Time is precious

[zago]

Causeless:

The city is utterly irrelevant to the ant. Ants have no capability of ever coming to that level of understanding. Same with humans on a different scale.

If my puzzles contain pieces that I made myself, you've decided to take the puzzle pieces and hang them from the ceiling in a self-defeating display of defiance of common sense. In the same way, bad artists often break the rules for its own sake to prove how creative and deep they are.

Your conclusions are simply impractical. I find them mildly intriguing but their value stops there. Why not apply this framework to all aspects of your life? Maybe you're actually just dreaming right now. Maybe everyone you know is an actor and the joke is on you. Maybe this universe exists only in your own mind and nothing is real except you. Indeed, time is perplexing and grand, but while you aspire to those observations that may or may not have come to you on drugs, other people are down here in the real world acting upon the best knowledge they have, and getting things done.

No one in the world has ever known enough about time to change the way we live our daily lives. Einstein knew a lot about time - he told us that it passes differently relative to the observer and that it is linked with space - I'll remember that next time I go traveling at near the speed of light. That you claim to act upon your stated thoughts about time is bombastic and aloof. Common sense tells us that the clock is ticking, people get older, and at a certain point, they disappear from the world as we know it. Who knows what really happens, but why muddle around in existential uncertainty about things you'll never know when there is a pretty obvious answer right in front of you? Use the time you have to do what you want - make a life for yourself.

Ants who get separated from the colony have no purpose and they die. That's the disappointing end to your analogy. You can go off into your own little odyssey, too. Don't expect anyone to ever be able to relate to you, of course.

 

[Solitaire U.]

Strange thing is, more seem to relate to me than you. Do you not acknowledge this?

Also, your analogy to hive societies is...puzzling. What makes you assume the existential? What makes you assume I am looking down, when all around me are compañeros?

You seem blinded by inherent biases ie: drugs.

 

[darude11]

What do I say on your great monologue? Some of my thoughts:
1st: I wasn't wasting my time with reading whole text , I am not stupid to do it to prove at the end that you are right.
2nd: You are right, but not in everything. Did you asked why are people on this forum? I, for example, am here to publish my toughts and let other people compare them with their, so I can be better at psychology stuff, not to make friends or because I have nothing else to do.
3rd: The right part is about that every second should be spared wisely. You are right at this point. I haven't read whole text, so maybe there would be more right stuff, but... but this one was the only thing, that was right, from the parts, I have read.

If you have something against me, feel free to say it to me. I have tendencies to unconsciously make enemies. But "Every second should be spared wisely" is really true

 

[Causeless]

The city is utterly irrelevant to the ant. Ants have no capability of ever coming to that level of understanding. Same with humans on a different scale.

It isn't? They don't? See, there's some of those rash assumptions again. Strange that I'm the one who wants to make the fewest assumptions about time, and yet also the one who understands that given enough of this 'time', the ants may very well come to a form of understanding on their greater surroundings. Sure, they may not be ants anymore, perhaps they'll, as a colony, just form together into one organism, just as the component pre-cell organisms joined in a symbiotic relationship to form the cells of life we observe today.

Is that why we're running out of time you think? It is, after all, only a matter of time before we're not even human anymore... A blink of an eye, really, to all the time we've observed to have passed. (It's all relative, remember?) Maybe you're right, maybe humans will never reach understanding on the level I would hope, but our offspring will.

If my puzzles contain pieces that I made myself, you've decided to take the puzzle pieces and hang them from the ceiling in a self-defeating display of defiance of common sense. In the same way, bad artists often break the rules for its own sake to prove how creative and deep they are.

Well, you could call it deep, or you could call it something they would teach in preschool. People who needed to prove how creative and deep they were always came off as rather shallow to me, anyway.

Your conclusions are simply impractical. I find them mildly intriguing but their value stops there. Why not apply this framework to all aspects of your life? Maybe you're actually just dreaming right now. Maybe everyone you know is an actor and the joke is on you. Maybe this universe exists only in your own mind and nothing is real except you. Indeed, time is perplexing and grand, but while you aspire to those observations that may or may not have come to you on drugs, other people are down here in the real world acting upon the best knowledge they have, and getting things done.

Impractical? I'll have to outright disagree. My overall philosophy and outlook evolved simply for the sake of being practical. Do I go around believing that everything could be imaginary, that it could all just be a dream, that it's all some cosmic gameshow and that I should immediately go postal just to be sure? No, of course not, because that's not the simplest workable solution to the greater model.

I do, however, hold dear a truth that could be mistaken for a view like that: "It's all in our heads." That's not to say it's 'all a dream', but a friendly reminder to myself that everything we observe is but a proverbial 'projection' on the inside of our skulls and is inherently biased do to that very subjectivity. We can correct for that bias as much as we want, but it will still always be there in some form, whether we realize it and accept it, or just ignore it like some.

(And to think, I realized this truth WITHOUT drugs! Ever read Universe in a Nutshellby Hawking? It's a good read!)

No one in the world has ever known enough about time to change the way we live our daily lives. Einstein knew a lot about time - he told us that it passes differently relative to the observer and that it is linked with space - I'll remember that next time I go traveling at near the speed of light.

Really mate? Ever hear of the Atomic Bomb? I'd say that changed several peoples lives very drastically.

Common sense tells us that the clock is ticking, people get older, and at a certain point, they disappear from the world as we know it. Who knows what really happens, but why muddle around in existential uncertainty about things you'll never know when there is a pretty obvious answer right in front of you? Use the time you have to do what you want - make a life for yourself.

I am making a life for myself, a life muddling about in existential uncertainty! So whenever you need to know that the Earth is in fact round, and that storm clouds emit bolts of lighting due to static electricity rather than the anger of the local deity, I'll be here to provide the answers for you. ;D

Ants who get separated from the colony have no purpose and they die. That's the disappointing end to your analogy. You can go off into your own little odyssey, too. Don't expect anyone to ever be able to relate to you, of course.

Or they just evolve into a new organism. Maybe one environment better supports solitary ants? (Don't quote me on this, as a Google search failed, but there may already even be solitary ants...) Doesn't happen often, but hey, I seem to have a lot more of how the way things work figured out than most, so why not, right?


Anyway, all done! Do I get a cookie now?


(Edit Thought: Where's Space Yeti when you need him, ey?)

 

[Lobstrich]

(Edit Thought: Where's Space Yeti when you need him, ey?)

Yeah, I've been wondering where he is as well. Haven't seen him for a while.

 

[Linsejko]

This guy is hilarious!

I am here to explain to you why you should rethink your reasoning.

Man, that's so rich. I'm getting a flow of endorphins from the incredulous smile on my face. I can't believe what I'm reading.

And he really doesn't think he's a hypocrite, either! Aww, man, this is rich.

Really, guys, he's already been denounced--why continue? He can't relate to anyone that doesn't see the world his way (ironically telling others that if they don't act like him, no one will be able to relate to him...). Really, Lobstrich got it right. Don't waste your time.

I stayed as long as it was fun. He can't really reply to me, so he didn't. Enjoy arguing with him as you please, but make sure not to let him drag you too long, ok?

Have fun...

 

[Lobstrich]

This guy is hilarious!



Man, that's so rich. I'm getting a flow of endorphins from the incredulous smile on my face. I can't believe what I'm reading.

And he really doesn't think he's a hypocrite, either! Aww, man, this is rich.

Really, guys, he's already been denounced--why continue? He can't relate to anyone that doesn't see the world his way (ironically telling others that if they don't act like him, no one will be able to relate to him...). Really, Lobstrich got it right. Don't waste your time.

I stayed as long as it was fun. He can't really reply to me, so he didn't. Enjoy arguing with him as you please, but make sure not to let him drag you too long, ok?

Have fun...

Lol.

 

[Causeless]

And he really doesn't think he's a hypocrite, either! Aww, man, this is rich.

I just figured he was trollin'. XD

 

[Lobstrich]

I just figured he was trollin'. XD

Lol.... Again.


Yes, I'm rather lazy with the contribution to this thread now. I like 'lolling' though. So I have no need to contribute any further, as of now.

 

[Lostwitheal]

I am here to explain to you why you should rethink your reasoning.

1 - Knowledge is important for more than just trivia games.
2 - No pain no gain. When you want to be good at something, you've got to work at it. Picking up things naturally will only get you so far. Be too casual and one day you'll realize you aren't actually very good at anything, which is kind of the conclusion I've come to about myself. Also, there is no "might" about it. Certain facts I learn may never be used, but if I learn thousands of facts, then many of them will definitely come up.
3 - I used to make this same mistake in thinking. The truth is, knowing things is far better than looking them up. For example, when you are having a conversation with someone, you can't just use the internet as you go. I memorized a deck of flashcards about Greek mythology, and I had a surprisingly fun conversation with a few of my students about Greek mythology not long afterward. I wasn't like, "ok, I want to participate in this conversation with you guys, but I'm gonna need to get to a computer, so..."

I fully realise that knowledge can be valuable in and of itself, and the pursuit of it can undoubtedly be a good thing. I would question the pursuit of knowledge for the purpose of vanity, though, and saying that everyone who isn't pursuing it in the same ways as you is wasting their time is arrogant, narrow minded and, most importantly, wrong.

What is it you want to be good at, then? If you truly want to be good at something it's going to take more than flash cards. For example, if you wish to be truly knowledgeable on Greek Mythology then a classics degree, going to Greece and actually seeing some stuff first hand and hearing the mythology from the people themselves, hell even just reading things like Hesiod and Homer, would be a better way. What you're doing is giving yourself a veneer of appearing knowledgeable, let's call it pseudo knowledgeability. Anyone with any true understanding of what you're talking to them about will see straight through it. If all you're trying to achieve is becoming a good conversationalist though then sure, fine, just don't try and pass it off as the pursuit of knowledge. At best it's the pursuit of trivia.

The truth is, being involved in a conversation is one of the few examples where you can't just look up what you might like to know. In this example, it can also be productive to just gain that knowledge from the conversation itself. You know, by listening rather than talking. That is half of what conversation is about, afterall. Really, you cannot be knowledgeable about everything. It simply is not possible.

I think you have misunderstood me. I mean that I will not go out of my way to learn facts about things which I care nothing for. For the things I am genuinely interested in I will absorb the information that I need through the act of pursuing that interest, rather than looking at a bunch of flash cards. Then I will apply that knowledge in acts of understanding and, in doing so, learn more.

One thing you might want to do some more research into is logical reasoning. So far your counter to the question "What makes your choice of lifestyle the only correct one?" has been, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Because it just is." I think at 25 you should possibly be beyond an elementary school level of reasoning.

 

[psion]

I've decided you are most likely a troll but... I think you need to take into account that what you are doing is not what is going to make you "really fucking rich". Considering that you seem to have already gone through schooling to become a teacher, and maybe don't have enough money to go back to school, you should look into teaching yourself a skill that is in high demand. I'm not sure how memorizing facts leads to being extremely rich but perhaps this is something you haven't explained? I'm just not sure why you are bashing other people's world views when yours isn't as effective as you seem to think it is.

Anyway if you care the important thing to consider here isn't if or not you're wasting your life, because not matter what choices you make in life you'll always be wasting your life by one perspective or another, no y'see the important decision here is to choose if or not you wish to be upset by it.

Well said, Cognisant, and to expand: you need to decide in what areas you care about other people thinking your life is wasted, some people don't care about money at all, and they concentrate on other things. One huge problem with your reasoning is that extremely intellectual people are all very rich and have great families when the truth is exactly the opposite. The scientists that come up with amazing new theories and ideas are often some of the poorest people because they are not concerned with money, they are concerned with the research they are doing. To me it seems like being an intellectual to you is the means to achieve an end where you are rich and powerful, and I would advise you to look into business or related fields instead. If you are willing to work extremely hard and always be on the lookout for new jobs and opportunities it is something to look into.

Oh, and Zago, as mentioned before in this thread the value you place on the activites you persue is also subjective and what people here mainly have a problem with, I think, is your implied assumption that your values are correct and universal.

I don't think you're an intellectual. It requires an open mind, which you do not posses.

As much as you may not want to, I think you need to take these posts into account. I know you constantly say that we do not understand what it means to be an intellectual since we must not have met any in person and I would really like to know what it is an intellectual should be like in your opinion. I personally know people who have connected living cells to computers and influenced their actions through electrical pulses, another great scientist who has come up with a nutrient bandage that is implanted under the skin when there is large tissue loss due to an injury or otherwise which speeds recovery and dissolves as it is being used, another who has created a bio-fuel for internal combustion engines that is %80 efficient but can't receive funding because oil companies have far to much pull in the government and research establishments, among many other colleagues of mine.

Even though I know all these people and humbly listen to their great ideas on a fairly regular basis, I still agree with what these quotes say, I don't think you are an intellectual, it doesn't just mean that you know a lot of facts and it certainly doesn't mean that you have a good social life (it is almost always to the contrary, actually).


I think your world view is great for you if it is what you want to live by, but I would advise against assuming that you are in a sense "teaching yourself to be an intellectual", which will result in being rich and having a great social life, because it won't. Being an intellectual is not brought about by knowing a lot of facts, it is a mindset in which you seek out knowledge about things you are interested in because you enjoy knowing about those things, not because you enjoy seeming intelligent to others, or because you want to gain power and money. I think you are mixing the desire to be socially affluent and admired with the desire for knowledge and more importantly wisdom.

If you are still interested in knowing more about the world around you and yourself as well, I would put forth the idea that you should add in great works by philosophers from classical all the way up to modern times into your schedule but go about reading them in a different way. Instead of just memorizing what it is that the philosopher has written, try to think about what exactly it means and what implications it has on your life. You can write down your thoughts on these things somewhere if you wish to keep track of them. Truly learn about what they have to say, don't just memorize what they have said. Schedule it so that it takes you a year to get through it all and I promise you, you will be far better for it. Engage in intellectual thought, question what you are reading, talk to others about it and get their opinions (listen to them and treat them as valid while they are talking, you can decide what makes sense to you and what doesn't later). It is exactly that process of questioning and reflective thought that makes an intellectual, not how many facts they can rhyme off, that usually just comes with being well read anyways (at least for me, I myself am a random facts person, but I don't put conscious effort into memorizing such things).

To be honest, to me you sound more like a business man or a politician spouting a "certainty" than an intellectual sharing their ideas on life. Just something to consider.

 

[psion]

Just as a side note, you sound like someone who has recently read something by Ayn Rand and been affected by it quite strongly, would this be the case? A few people I know had this reaction to it for a while afterwords.

 

[Lobstrich]

Schedule it so that it takes you a year to get through it all and I promise you, you will be far better for it.

This is a little off-topic since I'm not really participating in this thread anymore, but I'm anxious to see what's going on.. Curiosity!
Anyway, could you tell me more about that 'year reading'? I wouldn't mind a PM or a post on my 'profile' Since It would get too off-topic if we were to discuss it here.

 

[JarNew]

I read the first sentence and first two paragraphs...

Inspiring, to say the least.

 

[ummidk]

It is simply the right thing to do.

Idiot. That is all

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Thread:

"Stop wasting time."

"YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME >=("

 

[^_\\]

"This is what I am talking about. It is now even more clear to me you've never met anyone who would be considered a genius. That's fine, not all of us have that privilege, but it shows. Intelligence has an obvious definition. If you ever meet anyone who can expand at length about limnic eruptions (for example) and other abstruse, widely varied topics, you might have a sign that you've met someone really smart. But yes, I think I am smart. I know I'm at least 1 standard deviation above the norm. I also know there are lots of people smarter, some far smarter. That is discouraging, but I still want to make the most of myself. "

Hey. I'm just posting this because it sounds like you met a genius and think they're all the same or something, and you seem to be claiming some authority on that basis. I'm technically a genius (by official iq test score band), so I should have some illusory authority on this point. I am assuming that you measure smartness, genius etc by iq because you "know" you are "at least one standard deviation above the norm2, presumably via someting quasi-objective, or as you would describe it, "objective," like an iq test. Anyway, I don't know what a limnic eruption is. Knowledge is not intelligence, or, for that matter education. Being one standard deviation above the mean doesn't mean you're smart. You're one standard deviation "smarter" than average. You seem to commonly mistake something that is normal, or even near universally accepted for something that is objective. e.g. one standard deviation smarter means scored one standard deviation better than average in an iq test. The idea that you "know" your iq/smartness is also flawed as iq test scores are effected by performance on the day and the guy administering the iq test who for a lot of iq tests has a lot of leeway in what gets a tick and what doesn't. Your score on one or even ten iq tests isn't necessarrilly your true iq and your true iq isn't your intelligence. Also, you said "intteligence has an obvious definition and then gave what byyour own admission "might" be a "sign that someone is smart" 9which isn't an obvious definition of intteligence, oh and something being obvious [to you, or even to everyone] doesn't mean it's right) Speaking of which it wasn't a very good sign. Being able to expand on a wide variety of topics only requires knowledge which can be acquired by memorisation, and doesn't necessarrilly have to be understood to impress.

I'm posting the rest of this because you seem to have a really good emotional attitude, and if you could just get a few philosophical issues sorted out you'd have a lot more success arguing. And also because I like to occasionally log onto intpc and drop huge walls of text for my own sake. The one I was working on earlier (in anoter thread0 I accidentally deleted when I pressed ctrl-w (close window) instead of ctrl-e (google)

By the way I share some of your views on happiness. Happiness is not objectively good. I want to live a life that I could hypothetically be proud of after I'm dead. Not to say you can't be proud of having enjoyed your life as much as you can. I just don't think I could pull that off. The idea that you have to be happy, has been a pretty big source of unhappiness for a lot of people, who would be happier if they just ignored that standard of success. Become great, whatever the fuck that means. But I think your posts are actually discouraging, specifically for the denizens of this board. The problem is that a lot of the shit you say is just wrong (as I have pointed out above.) but you're still more successful than the people you want to reach. This isn't something most people will take good naturedly. A few years ago if I would have read this i would just take it as more evidence that the world is unfair, and I might even start to think my logical approach prevents success (as I did for a number of years.

When I say it's all wrong, I don't mean it's wrong like 2+2=5 (with standard maths symbols). As far as wrongness goes its somewhere between being wrong likek that is wrong and being wrong like "murder is fundamentally wrong" is wrong. I suppose incorrect, or erroneous might be a better word. It clearly has subjective value because by your report you work hard and didn't before. In mbti terminology it seems to be/have value as what you'd call Fi (which I think the literature suggests commonly confuses objective and subjective). In non mbti-terminology it's what you might call "true for you" or "has truth in it" Which amongst a bunch of people who pride themselves on objectivity is going to be thought of just as wrong. For a lot of people here (including me) truth status is 1 or 0 and 0.9 rounds down, especially if the claim is presented as objective or universal.


I'm using ice-cream here to hopefully make you accept that tastes differ, and to extrapolate that to a universal truth, not just limited to ice cream, chocolate etc but to goals too.

Imagine you were trying to argue that ice cream (hard work) is good and all us ice cream haters need to just sit down and eat some ice cream, and that we're wilfully not appreciating the value of ice cream. Your argument basically stems from the view that ice cream is, good, and the rewards are worth the sacrifices etc. It'd be a rare individual who's taste buds and brain wouldn't benefit from ice cream, but that doesn't mean ice cream is good. You seem to claim that you recognise some things are subjective but at the same time to say they're not really subjective and we know deep down that ice cream is delicious. That may even be the case, but you're not going to reach anyone who thinks they don't like ice cream for good reason by telling them ice cream is inherently good and they're just being difficult, even if they just won't eat ice cream so they can set themselves apart from the crowd, or whatever, because even if that is the real reason in 99% of cases the person will believe the reason is because they don't like ice cream. You come out and say ice cream is good and they're just being difficult and that directly contradicts their beliefs. basically calling them a liar from their pov. That obviously causes defensiveness.

The other thing is potentially harmful but true ideas, like nihilism and skepticism, determinism or anything you care to think of. I'm just gonna come right out and say they're true. There is no objective meaning and we can't "know" anything, except, perhaps, that "something exists and obviously determinism or indeterminsm is true leaving no room for free will. These things shouldn't depress people, reduce motivation, but they do, partly because people haven't thought things through fully usually, and mostly because we're raised to think the opposite of those ideas is true and that it's important that the opposite of them is true and actually a lot of our vocabulary and habitual ways of thinking about things utilise these concepts. In any case, believing stuff like that isn't immoral, and more importantly, you can't solve the problem by telling people they're lying to themselves. (refer to the ice cream example. Even if you're right, which you're usually not if you think such believes come from lying to yourself, you're contradicting a belief they believe they have. To repeat the more simple and general point those ideas are true. If you find yourself thinking sure they're technically true, but not really you need to realise that technically true means "true"and really true means "feels true" (in this case). Also as far as not being bothered by stuff like that, just remember the world is no different after you realise something. The world doesn't lose purpose when the is-ought problem occurs to you/you read it, you realise that the world doesn't have purpose. Also you don't need to stop using the idea of free will, or purpose or responsibility just because you realize they're not real. While in an ideal world you'd amend your own internal vocabulary to exactly reflect the world, You can continue to use the ideas in roughly the same way if you just put them in quotes.

Also you do kind of talk like you've learned this amazing new fact and need everyone to realise it (and I know I talk like I've got it all figured out, but, really, I kind of do on this topic, relatively speaking at least). I don't think this is a problem of style so much as it is you thinking there is a right way to do things and that you have found it or something close to it. There is no objectively right way to do things. Objectively, the nazis are no better or worse than you, not because genocide is the same as being wrong on the internet but because objectively, there's no such thing as "better" or "worse." Those words denote subjective judgements.


For the record I'm not so sure of most of what I'm saying here as I present myself as being.


edit: a quote

"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen"

-Albert einstein

 

[SilentRobert23]

Thread:

"Stop wasting time."

"YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME >=("

And then page 2: "TROLOLOLOLOLOL"

 

[zago]

Re: Flashcards

Here is a link to my quizlet page that I use to make flashcards before downloading them to my phone.

A few points of interest:

1. My crowning achievements here are "Nate's First/Second Random Deck(s)". As I read whatever I read, I keep a clipboard at hand and write down things I encounter that I find interesting and want to remember, or am unfamiliar with and wish to look up. This enhances my reading, not only allowing me to remember the exact fact on the flashcard, but also in a less direct way the text as a whole (as I recall the context in which the fact was found). Reading becomes more purposeful. I like to imagine how I'll have changed once I've memorized 10, 20, 50 of these decks in years to come.

2. The sets "Sniping and Marksmanship Terms" and "Investing Terms" I copied from the glossaries of books on the subjects. I have not finished them; I intend to make them less wordy before attempting to assimilate them. Also, as of my writing of this post, I am only about halfway though the investing terms set. I'll be done when I get to the term "writer."

3. "Common Latin Phrases Everyone Should Know" is taken from the Dangerous Book for Boys. There are tons of Latin phrases that this set leaves out, but it is a good start. I'm going to just start putting them in my random decks as I see them in print, as I have begun to do with vocabulary.

4. A couple of decks are obviously unfinished. I'll get around to them.

5. Don't criticize! You may say, "wow, he doesn't know what callow means?" Bah, we all have our blind spots eh? Furthermore, I do now.

6. These are not the only decks I have memorized. Others have come from other users.

 

[zago]

...

I'd say you are too unwilling to make generalizations that people commonly relate to. It is possible to do this knowingly, keeping in mind that what you say is more to make a point with people than to profess absolute truth. So when I say I know I am smart, I am not quite looking to prove it objectively. Intelligence and thirst for knowledge come hand in hand, to the point of being inseparable. If you know esoteric facts, you are intelligent, regardless of whether or not it takes a lot of abstraction to know such facts.

That's why on powerful IQ tests, you may see questions like, and this is an easier one, "to whom does the pseudonym Eric Blair refer?" On first seeing that I thought it was a bad test, but the truth of the matter is that dumb people just don't know as much. SO, when you meet someone who knows what a limnic eruption is, as I said, either this is a freak accident, or you've met someone quite intelligent. 999 out of 1000 people will not know (just a guess). My interest in academics, particularly science, and high performance in school does indicate that I am smart enough to say I am smart in the context in which I said it. I got As in organic chemistry in college, among other challenging courses. Average people can't do that. It is tempting to say, well, they could if they were interested. Maybe, but they aren't. That also goes hand in hand with intelligence - there is no such thing as a genius who simply doesn't care to learn. Again, there is a thirst for knowledge that increases as IQ increases.

Finally, I use this same notion when making generalizations about people. Your ice cream analogy is comparing apples to oranges. People are the same in many ways. If you never want to make a point about anything, just try to speak without making any generalizations. If you always want to be absolutely 100 percent accurate in what you say, you are never actually going to be able to communicate with anyone. That's people's problem around here. They are too afraid to be even partly wrong; that is not a functioning way to communicate; you are being a perfectionist and need to take things with a grain of salt instead of trying to tell me what I already know, that what I say doesn't apply absolutely and to the same degree to every single person in the universe.

Anyway, people have no reason to lie about not liking ice cream. On the other hand, there is good reason to make excuses for not seizing opportunities and living to your full potential. Everyone has a sob story outside their control that explains away their failures in life, myself included. We would rather not attribute our unsatisfactory lack of fulfillment to fear, personal inferiority, or incompetence.

Part of why people get angry is because they know in some way it does apply to them. In writing the OP, I did not intend to try to make people like me or approach the matter in a way that would elicit enthusiasm rather than fear. That would be inappropriate and manipulative, even if well-intentioned. If I were enthusiastic about something, my overall focus wouldn't be on philosophy but on what I am enthusiastic about (see: "Life Hacks"). This thread was written with a sense of urgency, there is no doubt about it. Being that I see internet forum participants as I do, I felt that the audience fit the tone but then again there were probably some people that it did not apply to and those people probably felt that I misjudged them. Whatever. Can't please everyone. When someone criticized me for acting like I was the only one who knew this stuff (or something), I said, cool, you do too, that is great.

Let's say in the movie Idiocracy someone had called Luke Wilson a genius. He was a genius with respect to them, but not with respect to his home time. Did he need to explain that to them? No. He could feel safe in replying, "yes, I am definitely a genius." He knows he is not necessarily a genius, despite what he said, but the goal isn't purveying absolute truth, the goal is communication. INTPs seem to have the problem of looking at things in a universal context, so they find themselves alienated from every context because they think it would be dishonest to speak in terms of different contexts while knowing what they say may have different meanings in other ones. This is taking things to extremes, but let's sake Luke Wilson had insisted that he was not a genius. Then people would have more trouble identifying him for what he is in their context, and his effectiveness would be reduced.

Perhaps this is the overall root of the problem for INTPs. People don't understand us, and because we see things universally (without cultural context - dominant Ti, anyone?) we find it dishonest to modify ourselves in ways people can relate to. We think it would be self-destruction, like we wouldn't be able to remember who we were if we spoke in people's context and not the universe's. With this statement, I feel like I have gotten closer to the core of the INTP than I ever have before. Cool.

 

[Moocow]

Zago, I'd say we INTPs are happiest living in perceived universal context. It makes me feel whole. It is a feeling of transcendence from murky, self-conceived struggles through acknowledgement of higher powers or patterns in nature. It's this acknowledgement that we want to offer other people foremost, so adapting to a limited intellectual context contradicts one of the only things we have to offer.
Also it really isn't much of a challenge to be that "nice guy" that people can relate to and get along with. It's much more engaging to be eccentric or even contrary, if only to stir people up and see what's going on in their minds.

As for "smartness" I really can't make a judgement one way or another because everyone you talk to has their own interpretation of "smart." Most people will only acknowledge the varieties of intelligence that they're familiar with in themselves.
Book smarts don't impress me as much as creativity or innovation, although I will admit that it takes an impressive attention span to absorb large amounts of information.

As for the whole time wasting issue, I think there is a major difference between going neurotic over time use and a Nietzschean will to power. I believe the latter involves more acceptance of things we can't change.

You also must consider that there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to appreciate the moment. Living doesn't have to (can't) be entirely about pushing our maximum output.
I've only ever found my will to power through first allowing myself to relax in the moment. The drive to create is a natural followup to absorbing as much of your experience as you can.


Also is the baby bunny supposed to ease the hostility?

 

[zago]

Zago, I'd say we INTPs are happiest living in perceived universal context. It makes me feel whole. It is a feeling of transcendence from murky, self-conceived struggles through acknowledgement of higher powers or patterns in nature. It's this acknowledgement that we want to offer other people foremost, so adapting to a limited intellectual context contradicts one of the only things we have to offer.

In other words, you'd rather just stay in your ivory tower. I say the ivory tower never disappears. Just because you leave it for a while doesn't mean you can't just come back to it any time. Plus, if you want to offer something, you should go about doing it the smartest way possible. It has to be intelligible, even to yourself. I mean, in the cosmic sense, your life is the blink of a blink of a blink of a blink of an eye. Why does anything matter? There's a lot we don't know.

Also it really isn't much of a challenge to be that "nice guy" that people can relate to and get along with. It's much more engaging to be eccentric or even contrary, if only to stir people up and see what's going on in their minds.

I never said you have to be a nice guy. That people can relate to what you say doesn't make you nice. It's more about getting what you want, knowing what buttons to push. People can relate to an asshole if they speak within the same context. It's about monitoring who you are to other people, not just yourself. You can do whatever you want, and you can use your public persona to your advantage.

As for "smartness" I really can't make a judgement one way or another because everyone you talk to has their own interpretation of "smart." Most people will only acknowledge the varieties of intelligence that they're familiar with in themselves.
Book smarts don't impress me as much as creativity or innovation, although I will admit that it takes an impressive attention span to absorb large amounts of information.

Ugh, now we are going backwards again. Why is everyone so fucking sensitive about the definition of "smart"? Jesus, if someone gets As in hard courses they are smart as far as 99 percent of people are concerned. Creativity and innovation are their own domains. Smart is smart. Get over it. I mean, they usually come hand in hand, but why are we going such lengths to split hairs?

As for the whole time wasting issue, I think there is a major difference between going neurotic over time use and a Nietzschean will to power. I believe the latter involves more acceptance of things we can't change.

You also must consider that there is nothing wrong with someone wanting to appreciate the moment. Living doesn't have to (can't) be entirely about pushing our maximum output.
I've only ever found my will to power through first allowing myself to relax in the moment. The drive to create is a natural followup to absorbing as much of your experience as you can.

Work hard play hard, and if at all possible, play with purpose. There is also the idea of direction that a lot of people lack. I don't think I ever recommended exceeding one's physical or mental limits in making the most out of one's time. We need to eat, sleep, take breaks, and let go every once in a while. But there is also a lot of time in life to move with purpose towards our goals. I explained in the OP though that many people I know do not have any direction and spend this time with drugs or minutia that isn't actually getting them anywhere.

Also is the baby bunny supposed to ease the hostility?

It is profoundly ironic, and I like that.

 

[Lobstrich]

Ugh, now we are going backwards again. Why is everyone so fucking sensitive about the definition of "smart"? Jesus, if someone gets As in hard courses they are smart as far as 99 percent of people are concerned. Creativity and innovation are their own domains. Smart is smart. Get over it. I mean, they usually come hand in hand, but why are we going such lengths to split hairs?

And that is of course your opinion.

I agree that creativity is another thing than 'smart' but I think it requires one to be smart to be creative.

And Zago. People are not sensitive, they just don't agree with you.
I'd say you are the sensitive one, you're protecting and fighting for what you think 'smart' is as if accepting that what 'smart' is, is simply subjective would kill you. While you expect us to just bow to what you think 'smart' the bow accompanied with a "You know best (why?) because you do"

 

[zago]

And that is of course your opinion.

I agree that creativity is another thing than 'smart' but I think it requires one to be smart to be creative.

And Zago. People are not sensitive, they just don't agree with you.
I'd say you are the sensitive one, you're protecting and fighting for what you think 'smart' is as if accepting that what 'smart' is, is simply subjective would kill you. While you expect us to just bow to what you think 'smart' the bow accompanied with a "You know best (why?) because you do"

Oohhhhh my god, when are you ever going to realize that people who aren't smart claim that creativity is a form of intelligence because they are friggen jealous that they aren't smart and try to redefine it (btw they aren't really creative they are just random and make no sense and call it creative)? i know that's what they tell you in school so no one feels dumb. You've clearly either never met anyone ridiculously smart or didn't appreciate it when you did. The second case is probably the reality. Here, pick up a text book sometime and ask yourself if you could have written it, or will probably ever be able to write something like it. Ask yourself if you could ever make a ground breaking discovery in science. Try to think about just what it takes to achieve some of the stuff you see out there every day. Intelligence exists, it is obvious, it is NOT just my opinion, and you are making yourself look bad because you clearly don't appreciate it. Being smart is OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE. YES, SOME PEOPLE CAN FORMULATE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION THAN OTHER PEOPLE, HAVE A GREATER THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE, EASE OF DECIPHERING PATTERNS, BETTER RECALL, BETTER PROBLEM SOLVING, AND HIGHER CREATIVITY. IT'S CALLED BEING SMART. WHICH DOESN'T EVEN REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC. NOW SHUT UP YOU MORON.

 

[SilentRobert23]

Oohhhhh my god, when are you ever going to realize that people who aren't smart claim that creativity is a form of intelligence because they are friggen jealous that they aren't smart and try to redefine it (btw they aren't really creative they are just random and make no sense and call it creative)? i know that's what they tell you in school so no one feels dumb. You've clearly either never met anyone ridiculously smart or didn't appreciate it when you did. The second case is probably the reality. Here, pick up a text book sometime and ask yourself if you could have written it, or will probably ever be able to write something like it. Ask yourself if you could ever make a ground breaking discovery in science. Try to think about just what it takes to achieve some of the stuff you see out there every day. Intelligence exists, it is obvious, it is NOT just my opinion, and you are making yourself look bad because you clearly don't appreciate it. Being smart is OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE. YES, SOME PEOPLE CAN FORMULATE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH HIGHER LEVELS OF ABSTRACTION THAN OTHER PEOPLE, HAVE A GREATER THIRST FOR KNOWLEDGE, EASE OF DECIPHERING PATTERNS, BETTER RECALL, BETTER PROBLEM SOLVING, AND HIGHER CREATIVITY. IT'S CALLED BEING SMART. WHICH DOESN'T EVEN REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC. NOW SHUT UP YOU MORON.

u mad bro?

Chill. Life's too short to worry about OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE ET CETERA unless you're playing Call of Duty.

 

[Lobstrich]

u mad bro?

Chill. Life's too short to worry about OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE ET CETERA unless you're playing Call of Duty.

Lol.

 

[Lobstrich]

Oh, I just noticed he was banned. Who did that?!
I was actually looking forward to replying to that rage post, it amused me, lol..

EDIT: And for WHAT REASON?! He seemed perfectly ALRIGHT WITH ME!

 

[Jordan~]

It looks like someone who couldn't write a textbook has friends in high places...

 

[SkyWalker]

Everything in life is in abundance, except your life time!


ask somebody: how many days you think you have left?
a) 20,000
b) 200,000
c) 2,000,000
d) 20,000,000

most will say c

now check this...

average age is 80:
if you are 20 you have 60*365=21900 days left
if you are 30 you have 50*365=18250 days left
if you are 40 you have 40*365=14600 days left

wow, i am going to put a counter above my bed with the days left!!

 

[SkyWalker]

How you view time also depends on your dominant perception function:
Se-doms like to live in the moment, they will think this thread is bullshit, they dont care about future or past, or how much time is left. And thats just how they are

 

[SilentRobert23]

Oh, I just noticed he was banned. Who did that?!
I was actually looking forward to replying to that rage post, it amused me, lol..

EDIT: And for WHAT REASON?! He seemed perfectly ALRIGHT WITH ME!

Given what I've seen of his posts, he seems to have been either clinically hypocritical or trolling. I suspect the latter was the cause for the ban.

 

[SkyWalker]

who's banned?

 

[SilentRobert23]

The OP, zago.

 

[Lobstrich]

Given what I've seen of his posts, he seems to have been either clinically hypocritical or trolling. I suspect the latter was the cause for the ban.

I actually don't think he was trolling. I just think he was tremendously ignorant and 'clinically hypocritical' like you said.

 

[Chimera]

The irony of a trolling centered around the worth of time/life...
​

 

[Lobstrich]

The irony of a trolling centered around the worth of time/life...​

​

Lol, yeah. But like I said, I don't really think he was trolling.
When people troll I can kind of feel it, there's a certain lack of passion on the subject. Zago didn't lack this passion, if you ask me. Hence I don't think he was trolling, hehe.

 

[SilentRobert23]

Not if he was a hardcore troll. I've done a bit of trolling, and it's the most fun when you come off as being completely serious. It doesn't help his case that this thread and the one regarding church were obvious flamebait.

 

[Lobstrich]

Not if he was a hardcore troll. I've done a bit of trolling, and it's the most fun when you come off as being completely serious. It doesn't help his case that this thread and the one regarding church were obvious flamebait.

Well sure, that is pretty much the definition of trolling. To have 'radical' opnions and act as if you genuinly support these things in order to get reactions. But like I said, I think his genuity was, well, genuine. Nothing to me said "Troll!" Even though he admittedly, pissed me off.

 

[CLOfriendOSE]

I know he's been banned, but this was the course of my feelings while reading this thread:

I can't handle when people don't understand that without creativity,
one only knows facts.
There's a reason why the "best thinkers" over time have been reimaginative.

While life may only be the blink, of a blink, of a blink of an eye,
this is only a binary perception.
Life is also infinitely long.
The physical vessel alters our physical perceptions
and to be only aware of that change,
derived from physical senses,
Is to be infinitely unaware of the greater perception.

Creativity holds with it the power of to mold the raw material of ones existence,
one's Perception,
into something tangible in the mind's eye.


The best thinkers, even in the Sciences, have simply been artists of thought.

 

[SpaceYeti]

Not if he was a hardcore troll. I've done a bit of trolling, and it's the most fun when you come off as being completely serious. It doesn't help his case that this thread and the one regarding church were obvious flamebait.

Who? What? Church thread?

 

[Jordan~]

The "I'm thinking of joining a church" one.

 

[SpaceYeti]

That was flame bait? I mean, sure, I'm naive, but that seemed like a sincere... thing to me.

 

[Chimera]

[/LEFT]

Lol, yeah. But like I said, I don't really think he was trolling.
When people troll I can kind of feel it, there's a certain lack of passion on the subject. Zago didn't lack this passion, if you ask me. Hence I don't think he was trolling, hehe.

Personally I don't think he was trolling either, but then again, it really doesn't matter either way.
​

 

[Melllvar]

Well, at least he'll have more time to work out, practice guitar and study flash cards now. They did him a big favor. He was just wasting his time here with us.

 

[crippli]

The best thinkers, even in the Sciences, have simply been artists of thought.

What a great line.

I don't have much to say on the subject, other then that I often experience time as something outside my self. Like I am trapped in a bubble and I see the people outside in fast film from birth, doing their thing, then grow old. It's like I'm not part of this. Slightly depressing.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

OP was probably INTJ anyway. I find it hard to believe that an INTP would be concerned with doing anything productive.

 

[xbox]

Yeah probably INTJ.

zago to me came across as: "I am one of you but I am here to cleanse you all."

How cute. He wanted to be our saviour.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

Yeah probably INTJ.

zago to me came across as: "I am one of you but I am here to cleanse you all."

How cute. He wanted to be our saviour.

He wants people with a natural capacity for clear, 'intelligent' thought to actually go out and develop that intelligence in a way that is relevant to the real world (or what that means in this context, anyway).

I would have liked to see some better refutation of the points he was making (rather than getting upset and crying 'troll!!1" due to his tone - this is no matter to get defensive about). He was probably fighting a losing battle from the start given the audience, but I'm sure it has reached, or will reach some.

 

[nexion]

He wants people with a natural capacity for clear, 'intelligent' thought to actually go out and develop that intelligence in a way that is relevant to the real world (or what that means in this context, anyway).

I would have liked to see some better refutation of the points he was making (rather than getting upset and crying 'troll!!1" due to his tone - this is no matter to get defensive about). He was probably fighting a losing battle from the start given the audience, but I'm sure it has reached, or will reach some.

I doubt many people have problems with what he is saying or his message, we just don't like the way he is presenting his own opinions- that is, that they are objectively superior to any or all other lifestyles.

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

I doubt many people have problems with what he is saying or his message, we just don't like the way he is presenting his own opinions- that is, that they are objectively superior to any or all other lifestyles.

You care more about presentation than content?

I wouldn't have expected such an attitude from so called Thinkers.