The value of a human being’s life isn’t really defined by the complexity of the ideas that get discussed in it.
No, but the value to me of interacting with them is. I would like nothing more than to know that they live happy and fulfilling lives that do not involve me.
Also, “snobbery” is a loaded term. Is there a reason I am obligated to enjoy the company of people I do not like?
No, but the value to me of interacting with them is. I would like nothing more than to know that they live happy and fulfilling lives that do not involve me.
Sounds like you also missed the part about acquiring an appreciation for the more experiential qualities of life, and for more varieties of people.
Also, “snobbery” is a loaded term.
More so than “idiots”? ;-)
Is there a reason I am obligated to enjoy the company of people I do not like?
Only if you want to increase your opportunities for enjoyment in life, be successful at endeavors that involve other people, reduce the amount of frustration you experience at family gatherings… you know, generally enjoying yourself without needing to have your brain uploaded first. ;-)
Sounds like you also missed the part about acquiring an appreciation for the more experiential qualities of life, and for more varieties of people.
I do have an appreciation for those things. I find them enjoyable, distracting, but ultimately unsatisfying. That’s like telling someone who eats a healthy diet to acquire an appreciation for candy.
More so than “idiots”? ;-)
Haha, I wondered if you would call me on that. You are right, of course, and for the most part my attitude towards people isn’t as negative as I made it sound. I was annoyed by the smug and presumptuous tone of that article.
Only if you want to increase your opportunities for enjoyment in life, be successful at endeavors that involve other people, reduce the amount of frustration you experience at family gatherings… you know, generally enjoying yourself without needing to have your brain uploaded first. ;-)
I do fine enjoying myself as it is, and it’s not like I can’t work with people—I’m talking only about socializing or other leisure-time activities. And as far as that goes, I absolutely fail to see the benefit of socializing with at least 90% of the people out there. They don’t enjoy the things I enjoy and that’s fine; why am I somehow deficient for failing to enjoy their activities?
Like I said, I don’t think I’m really in the target demographic for that article, and I’m not really sure what you’re trying to convince me of, here.
I’m not really sure what you’re trying to convince me of, here.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You asked questions. I answered them.
I do have an appreciation for those things. I find them enjoyable, distracting, but ultimately unsatisfying. That’s like telling someone who eats a healthy diet to acquire an appreciation for candy.
Hm, so who’s trying to convince who now? ;-)
I was annoyed by the smug and presumptuous tone of that article.
Interesting. I found its tone to be informative, helpful, and compassionately encouraging.
And as far as that goes, I absolutely fail to see the benefit of socializing with at least 90% of the people out there. They don’t enjoy the things I enjoy and that’s fine; why am I somehow deficient for failing to enjoy their activities?
Who said you were? Not even the article says that. The author wrote, in effect, that he realized that he was being a snob and missing out on things by insisting on making everything be about ideas and rightness and sharing his knowledge, instead of just enjoying the moments, and by judging people with less raw intelligence as being beneath him. I don’t see where he said anybody was being deficient in anything.
My only point was that sometimes socializing is useful for winning—even if it’s just enjoying yourself at times when things aren’t going your way. I personally found that it limited my life too much to have to have a negative response to purely- or primarily- social interactions with low informational or practical content. Now I have the choice of being able to enjoy them for what they are, which means I have more freedom and enjoyment in my life.
But notice that at no time or place did I use the word “deficiency” to describe myself or anyone else in that. Unfulfilled potential does not equal deficiency unless you judge it to be such.
And if you don’t judge or fear it to be such, why would the article set you off? If you were really happy with things as they are, wouldn’t you’d have just said, “oh, something I don’t need”, and went on with your life? Why so much protest?
I don’t see where he said anybody was being deficient in anything.
This was the impression I got from the article’s tone, as well as your previous comments—an impression of “you should do this for your own good”. If that was not the intent, I apologize, it is easy to misread tone over the internet.
And if you don’t judge or fear it to be such, why would the article set you off? If you were really happy with things as they are, wouldn’t you’d have just said, “oh, something I don’t need”, and went on with your life? Why so much protest?
Because there have been other times where people expressed opinions about what I ought to be doing for enjoyment (cf. the kind of helpfulness described as optimizing others ) and I find it irritating. It’s a minor but persistent pet peeve.
I remarked on the article originally mainly because the advice it offered seemed puzzlingly obvious.
This was the impression I got from the article’s tone, as well as your previous comments—an impression of “you should do this for your own good”.
Ah. All I said in the original context was that rationality is only an obstacle in social situations if you used it as an excuse to make everything about you and your ideas/priorities/values, and gave the article as some background on the ways that “rational” people sometimes do that. No advice was given or implied.
As for the article’s tone, bear in mind that it’s a pickup artist’s blog (or more precisely, the blog of a trainer of pickup artists).
So, his audience is people who already want to improve their social skills, and therefore have already decided it’s a worthy goal to do so. That’s why the article doesn’t attempt to make a case for why someone would want to improve their social skills—it is, after all a major topic of the blog.
So, his audience is people who already want to improve their social skills, and therefore have already decided it’s a worthy goal to do so. That’s why the article doesn’t attempt to make a case for why someone would want to improve their social skills—it is, after all a major topic of the blog.
Yes, this is what I meant when I said I probably wasn’t in the target demographic—my social skills are acceptable, but my desire to socialize is fairly low.
No, but the value to me of interacting with them is. I would like nothing more than to know that they live happy and fulfilling lives that do not involve me.
Also, “snobbery” is a loaded term. Is there a reason I am obligated to enjoy the company of people I do not like?
Sounds like you also missed the part about acquiring an appreciation for the more experiential qualities of life, and for more varieties of people.
More so than “idiots”? ;-)
Only if you want to increase your opportunities for enjoyment in life, be successful at endeavors that involve other people, reduce the amount of frustration you experience at family gatherings… you know, generally enjoying yourself without needing to have your brain uploaded first. ;-)
I do have an appreciation for those things. I find them enjoyable, distracting, but ultimately unsatisfying. That’s like telling someone who eats a healthy diet to acquire an appreciation for candy.
Haha, I wondered if you would call me on that. You are right, of course, and for the most part my attitude towards people isn’t as negative as I made it sound. I was annoyed by the smug and presumptuous tone of that article.
I do fine enjoying myself as it is, and it’s not like I can’t work with people—I’m talking only about socializing or other leisure-time activities. And as far as that goes, I absolutely fail to see the benefit of socializing with at least 90% of the people out there. They don’t enjoy the things I enjoy and that’s fine; why am I somehow deficient for failing to enjoy their activities?
Like I said, I don’t think I’m really in the target demographic for that article, and I’m not really sure what you’re trying to convince me of, here.
I’m not trying to convince you of anything. You asked questions. I answered them.
Hm, so who’s trying to convince who now? ;-)
Interesting. I found its tone to be informative, helpful, and compassionately encouraging.
Who said you were? Not even the article says that. The author wrote, in effect, that he realized that he was being a snob and missing out on things by insisting on making everything be about ideas and rightness and sharing his knowledge, instead of just enjoying the moments, and by judging people with less raw intelligence as being beneath him. I don’t see where he said anybody was being deficient in anything.
My only point was that sometimes socializing is useful for winning—even if it’s just enjoying yourself at times when things aren’t going your way. I personally found that it limited my life too much to have to have a negative response to purely- or primarily- social interactions with low informational or practical content. Now I have the choice of being able to enjoy them for what they are, which means I have more freedom and enjoyment in my life.
But notice that at no time or place did I use the word “deficiency” to describe myself or anyone else in that. Unfulfilled potential does not equal deficiency unless you judge it to be such.
And if you don’t judge or fear it to be such, why would the article set you off? If you were really happy with things as they are, wouldn’t you’d have just said, “oh, something I don’t need”, and went on with your life? Why so much protest?
This was the impression I got from the article’s tone, as well as your previous comments—an impression of “you should do this for your own good”. If that was not the intent, I apologize, it is easy to misread tone over the internet.
Because there have been other times where people expressed opinions about what I ought to be doing for enjoyment (cf. the kind of helpfulness described as optimizing others ) and I find it irritating. It’s a minor but persistent pet peeve.
I remarked on the article originally mainly because the advice it offered seemed puzzlingly obvious.
Ah. All I said in the original context was that rationality is only an obstacle in social situations if you used it as an excuse to make everything about you and your ideas/priorities/values, and gave the article as some background on the ways that “rational” people sometimes do that. No advice was given or implied.
As for the article’s tone, bear in mind that it’s a pickup artist’s blog (or more precisely, the blog of a trainer of pickup artists).
So, his audience is people who already want to improve their social skills, and therefore have already decided it’s a worthy goal to do so. That’s why the article doesn’t attempt to make a case for why someone would want to improve their social skills—it is, after all a major topic of the blog.
Yes, this is what I meant when I said I probably wasn’t in the target demographic—my social skills are acceptable, but my desire to socialize is fairly low.
Anyway, sorry for the pointless argument, heh.