I think a lot could be gained from asking the question of whether being an interesting person or having an interesting life is in and of itself a valuable thing. How much of it is a proxy for something else, and perhaps we could extract the “something else” and it’d be much easier to figure out how to get there? Or, what does one intend to gain by becoming more interesting? And is that thing valuable?
If you’re a boring person—you don’t have any interesting hobbies and you haven’t had very many experiences—then you’ll have a much harder time socially. Of course, you can be a super interesting person and still lack the ability to present yourself as an interesting person, but many people need to make themselves more interesting first so that they at least have something to present.
I think our definitions of “interesting” may differ. If we take the angle of hobbies, for instance...
I would say that picking up running as a hobby can provide many social benefits. It’s relatively popular, it’s virtually omnipresent, it’s considered by many to be a ‘morally superior’ activity, it’s likely to make you more attractive in the dating department.
But I wouldn’t really call a person interesting only due to having running as a hobby, nor do I consider running an interesting hobby.
Most people, on average, haven’t had too many experiences or interesting hobbies by virtue of being the average, but I haven’t found that the average person has issues socializing. I’m not sure if being interesting is really all that related to that.
I wouldn’t count running as an “interesting hobby” unless you manage to be very successful, at which case anything becomes interesting. For example, most people would think it to be very cool to meet an olympic level sprinter. That said, it is possible that a hobby can provide many social benefits, as you have stated, without being “interesting”.
But most people are not going to be ‘very successful’, and I am going to automatically assume that this is not included, since it’s often statistically exclusionary (only a few people in the entire world can be olympic level sprinters).
I think a lot could be gained from asking the question of whether being an interesting person or having an interesting life is in and of itself a valuable thing. How much of it is a proxy for something else, and perhaps we could extract the “something else” and it’d be much easier to figure out how to get there? Or, what does one intend to gain by becoming more interesting? And is that thing valuable?
If you’re a boring person—you don’t have any interesting hobbies and you haven’t had very many experiences—then you’ll have a much harder time socially. Of course, you can be a super interesting person and still lack the ability to present yourself as an interesting person, but many people need to make themselves more interesting first so that they at least have something to present.
I think our definitions of “interesting” may differ. If we take the angle of hobbies, for instance...
I would say that picking up running as a hobby can provide many social benefits. It’s relatively popular, it’s virtually omnipresent, it’s considered by many to be a ‘morally superior’ activity, it’s likely to make you more attractive in the dating department.
But I wouldn’t really call a person interesting only due to having running as a hobby, nor do I consider running an interesting hobby.
Most people, on average, haven’t had too many experiences or interesting hobbies by virtue of being the average, but I haven’t found that the average person has issues socializing. I’m not sure if being interesting is really all that related to that.
Reminds me ofThat Old Gang of Mine by Leslie Thomas:)
I wouldn’t count running as an “interesting hobby” unless you manage to be very successful, at which case anything becomes interesting. For example, most people would think it to be very cool to meet an olympic level sprinter. That said, it is possible that a hobby can provide many social benefits, as you have stated, without being “interesting”.
But most people are not going to be ‘very successful’, and I am going to automatically assume that this is not included, since it’s often statistically exclusionary (only a few people in the entire world can be olympic level sprinters).
It is most certainly not required to be ‘great’ to be socially successful, or, for that matter, interesting. As for my opinion of the whole ‘greatness’ chase, see here: http://lesswrong.com/lw/mmu/how_to_learn_a_new_area_x_that_you_have_no_idea/cu3o
“But most people are not going to be ‘very successful’”—exactly