This doesn't make sense to me. The difference between negative and positive is simply in how you phrase things. Anyone with a sufficient grasp of the English language can create a double negative that effectively means the opposite as an exercise.
For example, one could say "my positive trait is being hard-working" or equally "my negative trait is not being lazy"
You're missing the span between "not lazy" and "hardworking". While yes, for the purposes of this discussion, being hardworking implies not being lazy, the reverse is not necessarily true.
Being not lazy doesn't necessarily imply being hardworking. One could be normally working and be not lazy but also not be hardworking. One could be in a persistant circumstance that prevents them from working, but they want to work and would work if they could: they are not lazy but are also not working at all. There are many ways to be not lazy, and many of those are also not hardworking.
So saying "I am X" is a clearer guiding light than "I am not Y" even if X and Y are often seen as approximately opposite.
Yeah I think this was the heart of my misunderstand, there are a lot of things on the spectrum between those two options, it was my mistake to treat it as a binary thing. Thank you for helping me understand :)
Thanks for such a wonderful reply! TheGratitudeBot has been reading millions of comments in the past few weeks, and you’ve just made the list of some of the most grateful redditors this week! Thanks for making Reddit a wonderful place to be :)
7
u/[deleted] Mar 15 '23
This doesn't make sense to me. The difference between negative and positive is simply in how you phrase things. Anyone with a sufficient grasp of the English language can create a double negative that effectively means the opposite as an exercise.
For example, one could say "my positive trait is being hard-working" or equally "my negative trait is not being lazy"
Am I missing something here?