are not really interesting at all.
In fact, they're the most boring people in the world.
Here I am a pessimist.
Calling yourself interesting sets the listener up to expect something.
But what is interesting in another person is really what you find interesting that you have in common with them.
People who call themselves unique,
are as common place as people with pianos in their homes.
Not all people have homes.
Not all people have pianos.
Fewer people have pianos in homes, but
there are nonetheless many people that have pianos in their home.
If we talk about the a person in its entirety (down to dna), it is unique, but what we judge is
personality, body language, image, interests.
Personality/body language: few people know what it truly means to be "unique" in this respect. There is a normal curve in psychology statistics for a reason. The ones who are deviants are the ones who are often shunned. I.E. the man who doesn't talk to anyone at all. When he's with a person he stares and says nothing. His sociability on the curve would be standard deviations from the mean.
Image: if you bought it from a store or made it from a guide its not unique. Plain and simple. If you made it yourself then, someone else in billions of people have also thought of it. Plageurism isn't intentional sometimes. It's inevitable. There has got to be an equation describing # of Plageurisms as a function of time in decades that turnitin or related catches.
Interests: if you saw it on t.v. and liked it someone else probably also liked it. What could you be interested in that is so different from the rest of the other 7 billion people and still be likeable while calling yourself "unique?"
you can call yourself an AC/DC fan or an award wining novelist if you are one, but don't introduce yourself as "unique" or "interesting." I think these are lame-o, ironic ways of introducing yourself.
Sunday, January 12, 2014
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Collected words of wisdom on dealing with people-what i've learned from my social ineptitude
- Don't overthink anything.
- Do not care what other people think of you.
- yet care for others and put your self in their perspective
- be calm and collected
- don't be afraid of silence
- Listen to others.
- Practice empathy
- have confidence in oneself. Know the blessing of independence.
- Accept that others have friends
- ask and ye shall receive. Ask to do things don't just envy others.
- grow a thicker skin.
- make mistakes and move on quickly.
- listen to criticism: know which is bitch talk and which isn't.
- Never point the finger until you know for sure.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Type of friend
People change, but friends do to. They say true friends stick together and look out for each other. However, popular advice is if you are irritated with your friends, ignore them and eventually find new ones.
Intervene-r:
This friend looks out for your interests. Rather than change themselves, they want to change you. Say both of you guys were good students with no criminal records. Then one day you start smoking pot which escalates to shooting up on heroin. You start tattooing yourself and get really depressed. The intervene-r will shake you up and get you into therapy. They will visit you regularly as you detox. They are with you during the thick and thin. On the down side, you can't easily get rid of this friend. They choose to change you, not you change them.
Concede-r: In the same situation, they will accept that you have changed and will not intervene. They follow internet advice. If you are annoyed, find new friends. Don't stick with your annoyances. They are the people who look out for themselves, but realize you probably do/should do the same. Thought line:You guys are friends for laughs, not for the sake of butting into each other's business. If you do drugs, it's your business not theirs.
Who makes the better friend in the end?
lingering thoughts of distaste
I know I have anger management issues, so I signed myself up for therapy. I've had one session so far, but I have my doubts on its effectiveness. It's not like teaching mindfulness. My psychologist just asks questions. The whole healing process, according to her, is just getting it all out there, but I have a problem with that. I have told my friends, her, and you (if you continue to read about it) about my gripe with this fucking old bastard (neighbor kinda), but rather than eradicate his existence from my mind, expressing my thoughts put him at the top of my consciousness priority list. Also, this psychologist's suggestion of a solution was to simply try avoid the annoyance. There was no attempt at either seeing this as a problem with myself and there was no stress reducing solution. Lastly, if the old man left, and another annoyance came in, given her suggestions, I should leave the building. Basically I am taught avoidance tactics in therapy.
Arguments, from what I've read, spring as fearful reactions to perceived threats and from the arguer's sense of arrogance. Funny.. fear and arrogance. I know for a fact that he fears me, but I am irritated by the fact that he still maintains his arrogance. I know I am right, but does that make me arrogant? But I also know I am wrong about a few things. I quickly admitted that I misused something, and that I will take care of it right away. He should've left then with "problem solved" in his mind, but he didn't because he hates me. If there is no reason to be near your annoyance, then there is only feeling. I know for a fact that what he says is factually wrong. Some of this factually wrong information comes from persisting with two opposing pieces of information during the two times I have confronted him throughout the entire confrontation. First, he blows up a situation with all the little details he criticizes me for. Then, when I address all the little details he talked about, he says "all I wanted was..." To add to my irritation, the first day he said he pays me and mentioned sanitary issues which were in a contract he signed. I signed no contract and I am not his leaser and at the the time, I had no idea why he was mentioning something to me. Something I could not respond to, because I simply didn't know about it. When I addressed the contract (on the second day/confrontation) and legal issues after reading about it, he says that he was only asking me out of "common courtesy" and that he didn't mention the law at any time . I said "you mentioned money and contract. This = law/agreement." He said "I know the law, and I was asking you out of decency." However, if this old man really knew the law, then how can he simply change what he said on the second day I confronted him ? How can you keep this arrogant douchebag (redundant I know) to his word?
My feeling is like the frustration Einstein might feel while arguing with the average male. A man is stereotypically more logical than a female. He would say all his facts in front of Einstein (without knowing who he is), and Einstein would reply logically. Einstein's opposing statements would directly relate to the issues presented by that average man. The man would reply as logically as he can back. For whatever the man does not understand (of what Einstein said), the man would reply with whatever ridiculous "fact" that he can come up with (if he be douchebaggy) without checking the validity of what he said. In order to "win" (seem more valid), the man would raise his voice when replying to Einstein.
I know I can't do anything for revenge no matter how sweet it would feel. I suppose I can find a way to publically shame him, but doing so will probably just give him more publicity (like it did Fox) especially when he fronts an ironic organization supporting a culture that has no listed or easily perceived correspondent or leadership of that culture (like an all white board supporting Nigerian dance) . Also, publically shaming has the possibility of looking like defamation to the law when I am really just exercising free speech. Revenge can also look bad on me, and as consequence I might lose the respect of my friends and the people I work with. But I can't live without any sort of release. I need to find a way just as many recent jailed gunman need a way to completely forget about their annoyance while they are being annoyed and throughout life (to prevent stress buildup) that is neither bottling up anger nor having miniature explosions every time I am mad. I realize when a person is mad it has to show. Otherwise it's as though "mad" was never programmed into him. Whatever has made him "mad" has to be made better. I was searching for "kindness begets kindness" and channeling negative energy into creativity, but after trying to be kind to my neighbor, he goes ahead and complains to his leaser on a list of things that he's been keeping tabs on for a long while.
I honestly can say, I am not hoping for the best for him. I am hoping his organization dies. His organization was never beneficial to society in the first place. I know he didn't do anything heinous, but I am so irritated by the way he thinks. He is the epitome of "first world problems" which he complains about with his sense of entitlement. The only thing I see him contribute to this world is a sense of arrogance. I think he is a waste of space, and I say this because he is so easily replaceable.
Arguments, from what I've read, spring as fearful reactions to perceived threats and from the arguer's sense of arrogance. Funny.. fear and arrogance. I know for a fact that he fears me, but I am irritated by the fact that he still maintains his arrogance. I know I am right, but does that make me arrogant? But I also know I am wrong about a few things. I quickly admitted that I misused something, and that I will take care of it right away. He should've left then with "problem solved" in his mind, but he didn't because he hates me. If there is no reason to be near your annoyance, then there is only feeling. I know for a fact that what he says is factually wrong. Some of this factually wrong information comes from persisting with two opposing pieces of information during the two times I have confronted him throughout the entire confrontation. First, he blows up a situation with all the little details he criticizes me for. Then, when I address all the little details he talked about, he says "all I wanted was..." To add to my irritation, the first day he said he pays me and mentioned sanitary issues which were in a contract he signed. I signed no contract and I am not his leaser and at the the time, I had no idea why he was mentioning something to me. Something I could not respond to, because I simply didn't know about it. When I addressed the contract (on the second day/confrontation) and legal issues after reading about it, he says that he was only asking me out of "common courtesy" and that he didn't mention the law at any time . I said "you mentioned money and contract. This = law/agreement." He said "I know the law, and I was asking you out of decency." However, if this old man really knew the law, then how can he simply change what he said on the second day I confronted him ? How can you keep this arrogant douchebag (redundant I know) to his word?
My feeling is like the frustration Einstein might feel while arguing with the average male. A man is stereotypically more logical than a female. He would say all his facts in front of Einstein (without knowing who he is), and Einstein would reply logically. Einstein's opposing statements would directly relate to the issues presented by that average man. The man would reply as logically as he can back. For whatever the man does not understand (of what Einstein said), the man would reply with whatever ridiculous "fact" that he can come up with (if he be douchebaggy) without checking the validity of what he said. In order to "win" (seem more valid), the man would raise his voice when replying to Einstein.
I know I can't do anything for revenge no matter how sweet it would feel. I suppose I can find a way to publically shame him, but doing so will probably just give him more publicity (like it did Fox) especially when he fronts an ironic organization supporting a culture that has no listed or easily perceived correspondent or leadership of that culture (like an all white board supporting Nigerian dance) . Also, publically shaming has the possibility of looking like defamation to the law when I am really just exercising free speech. Revenge can also look bad on me, and as consequence I might lose the respect of my friends and the people I work with. But I can't live without any sort of release. I need to find a way just as many recent jailed gunman need a way to completely forget about their annoyance while they are being annoyed and throughout life (to prevent stress buildup) that is neither bottling up anger nor having miniature explosions every time I am mad. I realize when a person is mad it has to show. Otherwise it's as though "mad" was never programmed into him. Whatever has made him "mad" has to be made better. I was searching for "kindness begets kindness" and channeling negative energy into creativity, but after trying to be kind to my neighbor, he goes ahead and complains to his leaser on a list of things that he's been keeping tabs on for a long while.
I honestly can say, I am not hoping for the best for him. I am hoping his organization dies. His organization was never beneficial to society in the first place. I know he didn't do anything heinous, but I am so irritated by the way he thinks. He is the epitome of "first world problems" which he complains about with his sense of entitlement. The only thing I see him contribute to this world is a sense of arrogance. I think he is a waste of space, and I say this because he is so easily replaceable.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Women leave the church!!
Sexism is one thing male chauvinists have in common with the Church. Sure everyone is entitled to their opinion, but this is a matter of ideology not just the idea that Churchgoers and atheists are both people. If in death, both men and women are equal in the face of oblivion and if people never had the choice to choose to be a man or a woman, then people are alike all over. I bring this point for sexist atheists (aka the amazingatheist on youtube), not all atheists. While I do agree with some things he says, I do not agree that "physical" differences/processes such as menstruation makes a women any less capable then a man in the work force. I also do not agree that you can generalize feminism in such a narrow way to mean "man-hating." This is by no means true, and it is by the amazing atheist's mouth that influences others to generalize groups. (i.e. American's are loud and obnoxious). Really, it is only the loud and obnoxious ones you hear about.
One thing that organized religions (particularly Christianity) does is provide information on some passages, then leave it closed for comments or ratings. Only "thumbs up" are allowed thereby going against the philosophy of the first amendment, the market place of ideas. By not allowing articles to be evaluated, they are are narrowing their thoughts for other possibilities such as allowing women to be pastors.
http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders
I was looking at the above in particular. Matt Slick claims
"There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling."
This implies that a man can have a calling, but no skill at preaching and still preach. A woman can be a prophet and having preaching skills, but will never have a calling. God calls no women for the job of preaching. But what is a "calling." Is it a voice inside a person's head, an urging? If it is as I say, then what validates a man's calling over a woman's?
I looked for an inherent quality of men over women that allowed only men to be pastors. I found none. The fact of the matter is, a vast majority of us are afraid of public speaking. A man can be tall, but then he'll have to be taller than other men to have a voice over other men. The fact of the matter is, the inherent quality of a pastor cannot by any means be a quality of gender, because assuming men are the more charismatic gender, that man will have to speak above other charismatic men. Also, we obviously know there are charismatic women and quiet men in this world.
Matt Slick claims that man was created first. First of all, the premise of entire idea of Adam and Eve is creationist. There's no evolutionary "Lucy" there, nor is there an assumption life could exist beyond Earth and Adam and Eve. Also, by mentioning the bible's Adam and Eve, Matt Slick abandons any claims for science, and therefore, any piece of information he takes from published empirical results should be scrutinized, assumed to have come from a particular agenda / biased, or his word abandoned all together. Also, another problem with mentioning chronology is that animals were created before humans. By Slick's reasoning, that would put animals above man as being more qualified than man to be pastors. Why then do Christians eat meat thereby killing God's creatures? Why would the chronology of man before woman only matter for the creation of humans and not all things?
Matt then says regarding female pastors: "are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?" In my opinion it is a desire. God is a desire for the mental stability of man, so male pastors also preach for their own desires. Everything a person does is inherently selfish anyways. Also, Matt Slick should also definitely answer to why he can say this when a lot of male pastors all say vastly different and possibly contradicting (gay churches) things in different churches and lead very different religions all across the world. He must answer if his goal as a believer is to help and not abandon non believers, and for the sake of his credibility.
I'll admit the article is well documented and logical in that it does follow a source called the bible. The problem is translation, interpretation, and the ideological contradictions it has with a ideologically changing society today. I won't agree with many Church leaders when many more women attend church than men do: http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/ . Possible solutions are to demand a legit reason for sexism in church or to abandon the church entirely. We cannot ask a church to change their doctrine because an opinion is an opinion protected by the first amendment, and here in America, we have freedom of religion.
One thing that organized religions (particularly Christianity) does is provide information on some passages, then leave it closed for comments or ratings. Only "thumbs up" are allowed thereby going against the philosophy of the first amendment, the market place of ideas. By not allowing articles to be evaluated, they are are narrowing their thoughts for other possibilities such as allowing women to be pastors.
http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders
I was looking at the above in particular. Matt Slick claims
"There are many gifted women who might very well do a better job at preaching and teaching than many men However, it isn't gifting that is the issue, but God's order and calling."
This implies that a man can have a calling, but no skill at preaching and still preach. A woman can be a prophet and having preaching skills, but will never have a calling. God calls no women for the job of preaching. But what is a "calling." Is it a voice inside a person's head, an urging? If it is as I say, then what validates a man's calling over a woman's?
I looked for an inherent quality of men over women that allowed only men to be pastors. I found none. The fact of the matter is, a vast majority of us are afraid of public speaking. A man can be tall, but then he'll have to be taller than other men to have a voice over other men. The fact of the matter is, the inherent quality of a pastor cannot by any means be a quality of gender, because assuming men are the more charismatic gender, that man will have to speak above other charismatic men. Also, we obviously know there are charismatic women and quiet men in this world.
Matt Slick claims that man was created first. First of all, the premise of entire idea of Adam and Eve is creationist. There's no evolutionary "Lucy" there, nor is there an assumption life could exist beyond Earth and Adam and Eve. Also, by mentioning the bible's Adam and Eve, Matt Slick abandons any claims for science, and therefore, any piece of information he takes from published empirical results should be scrutinized, assumed to have come from a particular agenda / biased, or his word abandoned all together. Also, another problem with mentioning chronology is that animals were created before humans. By Slick's reasoning, that would put animals above man as being more qualified than man to be pastors. Why then do Christians eat meat thereby killing God's creatures? Why would the chronology of man before woman only matter for the creation of humans and not all things?
Matt then says regarding female pastors: "are they submitting to the word of God or are they making the word of God submit to their desires?" In my opinion it is a desire. God is a desire for the mental stability of man, so male pastors also preach for their own desires. Everything a person does is inherently selfish anyways. Also, Matt Slick should also definitely answer to why he can say this when a lot of male pastors all say vastly different and possibly contradicting (gay churches) things in different churches and lead very different religions all across the world. He must answer if his goal as a believer is to help and not abandon non believers, and for the sake of his credibility.
I'll admit the article is well documented and logical in that it does follow a source called the bible. The problem is translation, interpretation, and the ideological contradictions it has with a ideologically changing society today. I won't agree with many Church leaders when many more women attend church than men do: http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/ . Possible solutions are to demand a legit reason for sexism in church or to abandon the church entirely. We cannot ask a church to change their doctrine because an opinion is an opinion protected by the first amendment, and here in America, we have freedom of religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)