Not sure how this is helpful to the parent comment.
> If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, then you are the boring person.
And I don´t really understand how you can come to that conclusion. That´s like 2+2 = duck
In fact,
> have limited relevant context outside your very limited definition of what is interesting
If the person in question has a limited (according to you) definition of what is interesting then asking him/her to "expand" the notion of what is "interesting" to match or be as "encompassing" as your own definition is not helpful. It isn´t even a viable solution really because you are not the same person.
And one more thing:
> You dismiss pursuits that have spanned all of human history like sports, family, food, religion as "pedestrian"
Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every 13 years.
Some topics are simple, others are more complex. The parent comment clearly enjoys pursuits that are of higher complexity and feels as if people in general do not share that interest and hence to him they seem boring. Asking him to change his personality and what he "enjoys" just so that he can fit in is so absurd to me because it hints at the idea that you should surrender your individuality in order to fit in with the group. An idea that I don´t really appreciate all that much!
Edit: and adding no offense at the beginning of your post does not make it less offensive. It just makes seem passive-aggressive :P
> Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity.
> Some topics are simple, others are more complex. The parent comment clearly enjoys pursuits that are of higher complexity and feels as if people in general do not share that interest and hence to him they seem boring.
I think it's silly to try to organize interests by some hierarchy of complexity. You're dismissing the topics "sports, family, food, religion" as "pedestrian." Any one of those topics could be discussed with staggering levels of complexity. Just like nearly any other conceivable topic, the only limitation to the "complexity" is a person's willingness to engage deeply with the topic.
If you (or anyone) doesn't find a particular topic interesting, that's fine. But let's be honest about the fact that it's a lack of personal interest in the topic that makes it boring for _you_, and not some inherent "lack of interestingness."
I identify with the feeling that not everyone thinks as deeply about things as I do. But I think it's fair to say that nearly everyone has some topic that they care deeply about and are capable of having a deep and complex conversation about. Just because interests don't always align doesn't mean that the rest of humanity is a bunch of paper shells.
> Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every 13 years.
There's no depth or complexity to non-PhD-esque pursuits and interests?
I moved from Reddit to HN because commentators here seemed more self-aware. It's threads like these that really make me question that decision.
> I moved from Reddit to HN because commentators here seemed more self-aware.
As someone who has participated in discussion forums of one type or another since the 1980s on dialup BBSs - let's just say it always devolves into a mess, and you'll never find real satisfaction, no matter how many times or where you jump to.
Rather than try to find the perfect forum or discussion, enjoy it for what it is, and take an anthropological view of things at times, especially when it gets heated or crazy. If you can detach yourself from the discussion in an objective manner, things can become more enlightening and entertaining at times.
Even so - sometimes all you can do is shake your head, close the thread, and go get yourself a stiff drink.
I disagree with the PhD statement made by the original poster. I am a college-dropout and dont think that PhD means jack shit. I interpreted it as "highly specialized knowledge" rather than a piece of paper. if the original author meant the actual academic pursuit then he is just whacked in the head!
> Asking him to change his personality and what he "enjoys" just so that he can fit in is so absurd to me because it hints at the idea that you should surrender your individuality in order to fit in with the group.
I think you are completely misinterpreting the comment your responding to. That's really not what he said at all. You are essentially take what is a thoughtful suggestion to try and see beyond your prejudices/preconceived notions and turning it into a dumbed down "Just be like normal like everybody else" kind of statement.
But perhaps you do not like the post because maybe you are also one of these "I am smart and interesting and clever and everybody else is a dull, dumb, zombie" types? I might be wrong but I would guess that thats the case.
>Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every 13 years.
You are confusing enjoyment and complexity. You enjoy food, which is only natural because you are a living being person. I could walk up to anyone on the street and they would tell me they "like food". However that is so much different from deeply exploring the topic. EVERYONE enjoys those topics you mentioned in some way, that doesn't mean they have mastered it however. Low barrier to entry, high barrier to expertise.
All of the things you mentioned are deeply complex and take skill and expertise to get right. There is complexity there, you just don't want to engage in it. Thus they are sour grapes to you.
>> If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, then you are the boring person.
> And I don´t really understand how you can come to that conclusion. That´s like 2+2 = duck
No, it's more like if everyone you talk to is an asshole, it's most likely that you are the asshole.
This is one of those things I can't believe it took me so long to learn. If a conversation is boring you, all else being equal, the other person is likely to also be bored. If you're enjoying talking to someone, again without any other knowledge, they are probably also enjoying the conversation.
Plenty of exceptions and I have no explanation for it because I am a paper-shell of a human being, but it's a useful heuristic.
absolutely not true. There are many many contexts in which I won't talk about what I do for a living because while I absolutely enjoy it and could talk for hours, I know others will find it uninteresting.
I seriously get tired of seeing these inane observations in this thread.
> absolutely not true. There are many many contexts in which I won't talk about what I do for a living because while I absolutely enjoy it and could talk for hours
Alternatively, many people will enjoy hearing you passionately discuss whatever matters to you, and will be happy to pick up whatever scraps of peripheral knowledge they can, insofar as they can understand you.
Before I respond to you, I will say that I have been on both sides of this argument. Especially early in college, there was so much to learn, and so many unknown unknowns. I craved the conversations with PhDs, postdocs, and researchers because everything they talked about was brand new to me. Being constantly immersed in new lines of human inquiry was beautiful. But after a while, the spaces of unknown unknowns became harder to find. But I have found that the things that I used to find pedestrian are much more interesting than I used to think they were. I just hadn't dug far enough.
> Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity.
No, they are not pedestrian.
* Sports - I have become much more interested in endurance sports. If you have never wondered what it takes to be a top endurance athlete, I'd say, it's something you should wonder about. Lots of people have asked the question "How far is the human body capable of being pushed?", and the answer to that question is fascinating and complex. The difference between top athletes is hugely psychological. Much of endurance sports is just "how much pain can you put up with?". Here's a different, but related question. If people are really pushing themselves as hard as they can, why don't they die more often? If you are talking more about team sports, personally, I like soccer. Ask yourself, how is each player observing the field to maximize outcomes? Every player on the team is playing a live-action RTS to be in the right place at the right time. And every opposing player is doing the opposite. There is a ton of depth in sports. Humans who play sports are not dumb or pedestrian.
* family - What philosophies of family have been most useful over human history? How did native americans' views of family differ from stereotypical modern families? Which do you think is better? If you really don't care about peoples' individual families, take them as data points to learn about how humans build structures of multiple humans. Why does/doesn't polyamory work for some people/cultures? What things does the human brain learn at different times (i.e. how are your kids doing from a learning perspective?) People love talking about how their kids are growing, and the ways that humans grow is fascinating.
> food - Nutrition. What makes good food? What parameters are good chefs optimizing for (hint: it's more than taste, texture, and presentation)? Can you do it? If you think you can cook as well as a professional chef, I challenge you to try. The thing that's difficult about this is that I needed to try some really good food to understand how far short I fall. Cooking is chemistry, and it is equally interesting.
* religion - How can you possibly say that religion is pedestrian? That's mind boggling to me. Religion has been one of the longest running, most universal organizing structures of human experience. This, to me, makes it totally fascinating. How have religions changed over time? What did independently invented religions look like? Why are many so similar? How did humans explain inexplicable phenomenon. I believe that humans have been as smart as we are today for basically as long as there has been written or oral history. The difference was that the didn't have the mental abstractions and information to come up with the solutions that we have today. Religion fills a lot of voids in human understanding over history, and provides a fascinating window into human history. Talking to people about their religion will make your life richer.
> The parent comment clearly enjoys pursuits that are of higher complexity and feels as if people in general do not share that interest and hence to him they seem boring
This exactly reinforces the initial comment of the parent:
> If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, then you are the boring person.
Basically, if you cannot find the complexity in "pedestrian" concepts, it's not because they are not there. It's because you're not able to find them. Maybe you're not being curious enough, maybe you're being arrogant, maybe you're just tired, and can't be bothered on that day.
I have a favorite saying relevant to this:
If you want to be interesting, be interested.
Give others the benefit of the doubt, and see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Lots of very talented humans have dedicated their entire lives to studying your so-called "pedestrain" topics, and they learned interesting things. I think it would be worth it for everyone to try to figure out the things that they discovered - at least some of them.
> If you talk to a person, and the conversation is dull, they might be a boring person. If most of the people you talk to seem boring, then you are the boring person.
And I don´t really understand how you can come to that conclusion. That´s like 2+2 = duck
In fact,
> have limited relevant context outside your very limited definition of what is interesting
If the person in question has a limited (according to you) definition of what is interesting then asking him/her to "expand" the notion of what is "interesting" to match or be as "encompassing" as your own definition is not helpful. It isn´t even a viable solution really because you are not the same person.
And one more thing:
> You dismiss pursuits that have spanned all of human history like sports, family, food, religion as "pedestrian"
Some people are not interested in those pursuits and they are, in comparison, very "pedestrian" in terms of complexity. Now I enjoy all things related to food for example, but I would stab myself in the ears if I had to talk to people about their eating habits for more than 30 seconds once every 13 years.
Some topics are simple, others are more complex. The parent comment clearly enjoys pursuits that are of higher complexity and feels as if people in general do not share that interest and hence to him they seem boring. Asking him to change his personality and what he "enjoys" just so that he can fit in is so absurd to me because it hints at the idea that you should surrender your individuality in order to fit in with the group. An idea that I don´t really appreciate all that much!
Edit: and adding no offense at the beginning of your post does not make it less offensive. It just makes seem passive-aggressive :P