Sadly, age is perceived as the key of accessibility to experiences.
It is often stereotyped that less experiences equal young age and more experiences equal old age. That may be true for most individuals but the analogies do not speak for ALL people.
Some people will openly shower you with their criticisms based on the years of your existence here in Planet Earth. Why do these people base their standpoints so much on age?
For me, I find it extremely erroneous to insult a certain age group with regards to freedom of speech, maturity, wisdom, and knowledge. We all have a message to impart that is absolutely irrespective of age. Don't people realize that the latter three nouns are hailing from experience and immersion and are irrespective of age but concern courage and perseverance instead?
People are becoming knowledgeable when they use their time wisely in learning day by day and not by simply aging day by day.
The only times I accept comments regarding age are the times when physiological development is talked about and when the restrictions of the Law concerning age are in focus such as driving and consent for dating and marriage.
Grades and Ratings
Grades and ratings are products of assessment. Take note: assessment can be biased or unbiased depending on the one submitting the ratings.
With that, I could safely state that they barely define you; they usually define the people who have rated you.
1) In the academe, the ones who get the satisfactory grades are often regarded as the industrious and intelligent individuals ever educated on Earth and are worthy of clinching the opportunities for admission to top-notch universities and colleges in the world.
Also, I would like to take this opportunity to say that I am absolutely (SUPER) saddened with the fact that faces are rated from 1 - 10, with 1 being the worst and 10 being the best.
2) Maybe this is a societal standard but there are many people asking for ratings with regards to their face and overall physical appearance. The "7's" to "10's" are the ones regarded as the most attractive. The ones rated lower are regarded as losers and ugly people ever born.
Injustice! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I actually can't believe people have the capability in formulating unpleasant-to-hear sentences with these 'rates' in use.
"Sorry, I only go for 9's."
"What's so special about him? He's a 3 to me."
Quantity of Friends and Acquaintances
Listen. This is a rampant matter.
1) The number of friends you have is something judged by people. When you know many people at a personal level, you are regarded as agreeable and easygoing. When you barely know people at a personal level, you are regarded as a social outcast.
As time passes by, this changes. The easygoing folks get more friends at such short span of time while the outcasts get friends too but at a much slower pace.
2) I just don't get the fuss about the number of followers, friends, and subscribers in social networking sites. When you have many followers, you are famous. Otherwise, you're seen as a pathetic social networking site patron.
How is the number of your followers relevant to the number of users who actually enjoy your posts?
Would you allow your virtual persona to be judged according to the number of your followers, subscribers, and friends?
Income and Expenses
1) Most people evaluate a person based on how much he has in his savings. A person who has an abundance of money is seen as the stable one and is worth having as a "friend" and "the financial savior".
Truth hurts. In my sixteen years of existence, I have encountered and heard of a fair number of people who only befriend the rich kiddos in school for their money-leeching agenda and for the sake of social climbing.
2) In a similar way, a person's virtue of frugality is judged by the amount of money he/she spends. The one who spends more gets to be perceived as the generous one. The one who gives a smaller amount are judged as conceited and inconsiderate.
The people of the upper class are stereotyped to be absolutely lavish in terms of their belongings and sources of pleasure just because of their stereotyped spending habits-- tenacious, relentless, and with disregard to overpricing.
Most people associate the possession of expensive watches and jewelries to the rich.
Similarly, experiences such as:
(a) availing flights from the costly airlines, and;
(b) getting your hair done in a notably expensive hair care center are associated with the rich.
3) What's more bothersome is the fact that the rich are harshly judged as the greedy and materialistic social status merely because of patronizing commodities and services beyond the ideal costs.
Could we all please refrain from having this erroneous mindset and accept the truth that they are simply enjoying the fruits of their labor?
I would prove this point in two examples.
1) There is an election of officers. Undoubtedly, there would be some nominees who would use their credentials as edge, like: "I have served the x corporation for n years!" and "I held the y position for n decades." Usually, the nominees who have emphasized the duration of their service are often favored than the nominees who do not do so.
2) Replies which are brought in minutes after an initiating text is sent are associated to interest and spontaneity. This is true for the most part.
Slow to no replies at all are associated to disinterest and indifference. This is debatable. Who knows? The respondent might be off to somewhere taking part in the establishment of some project that is a lot more worthwhile doing than exchanging messages with you.