Persuade me

[cheese]

Hmm. I think I've got a solution here. I'll forget my experiences and base my thinking entirely on a "possibly of something". As if that isn't wishful thinking.

My last paragraph wasn't referring to you. I was saying it's quite likely people's assessment of you (that you're 'not so different', don't think you're special, you're just like anybody else, etc) is biased by their inability/unwillingness to consider possible ways of being outside their own personal experience. I characterised it as 'wishful thinking' because people who experience emotional bonds don't tend to like the idea of people who don't (hence perjorative terms such as 'inhuman', 'monstrous', etc), and therefore would be less inclined to seriously consider the possibility that someone might be such a way.

You have a boyfriend, I believe.

Uh, nope. Not sure where you got that from. You might have me mixed up with someone else.

But the things you enjoy about him are most likely not the things I would enjoy in someone. Yes, I may have different preferences here, but they are so far different from everyone I've ever known that it seems like my standards are impossible. So to hope for the possibility of something impossible is just some form of false hope. Or wishful thinking if you prefer.

Again, I can't help thinking you're addressing some imaginary person in your head, the one whose motives you're projecting onto my words. None of what you're saying here bears any resembance or relation to what I said, which was basically a simple response to your request for a 'logical' argument for attempting emotional bonds.

Essentially:
- People occasionally become physically incapacitated and require help to get pain relief/medical assistance.
- Help is more easily attained when one has a pool of people who are emotionally attached to one (thus making them more amenable to inconveniencing themselves for your sake).
- This level of emotional attachment is more easily achieved through long-term relationships.
- Long-term relationships are more easily achieved when there is two-way bonding.

That's it. It's a totally practical benefit. You've only mentioned positive benefits so far (gain attained from a neutral starting point). So I mentioned benefits attained from a negative starting point (ill health). I'm not bothered about the state of your relations with others, or the state of your emotions. I'm not suggesting or hoping you replicate my (imaginary) experiences with others. I haven't been preaching the benefits of emotional closeness/happiness/bonding/communal feeling/etc as I don't think they're relevant to your situation, nor to the OP. I haven't even been specifically pushing romantic relationships, so I'm not sure why you brought up my (non-existent) partner. I think you've conflated my posts with someone else's, or assumed some emotional intent, based on others' posts, behind my argument that isn't there. Or perhaps I've simply been unclear; sorry if so.

Also, I expect other people to be manipulative and selfish because that's basically all I've ever seen in people with very few exceptions. It's human nature to care about yourself. It's a matter of survival. It's also human nature to use others for your own benefits. To go against human nature is to try to be something "greater than human". Also known as altruism and idealism. Though I am sure you can argue that we only got this far in civilization due to altruism and cooperation.

I meant people do not manipulate to the extent one with no qualms would, because of guilt wrought from morals/bonds.

I'd actually argue it's human nature to reject at least some solely self-directed impulses in favour of the greater good. We haven't achieved these succeses against our nature. Over the millenia, those with more communal behavioural tendencies outlasted those who were totally self-focused, hence the hard-wiring of emotional 'moral' impulses into the majority of the human race. Again, this is where emotions come in handy (ones such as guilt, compassion, anger on another's behalf, generosity, etc), since they allow us to speedily decide on courses of actions that are more or less beneficial to both us and the group that supports us, instead of wasting time on cost-benefit analyses. These emotions caused attributes such as 'altruism' to be ideal. There's a reason we have the moral system we do; it's not because we consciously decided it'd be a great idea. The great apes show the same tendencies.

But this point isn't very important. If people around you are selfish and manipulative, I guess that sucks for you. (Or not; are selfish and manipulative people easier to get things out of if you are the same way? Beating them at their own game, or something.)

There are obviously experiences and knowledge outside of my experience, but I do not wish to pursue them without a good foundation.

Fair enough. I'm not suggesting you do. I thought you just wanted reasons. Make whatever choices you want.

There needs to be obvious rewards for pursuing relationships (like some sort of business agreement) and not some faint idea of hope.

Cultivating stable relationships gives one reliable resources when ill. (Personal experience.) I know this isn't an immediate, tangible benefit, but it's like buying insurance. When you're paralysed with pain, slowly going numb, repeatedly throwing up the same puke because you can't turn your head enough to get it out of your mouth, having someone who will at short notice take you to a hospital for emergency attention is quite useful. Once this has happened a few times it becomes a more tangible benefit in your mind, I suppose. Especially when you realise that everyone is at risk of serious physical damage, not just the diseased.

It's not just about drastic situations like this though - having reliable resources in general is a good investment. I do think emotionally typical people have it easier, because bond-building and some level of commitment is more natural for them.

Hope never got me anything but despair.

Ok, you sound bitter here. Tough.

 

[Jennywocky]

....Facebook is too disgusting for me to even attempt to do anything with.

But think of all the little sheep friends you could have on FarmVille!

Come on... all those little sheep can't be THAT baaaaaad.
(Or are ewe afraid of getting fleeced?)

 

[Minuend]

Ok, you sound bitter here. Tough.

To me it sounds like someone who has been so badly hurt/ betrayed in the past that he has shut off emotionally. In addition, the hurt has continued to grow over the years making him hate pretty much anybody. He feels justified in treating other people badly because he himself has been and he sees enemies in most people. "They deserve it".

He won't be able to emotionally connect with people just by deciding to, because that part is shut off. There's a barrier there.

Meanwhile, he continues to feed his world view that people are basically shit. And as he is not getting the angry replies he wants from us (to prove that we are shit too), he starts telling things to provoke such an response. He also feels some pride that he is able to "manipulate" people and that it means he is superior in some way. The one(s) who betrayed him in the past was probably someone he valued/ looked up to fairly much.

Indifference, detachment, irritability, lack of conscience. He might even be depressed.

Well, in the end, it doesn't really matter what he chooses to do.

 

[BigApplePi]

Of course you can get involved. Bot boredom comes from what knowing to get involved in! (in my opinion)
And thank you, It's always worth something when someone else enjoy's something you have to give.

Boredom serves an excellent logical function as you have observed: it tells you what NOT to get involved in.

What I want to say is if you want to avoid boredom, you have to get involved. That means going out and hunting for stuff and taking chances. The result can be very stressful or you may get lucky, but you will not be bored.

Now where is that msg from Words? I wanted to try some emotional formulas!

 

[cheese]

Minuend, I got the impression he was faking vulnerability to set us up for a kill. I get the burned-so-bad-I-wrap-myself-in-ice trope, and it's something people tend to trot out as an explanation a lot because it's easily understood. I haven't personally seen it that much outside of story books though. I mean a few ice cubes maybe, and an attempt to look sort of blue in the face... but full-on ice statues that were made, not born, are iffy. (Not sure about this time, but that particular line seemed ill-fitting.)

Also, being hurt and damaged is less of a barrier than not having anything to hurt/damage, imo.

Mr. Burke, I kiss your hands.

 

[Jennywocky]

<assorted commentary>

<assorted commentary>...Mr. Burke, I kiss your hands.

 

[BigApplePi]

Words. Finally found your post.

Here are what one could call formulas for some basic emotions. One could even try to make them define these:

Love = that emotion causing one to move toward the object.
Hate or anger = that emotion causing one to move against the object.
Fear = that emotion causing one to move away from the object.
Pain = that emotion causing one to recognize damage.
Pleasure = that emotion causing one to continue the happening.

Anything else? Those are try outs.

I don't consciously know as much rules of emotions as well as I know rules of math but I'll try:

In math, there is the rule of equation:

2 + 2 = 4, therefore, 2 = 4 - 2.

In emotion, there is the rule of "situational effect" (???)

Though it varies by degree, the situation always affects the emotion of the person; therefore, when dealing with a person, always take prior consideration of the surroundings.

A rule for a single emotion? Sadness is the result of negative stimulus? And negative is defined by values?



And how did you reach this conclusion?



I think the problem is the vague definition of logic/emotion. In order to explain my point, I will ask a question. If your goal was to comfort someone, would you judge by the logic of your actions, or the 'emotion' of your actions? As oppose to emotion, which is a standard of reasonable decision, logic is the measurement of the rationality of decision(which is relative to standard, which is relative to intention). In a situation of emotion, how much you understand emotion defines the logic of your actions.



Do they really have the same purpose? Even if we say say logic = math, how much knowledge of math would help in a situation of emotion? But I guess I'm arguing that utility defines purpose. Although, how else would it fit?

Haha, this made me think of a grown man crying in order to fix a flat tire. But, who knows? Maybe the problem wasn't the tire, maybe he needed a release from stress or something.





You use the word reason in measuring emotion. Try typing 'define: reason' in google, maybe you will see logic? Or maybe that's not the point here...

...Emotion is interesting because it tends to serve as the foundation of many "why questions":

"Why are you working?"

"I need to feed my family."

"Why do you need to feed them?"

"I love them."

"Why do you love them?"

"Ahh...err...because we're family?"

"Because they're family, you love them? How does that make 'sense'(using empirical standard)?"

"That's just the way it is."

It seem that emotion is one of the machines that produces values, and that Values are inherently logical.

 

[Minuend]

Minuend, I got the impression he was faking vulnerability to set us up for a kill. I get the burned-so-bad-I-wrap-myself-in-ice trope, and it's something people tend to trot out as an explanation a lot because it's easily understood. I haven't personally seen it that much outside of story books though. I mean a few ice cubes maybe, and an attempt to look sort of blue in the face... but full-on ice statues that were made, not born, are iffy. (Not sure about this time, but that particular line seemed ill-fitting.)

Also, being hurt and damaged is less of a barrier than not having anything to hurt/damage, imo.

Mr. Burke, I kiss your hands.

I see what you mean. I saw those statements more as justification for himself. Or random anger.

I can understand how hurt can turn into malicious behaviour towards other. Hatred to one self and others can do that.

I'm not trying to make people feel sorry for burke, nor do I myself. I was just making an observation (that's not necessarily true). I suppose sometimes it's just more interesting to understand why people believe what they do, than what they actually believe. It gives me a broader understanding of how things (or people) work.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Uh, nope. Not sure where you got that from. You might have me mixed up with someone else.

But this point isn't very important. If people around you are selfish and manipulative, I guess that sucks for you. (Or not; are selfish and manipulative people easier to get things out of if you are the same way? Beating them at their own game, or something.)


Ok, you sound bitter here. Tough.

Yes, I did mistake you for someone else. I didn't realize until recently.

When I said that hope leads to despair, I mean my expectations are never met. It's pointless to set impossible standards and then expect them to be reached. Hoping is a waste of energy. It's idealism, really.

 

[echoplex]

^What are your expectations/standards? What if you were to set more realistic standards? or would those be too low to even bother? Are relationships only worth pursuing (to you) if they can meet 'high' standards? (you know, standards higher than "people suck so don't expect much, etc.")

 

[Mr.Burke]

To me it sounds like someone who has been so badly hurt/ betrayed in the past that he has shut off emotionally. In addition, the hurt has continued to grow over the years making him hate pretty much anybody. He feels justified in treating other people badly because he himself has been and he sees enemies in most people. "They deserve it".

He won't be able to emotionally connect with people just by deciding to, because that part is shut off. There's a barrier there.

Meanwhile, he continues to feed his world view that people are basically shit. And as he is not getting the angry replies he wants from us (to prove that we are shit too), he starts telling things to provoke such an response. He also feels some pride that he is able to "manipulate" people and that it means he is superior in some way. The one(s) who betrayed him in the past was probably someone he valued/ looked up to fairly much.

Indifference, detachment, irritability, lack of conscience. He might even be depressed.

Well, in the end, it doesn't really matter what he chooses to do.

Yes, I have been betrayed in the past by a lot of people, but I don't have a "they deserve it" attitude. That seems vindictive. I'm more chaotic than that. I don't have some sort of one track goal or something. I might help people, or I might hurt them. Sometimes both on purpose. I'm not out for revenge, I'm out for understanding and amusement. I've already said this.

Yes, I do have barriers up and such. I don't feel superior really unless I perform some sort of feat of strength in manipulation. It doesn't last long either.

Hmm. I've become less apathetic recently. High school was the best apathy fuel. Didn't help misanthropic tendencies either.

And yes, it doesn't matter what I choose. That's the mentality that I assume by default.

 

[Mr.Burke]

Minuend, I got the impression he was faking vulnerability to set us up for a kill. I get the burned-so-bad-I-wrap-myself-in-ice trope, and it's something people tend to trot out as an explanation a lot because it's easily understood.

Mr. Burke, I kiss your hands.

I don't see where I made this impression. People's perceptions like this really confuse me. Where are they even coming from?

Oh, and are you sure you want to kiss my hands? Do you know where they've been?

 

[Mr.Burke]

^What are your expectations/standards? What if you were to set more realistic standards? or would those be too low to even bother? Are relationships only worth pursuing (to you) if they can meet 'high' standards? (you know, standards higher than "people suck so don't expect much, etc.")

I essentially expect people to connect to me on an intellectual level. Their interests, method of expression, beliefs, etc. all must be nearly identical.

The issue I've identified here is the lack of interest in "bonding" with males. Even if the person connects on an intellectual level, it seems like a waste of time to invest in them when there will be no sexual or intimate contact.

The problem with females, then, is that not only do they have to connect on an intellectual level, but also on a physical level (I must find them to be attractive). I've not met a lot of other females who weren't excessively annoying. I've met a few INTP ones as well, and they weren't much better.

I've lowered my standards, it accomplishes nothing. I end up manipulating them.

And yes, it's my way or nothing.

 

[cheese]

Yes, I did mistake you for someone else. I didn't realize until recently.

When I said that hope leads to despair, I mean my expectations are never met. It's pointless to set impossible standards and then expect them to be reached. Hoping is a waste of energy. It's idealism, really.

I can understand that viewpoint.

I don't see where I made this impression. People's perceptions like this really confuse me. Where are they even coming from?

Hurt people have never done anything but hurt me. I see no reason to expect anything else. Everyone I've ever met has eventually betrayed me./Life is a bed of nails. I am a fallen son of god. Death is the next great adventure, etc.

Oh, and are you sure you want to kiss my hands? Do you know where they've been?

Do you know where my mouth's been?

(Come to think of it, probably the same sort of places your hands have.)

Besides, I was being momentarily European, and can take no responsibility for my actions.

 

[echoplex]

I essentially expect people to connect to me on an intellectual level. Their interests, method of expression, beliefs, etc. all must be nearly identical.

The issue I've identified here is the lack of interest in "bonding" with males. Even if the person connects on an intellectual level, it seems like a waste of time to invest in them when there will be no sexual or intimate contact.

The problem with females, then, is that not only do they have to connect on an intellectual level, but also on a physical level (I must find them to be attractive). I've not met a lot of other females who weren't excessively annoying. I've met a few INTP ones as well, and they weren't much better.

I've lowered my standards, it accomplishes nothing. I end up manipulating them.

And yes, it's my way or nothing.

I think the only possibility of finding what you expect is to widen your net. You have to imagine that such a people are quite rare, but do exist. In such a situation you have to accept either a.) an exhaustive search for ms. just right, finding whatever amusement you can from (presumably) manipulating all the losers (to keep sane) until you find a winner; or b.) giving up altogether, accepting you'll possibly miss out on certain benefits.

And one thing I'll say about the 'intellectual level' bit, is it possible you assume too quickly that people are stupid and thus not worth your time? Not everyone shows their 'true self' upon first meeting. If you have a bias towards believing everyone is [insert undesirable trait], you might not hold out as long to see if they'll prove you wrong. (just a suggestion)

 

[blogdogcop]

Mr. Burke,

do their replies amuse you?
The more i read the more repetitive the answers get.
Your replies are looping them back in a fashionable way.
I'm not talking about them answering with the same words.
I'm referring to their answers being like this...

suggestion-justification/reasoning-rant-suggestion-justification/reasoning-rant

this is going to be an endless cycle unless that person blabbers "oh to hell with you!" (or something like that) LOL

Are you aware of this or is this just one of those "i don't know anything! i'm innocent!" kind of stuff?

Well whatever it is, you seem to be enjoying it. (maybe?)

 

[Minuend]

Yes, I did mistake you for someone else. I didn't realize until recently.

When I said that hope leads to despair, I mean my expectations are never met. It's pointless to set impossible standards and then expect them to be reached. Hoping is a waste of energy. It's idealism, really.

I think it's more about you being too preoccupied with their flaws. You examine them so thoroughly that you can no longer see that they have positive attributes as well. Nobody is perfect, everybody is a neat combination of flaws (or what humans decided to be flaws) and traits we like. I've been through varies stages in my life, and I know all about how much it matters what perspective you choose. No matter what you do, you'll fall victim to confirmation bias. You can't view people objectively.

Yes, I have been betrayed in the past by a lot of people, but I don't have a "they deserve it" attitude. That seems vindictive. I'm more chaotic than that. I don't have some sort of one track goal or something. I might help people, or I might hurt them. Sometimes both on purpose. I'm not out for revenge, I'm out for understanding and amusement. I've already said this.

I was talking more of something happening on a subconscious level. When one has been hurt, this can transform into loathing. Maybe it's the projection of the feelings for oneself or maybe it's the projection of characteristics of the people who hurt onto everybody.

I essentially expect people to connect to me on an intellectual level. Their interests, method of expression, beliefs, etc. all must be nearly identical.

Isn't that bond felt emotionally? Isn't they basically the same thing?

I wouldn't know, I never bond or connect with people intellectually or emotionally. I think. I'm not entirely sure how it feels like, so I might be without realizing it. What I debate on the forum doesn't necessarily reflect my life.

 

[Mr.Burke]

I think it's more about you being too preoccupied with their flaws. You examine them so thoroughly that you can no longer see that they have positive attributes as well. Nobody is perfect, everybody is a neat combination of flaws (or what humans decided to be flaws) and traits we like.

Isn't that bond felt emotionally? Isn't they basically the same thing?

I wouldn't know, I never bond or connect with people intellectually or emotionally. I think. I'm not entirely sure how it feels like, so I might be without realizing it. What I debate on the forum doesn't necessarily reflect my life.

Well, I try to look at it from a "what can I gain/what do I enjoy about this person" versus a "how much effort/psychological pain will this require" perspective. For a lot of the people I've met, it's not that I'm focusing only on their flaws, it's that I never really saw any positives in the first place. When I first talk to a person, they're essentially on a scale of -100 to 100. They start at 0, which is neutral. They lose or gain points based on all the various aspects of their personality, actions, appearance, etc. There was one person, for example, whose only noticeable positive trait after 4 or 5 months was her spelling and grammar abilities. But she had a lot of traits that I deemed as giving negative points, such as drinking alcohol very frequently.

And no, it's not an emotional bond for me. If I discuss something with someone, it in no way means I am attached to them. A lot of the time I treat people simply as the words they express and not anything to do with the person behind those words.

 

[Mr.Burke]

I think the only possibility of finding what you expect is to widen your net. You have to imagine that such a people are quite rare, but do exist. In such a situation you have to accept either a.) an exhaustive search for ms. just right, finding whatever amusement you can from (presumably) manipulating all the losers (to keep sane) until you find a winner; or b.) giving up altogether, accepting you'll possibly miss out on certain benefits.

And one thing I'll say about the 'intellectual level' bit, is it possible you assume too quickly that people are stupid and thus not worth your time? Not everyone shows their 'true self' upon first meeting. If you have a bias towards believing everyone is [insert undesirable trait], you might not hold out as long to see if they'll prove you wrong. (just a suggestion)

I've thought of this. But I'm more on c). not giving up, but not searching and simply going about my life normally.

Hmm. In person, yes, I generally assume people to be stupid. Most of the time it's not hard to tell when someone is stupid (in person). But the real thing here is my filter. I essentially filter out people who don't meet a minimum set of standards, or I mess with them. I give a lot of time for people to prove themselves. But even I have times where I am impatient.

Also, from my experience, the true self isn't anything so amazing that it's worth the waiting period (for them to open up).

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, I try to look at it from a "what can I gain/what do I enjoy about this person" versus a "how much effort/psychological pain will this require" perspective. For a lot of the people I've met, it's not that I'm focusing only on their flaws, it's that I never really saw any positives in the first place. When I first talk to a person, they're essentially on a scale of -100 to 100. They start at 0, which is neutral. They lose or gain points based on all the various aspects of their personality, actions, appearance, etc.

And no, it's not an emotional bond for me. If I discuss something with someone, it in no way means I am attached to them. A lot of the time I treat people simply as the words they express and not anything to do with the person behind those words.

Well if a person were a cave that would give you shelter or a tree that would give you shade, or a fire that would keep you from the cold, would you rate them higher? The problem is people move unlike the cave, the tree or the fire. For people to stay an attractant has to be supplied.

 

[echoplex]

I've thought of this. But I'm more on c). not giving up, but not searching and simply going about my life normally.

Seems reasonable if 'a' is not worth the effort for you. It would make sense to save your energy in order to maximize your overall happiness. My point is simply that, given your stringent criteria, you would be unlikely to find someone suitable unless you made quite an effort to find them. But if that's not worth it then 'c' sounds reasonable.

Mr. Burke,

do their replies amuse you?
The more i read the more repetitive the answers get.
Your replies are looping them back in a fashionable way.
I'm not talking about them answering with the same words.
I'm referring to their answers being like this...

suggestion-justification/reasoning-rant-suggestion-justification/reasoning-rant

Shuddup you! Don't let him know we're on to him. And how dare you expose my tendency to offer suggestions! They're all I have!
(but I never ranted once... I swear!)

Ah, we're all puppets.
(ha, going with the angry smiley, that's right! I never express sadness twice in the same post. Not ready for the pitchfork yet though...)