an obvious question form. "If it pleases you, can you get me a drink of water." or "If it pleases you, will you allow me to get a drink of water." By stating the question in this way, you are asking, rather than demanding, which is the case of "give me a drink." By asking, you make a sign of humility, not expecting that such a service is a right that you own.

The second is statement of gratitude for the sevice done. Again, it is a sign of humility, indicating that you recognize that it was a service that was done to you, and not something that you have necessary right to. It may be that you have the right to a drink of water if you are thirsty, but as a child, you parents have a certain authority over you that must be respected. Hence, you show your gratitude for the service done to you, by saying "I thank you" or for short "Thank you."

[Fraggle Rocker]

These must be archetypes because they seem to turn up in all cultures. Every language has its equivalent of "please" and "thank you," as far as I can tell. In many languages, such as German, Czech, and Mandarin, the word used for "please" has the literal meaning, "I beg." In others such as Swedish and Yiddish, it means, "Be so kind." In Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, it's, "As a favor."

They all imply an understanding that the person being asked is under no obligation to comply, that doing so comprises a personal favor.

The word for "thanks" in many languages is much older and derived from an ancient root-word that still had the basic meaning of "gratitude." It means, "I acknowledge that you have done me a favor," possibly implying, "Now I owe you a favor."

It's all Transactional Analysis and Warm Fuzzies, to use contemporary analysis.

[Jenyar]

It's cultural reciprocity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(cultural_anthropology)) expressed and verbalized.

[Crunchy Cat]

What do please and thank you matter? What overall purpose do these phrases have in our thinking? Are they important? Please explain your answers.

Thanks ;)

c20

Human emotional satisfiers. Permission and Gratitude vs. Demand and
Non-Gratitude.

[bigal]

There is no point in please and thankyou. As mentioned, they can be faked, they are faked and as a result, a lot of fakes.
You scratch my back, I scratch yours. If you need a thankyou for scratching my back, when you don't need yours doing...don't scratch my bloody back.

[TruthSeeker]

The word for "thanks" in many languages is much older and derived from an ancient root-word that still had the basic meaning of "gratitude." It means, "I acknowledge that you have done me a favor," possibly implying, "Now I owe you a favor."
This is all good stuff... Tough I would like to add that in Portuguese, the word is "obrigado" which seems a lot like the English "obligated". Any connections.... :rolleyes:

[TruthSeeker]

Also, the words "thank you" and "please" are actually completely pointless. Our society valorizes them so much that they became an obligation and they lost their original meaning. Long time ago, people would say "please" and "thank you" while truly meaning it, because they weren't part of social conduct, they were just expressions of the person's true feelings. But once it became a social convention -a matter of politeness- , they lost their meaning because people "must" say it even if they don't want you. Which is why many people fake it.

The following is an article that I wrote for my church magazine. It is exactly about that. You may ignore all the "God" talk, if you wish...


"The Thanksgiving of Remembrance and the Remembrance of Thanksgiving

First, allow me to apologize for not writing anything in the last edition. I have been reconsidering whether I should be writing to you or not, as I’m not sure whether I’m mature enough for that. But I realize that if I’m not mature enough and I make no sense, you might as well be mature enough to simply ignore me. :)

Since I didn’t write anything about Thanksgiving in the last edition, I decided to take up the challenge and write about both Thanksgiving and Remembrance Day in the same edition. So here it goes.

When it comes to being thankful, people seem to believe that by simply saying “thank you” is enough to showing thankfulness. But what strikes me about the words “thank you” is that they are often used in a very artificial way. For instance, I have often heard “thank you” in a strange tone of voice that showed no thankfulness at all. It seems to me that many people use those words just as a matter of politeness, as if they were only following rules and traditions, rather than actually being thankful. That is why I have had those words erased from my dictionary for quite a long time.

This is the remembrance of thankfulness - the strange fact that this world seems to prefer to be polite whether than actually thankful. Even because there seems to be so much ignorance and fear that people can barely be thankful anymore. For example, sometimes, I wish I could stay in people’s homes and meet new people that way. I wish I could travel around the country, staying in people’s homes. It would be interesting and I would meet lots of people. However, people have become so scared and indifferent to strangers that it is unlikely I would ever be able to do so. A few centuries ago, people actually allowed passing-by strangers to stay in their homes for one night. But today, people are distant and we have homeless on the streets. It seems that people are afraid. It seems that, to most of us, thankfulness and love are things that are reserved to those we can trust, those that are closer to us. What happened to neighborly love?

So what does it mean to be thankful? Thankfulness seems to be the recognition that the love of someone is significant and important to you. In the same way love works; thankfulness should be active as opposed to passive. Through the words of the Bible, “Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth” (1 John 3:18). In the same way we should act in love, we should also show thankfulness in action as opposed to simple words. Because words can be deceiving, but actions must always be honest.

Given that, when it comes to remembrance, what can we do to show thankfulness? When people make the ultimate sacrifice, there’s not much one can do to be thankful. Maybe love is so mysterious and incomprehensible that one cannot possibly define it by means other than God himself. Than, it follows that we should show our thankfulness by doing the same God does: serving others. And if we can’t, a simple lollipop may do the job."

[Andre]

The Dutch version of please seems to be a bit different from Fraggle Rockers resume.

"Astublieft" short for "als het u belieft" translates to something in between: "if it suits you" and "if you don't mind"

[Crunchy Cat]

I would assert that if the thought exists of 'please' and 'thank you' being
pointless, then many opportunities will be given up to others whom do
seek permission and express gratitude. The implications for natural selection
and emotional intelligence are quite interesting.

[TheERK]

Also, the words "thank you" and "please" are actually completely pointless. Our society valorizes them so much that they became an obligation and they lost their original meaning.

No, they are not pointless, and yes, some people actually do mean it when they say it.

Long time ago, people would say "please" and "thank you" while truly meaning it, because they weren't part of social conduct, they were just expressions of the person's true feelings.

Oh, back in the golden age where everyone was nice and happy? Such an age didn't exist. People are exactly as sincere as they were back then--that is, some people are and some people are not. Get a grip on reality.

[firdarrig]

They are left-overs from a time when hierarchy was accepted in society, those lower on the chain could hardly demand something of a superior or even expect it but they could ask, and if it so pleased them they might grant the wish. It still applies nowadays in some cases where hierarchy is recognised, so kids to their parents, you to your boss, but if a mum demanded that her kid wash the dishes or your boss waltzes over with a new job for you to do, then you think nothing of it.
For people who speak naturally (so, unconciously), how polite they are is good indication of whether they think themselves inferior or superior to you.

[TruthSeeker]

I would assert that if the thought exists of 'please' and 'thank you' being
pointless, then many opportunities will be given up to others whom do
seek permission and express gratitude. The implications for natural selection
and emotional intelligence are quite interesting.
Than, in this case, it becomes pure self-interest... :rolleyes:
Like volunteering just so that you can look good and go to university... :rolleyes:
Many universities stress that volunteering is important for them and many people wouldn't volunteer otherwise.... :rolleyes:

[TruthSeeker]

No, they are not pointless, and yes, some people actually do mean it when they say it.
Aha... Yep.. Aha... :rolleyes:

Oh, back in the golden age where everyone was nice and happy? Such an age didn't exist. People are exactly as sincere as they were back then--that is, some people are and some people are not. Get a grip on reality.
Actually, in ancient China, peopler were way nicer and happier. They were also way more sincere. In fact, most cultures began like that. But once people discovered evil, they started differentiating and being "good" and saying "thank you" became important. That is specially true to ancient cultures. Americans have never haad a "golden age" like that.... :rolleyes:

You get a grip on reality. :eek:

[TruthSeeker]

They are left-overs from a time when hierarchy was accepted in society, those lower on the chain could hardly demand something of a superior or even expect it but they could ask, and if it so pleased them they might grant the wish. It still applies nowadays in some cases where hierarchy is recognised, so kids to their parents, you to your boss, but if a mum demanded that her kid wash the dishes or your boss waltzes over with a new job for you to do, then you think nothing of it.
For people who speak naturally (so, unconciously), how polite they are is good indication of whether they think themselves inferior or superior to you.
That's so true....
I'm such a narcisist... :D


I love being hyper-ironic :cool:

[TheERK]

Aha... Yep.. Aha... :rolleyes:

Wow, great response. Way to not actually respond with content.

Actually, in ancient China, peopler were way nicer and happier. They were also way more sincere.

This is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Do you have *any* evidence that this is true, or do you get your 'facts' about history from the glamorous myths and fables that illustrate ideals of honor and courtesy? We have those today--you can find them in most children's books that try to influence children to be good people. That doesn't mean everyone acts like that, and similarly, it doesnt mean people used to act like that.

If you seriously believe that ancient China was free of rude and mean people, you're hopeless.

In fact, most cultures began like that. But once people discovered evil

Oh my god. There is not a big enough rolleyes emoticon for this.

That is specially true to ancient cultures. Americans have never haad a "golden age" like that.... :rolleyes:

Thinking that ancient cultures are somehow less 'evil' is as fallacious as the 'noble savage' myth. Ancient cultures consisted of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Modern cultures consist of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The brain is the same, the behavior is the same. The balance of 'good and evil' has not changed significantly--except possibly in a positive direction lately, due to highly increased comforts provided by modern society.

[Crunchy Cat]

Than, in this case, it becomes pure self-interest... :rolleyes:
Like volunteering just so that you can look good and go to university... :rolleyes:
Many universities stress that volunteering is important for them and many people wouldn't volunteer otherwise.... :rolleyes:

I disagree with the anology; however, it would depend on how self-interest
is defined. If we are including human emotional satisfiers in the definition
then sure there is a self-interest aspect to this (mostly on the requestee
and not the requestor).

[firdarrig]

The balance of 'good and evil' has not changed significantly--except possibly in a positive direction lately, due to highly increased comforts provided by modern society.

So morals are all to do with ease? So the fact that our living standards have rose at the expense of other peoples being lowered has no moral significance? Or the eventually fatal and permanent damage to the environment? How exactly do you judge the scales of good and evil throughout all of history?

[TruthSeeker]

Wow, great response. Way to not actually respond with content.
Matter is that you simply affirmed something without arguing or proving it, which makes it impossible for anyone to "actually respond with content"!!

This is 100% unadulterated bullshit. Do you have *any* evidence that this is true, or do you get your 'facts' about history from the glamorous myths and fables that illustrate ideals of honor and courtesy?
Ancient chinese history. You don't know anything about it, I can see... :rolleyes:
It's a pain to find it in the internet, tough....
I will see what I can do...

We have those today--you can find them in most children's books that try to influence children to be good people. That doesn't mean everyone acts like that, and similarly, it doesnt mean people used to act like that.
:rolleyes:

If you seriously believe that ancient China was free of rude and mean people, you're hopeless.
Sounds like you are hopeless... :rolleyes:
They were all farmers. They had nothing and they were more than satisfied. They were happy and nobody was in need. Inequality is one of the most significant causes of crime (Fajnzylber 1 (http://econ.worldbank.org/files/15757_FajnzylberEtAlInequalityCrime.pdf)). There was no inequality, so there was no crime. Everyone was free to be themselves and nobody ever needed something. Only when people started trading is that people started wanting and needing much more, which created greed and selfishness and, finally, created the need for politeness and the distinction between what is "polite" and "good" and what is "impolite" and "evil".

Oh my god. There is not a big enough rolleyes emoticon for this.
And I already used up all my rolleyes... [rolleyes]

Thinking that ancient cultures are somehow less 'evil' is as fallacious as the 'noble savage' myth. Ancient cultures consisted of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Modern cultures consist of Homo Sapiens Sapiens. The brain is the same, the behavior is the same.
Whoa! That's a HUGE fallacy! Where did you come up with the "fact" that our behaviour has always been the same!?!?

The balance of 'good and evil' has not changed significantly--except possibly in a positive direction lately, due to highly increased comforts provided by modern society.
No..! The exact opposite happened! People are more depandant on material things to be happy! Before trade nobody was so dependant and they were waaaaay happier!


Fajnzylber, Pablo, Daniel Lederman, and Norman Loayza. Inequality and
Violent Crime. June 14, 2002. 24 Nov. 2004.
<http://econ.worldbank.org/files/15757_FajnzylberEtAlInequalityCrime.pdf>

[TruthSeeker]

I disagree with the anology; however, it would depend on how self-interest is defined. If we are including human emotional satisfiers in the definition then sure there is a self-interest aspect to this (mostly on the requestee and not the requestor).
Well, ok. I accept that. I haven't found much statistics supporting my point. But there is not much data out there about this. Most of the data that I found was from the University of Texas...

http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/vslc/about_stats.php
http://www.serviceleader.org/new/documents/articles/2003/04/000184.php
http://www.serviceleader.org/new/documents/UTVolSurvey.doc
http://www.campuscares.org/resources/outcomes.html

[Crunchy Cat]

Well, ok. I accept that. I haven't found much statistics supporting my point. But there is not much data out there about this. Most of the data that I found was from the University of Texas...

http://deanofstudents.utexas.edu/vslc/about_stats.php
http://www.serviceleader.org/new/documents/articles/2003/04/000184.php
http://www.serviceleader.org/new/documents/UTVolSurvey.doc
http://www.campuscares.org/resources/outcomes.html

It's a newer area of psychological research so it's not surprising the net
is not overflowing with literature on the subject. I know that Satori Systems
performed alot of research in this area and have been very successful
in selling training and coaching products that their research was based
on.

http://www.satorisystems.com/

Their results are undeniable and their success is awe inspiring.

[TruthSeeker]

I din't quite get the point of that site, but....
yeah... oh well...

[Crunchy Cat]

I din't quite get the point of that site, but....
yeah... oh well...

They may not have the best WebMaster in the world, but they have
success stories which are based on their research. It may be a better
endeavor to speak with a live person at the company that could act
as a guide through their collateral and provide documents not found
on the site.

[TheERK]

Matter is that you simply affirmed something without arguing or proving it, which makes it impossible for anyone to "actually respond with content"!!

If that's what you think, fine, but all I did was point out some glaringly obvious flaws in your post. I guess we're getting more in-depth right now.

Ancient chinese history. You don't know anything about it, I can see... :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but if you really think there was some point in history where everybody was happy and nice because and wasn't "materialistic", you're deluded. This is so ignorant that it is not even worth discussing.

Sounds like you are hopeless... :rolleyes:

Great retaliation, buddy.

They were all farmers. They had nothing and they were more than satisfied.

Non-sequiter. Being a farmer and/or having no possessions has nothing to do with personal happiness. Not only this, but you have no evidence that the majority of people were satisfied with their lives.

They were happy and nobody was in need. Inequality is one of the most significant causes of crime

Prove it. Highly doubtful. Even in a society where nobody fights (yeah, like that's ever happened in history--get your facts straight), disease and hunger are still significant sources of hardship.

There was no inequality, so there was no crime. Everyone was free to be themselves and nobody ever needed something.

Completely insane. Everybody needs things regardless of the state of society. You really do have an abundnace of romanticized pseudo-history dominating the way you think about the past. Every culture so far has had their share of hardships, unrest, and unhappiness--some more so than others, but nobody has been free of these.

Only when people started trading is that people started wanting and needing much more

Haha, you're trying to say that trade is a bad thing. You really do know nothing about economics, do you? Do you have any clue how trade often benefits both parties involved? Do some reading.

which created greed and selfishness and, finally, created the need for politeness and the distinction between what is "polite" and "good" and what is "impolite" and "evil".

If you think greed and selfishness are things that emerged from particular societal conditions, you have also demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic biology and animal behavior. Greed partly drives the evolutionary process, and has existed long before anything we could call a 'society' was around. Both greed and selfishness are natural human feelings. Some of us can successfully suppress them on a higher lever (as opposed to low-level self-interest, which is unavoidable) for the benefit of others, but it's still natural.

Let me reiterate: ancient China was not the fairy tale you believe it to be. If you disagree, please provide some sort of source that demonstrates that they were all happy people without problems. And no, it's not hard to find it on the internet.




Yes, quit using emoticons so much. It's starting to look like a staple of your communication, which is not a good thing. Express yourself using words, not stupid smilies.

Whoa! That's a HUGE fallacy! Where did you come up with the "fact" that our behaviour has always been the same!?!?

See above. It isn't been the same, but in this context, the things you've been talking about have not been fundamentally altered in a very, very long time. Society has not had a fundamental impact on basic human drives such as greed.

No..! The exact opposite happened! People are more depandant on material things to be happy! Before trade nobody was so dependant and they were waaaaay happier!

Heh. Material things as opposed to what? Immaterial things? Enough with this pseudo-spiritual anti-materialism.

[TruthSeeker]

TheERK,

I cannot discuss if you have no knowledge of ancient history.

Non-sequiter.
Sounds like you have no idea twhat that means. You didn't even "spelt" it right.... :rolleyes:

Being a farmer and/or having no possessions has nothing to do with personal happiness.
It is not the amount of possessions that is relevant to personal hapiness but the amount of possessions that you need that is relevant. As standarts of living increases, people usually need more to be satisfied. This is the general rule of our society. We feel we have to buy stuff in order to be satisfied. This will never lead to hapiness. But if you can be satisfied with little, you will always be happy. Sure there are other variables, but this is one of the most significant ones.

Not only this, but you have no evidence that the majority of people were satisfied with their lives.
Any chinese history book can tell you that. Also, tribes (first nations) are a great evidence for that.

Prove it. Highly doubtful. Even in a society where nobody fights (yeah, like that's ever happened in history--get your facts straight), disease and hunger are still significant sources of hardship.
Ancient civilizations have dealt farely well with those things.

Completely insane. Everybody needs things regardless of the state of society.
When it comes to autonomous expenditure... yes. But that is a very small percentage of all the products that we have. If we would have only food production in the world, there would be no hunger at all, for example.

You really do have an abundnace of romanticized pseudo-history dominating the way you think about the past. Every culture so far has had their share of hardships, unrest, and unhappiness--some more so than others, but nobody has been free of these.
I'm not saying life is easy and can have no hardships, what I'm saying is that the way we deal with those things is extremely poor nowdays compared to the past. If you analize the problems of our society and find the root of the problems you will see that most problems are caused by the ignorance and futility of our present philosophy.

Haha, you're trying to say that trade is a bad thing.
No, trade is not a bad thing. But trade is not being used wisely either.

You really do know nothing about economics, do you? Do you have any clue how trade often benefits both parties involved?
I wasn't talking about trade in between nations, I was talking about all kinds of trades. I was talking about the first times when we started exchanging products.

And as for international trade... yes, I "have a clue" of how it benefits both parties and that is good. But the way is being used also brings negative points about it, and I don't deny those to the extent that you seem to deny.

Do some reading.
This is actually what I was going to advise you.... :rolleyes:

If you think greed and selfishness are things that emerged from particular societal conditions, you have also demonstrated your lack of understanding of basic biology and animal behavior.
Oh! So animals are "greedy"... :rolleyes:
Geeeezz.... you really need some teaching...!

Greed partly drives the evolutionary process, and has existed long before anything we could call a 'society' was around.
Yes... great evolution.... let's kill each other! [rolleyes]

Let me reiterate: ancient China was not the fairy tale you believe it to be. If you disagree, please provide some sort of source that demonstrates that they were all happy people without problems. And no, it's not hard to find it on the internet.
1) Internet search is pure junk.
2) Try reading the Tao Te Ching...

Yes, quit using emoticons so much. It's starting to look like a staple of your communication, which is not a good thing. Express yourself using words, not stupid smilies.
Sounds pretty hypocrite for someone that said "There is not a big enough rolleyes emoticon for this ".... [rolleyes]

Heh. Material things as opposed to what?
Nothing.

Immaterial things? Enough with this pseudo-spiritual anti-materialism.
"Pseudo-spiritual".... [rolleyes]

[TruthSeeker]

This thread has gone waaaaaaaay of topic.... :rolleyes:

[TheERK]

TheERK,

Sounds like you have no idea twhat that means. You didn't even "spelt" it right.... :rolleyes:

You said something that did not follow from the premises. My usage was correct. Would you like me to go hunt down all of your spelling errors and pretend that they negate the content of the context in which they were used? There's no shortage of them, that's for sure.

Anyway, you failed to address a single one of my points. I'm not even going to try to debate with someone who sincerely believes there existed a civilization where everyone was happy, or that believes asceticism is the automatic key to happiness. This is outdated and demonstrably wrong.

[TruthSeeker]

Balah blah blah...

You failed to understand a single one of my points... :rolleyes: