Paul Eres ([info]rinku) wrote,
@ 2008-01-04 20:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:psychology, rinku

There was a psychological study once when a bunch of inmates in a mental home were asked to pretend to be normal, to act in a way that they thought normal people acted. Surprisingly, this cured most of them, and they were soon able to be released.

Inversely, sometimes I get the feeling that the world is populated by insane people pretending to be sane; they're cunning enough to have learned all the tricks of sanity and not be picked out and recognized as crazy, but under the seeming order is a fairly big degree of chaos.

I think that if this is true, this used to be true of me too during my teenage years, but isn't anymore. Because I remember what I was like to be 12 or 14, and I remember that a lot of what I did and said and thought was pretty purposeless and irrational, although I was always able to give rationalizations and paint it as semi-sane.

And now that I actually do feel sane, it's harder to convince people that I am, and I act much more stereotypically crazy, because I can no longer rationalize or explain why I do things, and just kind of treat it as unknown and mysterious.

But returning to the original point, I kind of strongly suspect that most people are as crazy as I used to be. For instance, creating a rationalization for what you do or believe or say, and believing in that rationalization, instead of just recognizing that you don't know why you do things, is pretty crazy. And that's just one example of how most people are pretending to know what they're doing and pretending to be in control of what they do even though they don't and aren't. I can recognize it because I used to do it myself.

Not that I'm defending mental institutions, I think everyone in them should be released immediately. Except for those who got out of going to jail because of the 'insanity defense', they can stay.



(Post a new comment)


[info]haggard
2008-01-05 08:01 am UTC (link)
Are you pretending to be crazy in this entry?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]charbile
2008-01-07 05:17 am UTC (link)
I'm getting the same vibe, specifically, the fourth paragraph about being sane and no longer able to rationalize actions. That's crazy.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-07 12:14 pm UTC (link)
Nope. You two are actually two of the best examples I had in mind of people who are crazy but are pretending not to be.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]charbile
2008-01-08 06:07 am UTC (link)
Yes, that is fairly clear. You're not going to make sense of this.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-08 12:19 pm UTC (link)
It does make sense to me, though. It's to you that it doesn't make sense.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 05:01 am UTC (link)
I am not sure where to begin with this post. One gathers, from your post, that things such as chemical imbalances in the brain are the creation of whim and are easily correctable by closing one's eyes and wishing.

And if you believe that, there's a Jack Chick Tract waiting for you just around the corner.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 05:03 am UTC (link)
One gathers that? Do you mean you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 05:08 am UTC (link)
Words have specific meanings. Figure it out.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 05:12 am UTC (link)
I understand, but I'm just not sure what you meant. There are two reasonable interpretations of what you meant:

1) That anyone would come to the same conclusion as you do, that what I intend in this entry is that chemical imbalances in the brain are the creation of whim and correctable by closing one's eyes and wishing, but that you yourself didn't necessarily come to that conclusion.

2) That you yourself came to that conclusion.

I'm just asking which of those two interpretations is true, because my reply to your comment would hinge on which it is; if I could figure it out I wouldn't have asked you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 05:16 am UTC (link)
Why would my actual meaning have any relevance in your reaction to my reply? after all, you said "I can no longer rationalize or explain why I do things, and just kind of treat it as unknown and mysterious." Such an abandonment of the awareness of causality would render the actual intention of my argument useless, since your interpretation will have no relationship to my argument itself, but rather it will be evoked through an unknown and mysterious source.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 05:23 am UTC (link)
I don't think that follows from what I wrote. Here's an example: let's say someone has an obsession with hand-washing. Now, they don't know why they have that obsession, it might be a subconscious habit caused by any number of reasons, such as brain chemistry as you mentioned. I think they'd be doing a disservice to themselves to make an explanation why up and believe in that explanation. And I think that if they admitted to themselves that they don't know why they have that obsession or what caused it, that admission that they don't know would not be a denial that there *is* a reason, it's only a denial that they know what that reason is.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 06:40 am UTC (link)
If you're only talking about the insane, then it nullifies what you are talking about, since they've already been identified as insane. So, what's the whole point of everything else you said? You can't use your example without the identification, your example rests on the very fact that it points out the abnormality of someone who suffers an Obsessive-Compulsive disorder.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 06:50 am UTC (link)
I've seen studies that almost everyone has some form of mental disorder, many of them undiagnosed. I wouldn't call everyone with OCD insane for instance, it's a pretty prevalent condition. Clinical depression is also very common, and there are many others. So I don't think it's true that they've all been identified.

The point of everything else I said was what I said; if you're unclear you can ask about a certain part. If you want a simplification, I was saying that it's far more insane to explain something about oneself that one doesn't know the cause of than it is to admit that one doesn't know why one does that inexplicable thing.

As a simple example, one minor quirk I have is that I always have to put on my shoes in the living room, not my bedroom or anywhere else, and I don't know why. I'm comfortable saying I don't know why. There are probably a half dozen things like that that most people have and don't know the origin of. And people who make up reasons for those things when they have no evidence for those reasons are more insane than people who do those things and can't explain them.

Edited at 2008-01-13 06:51 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 07:05 am UTC (link)
Here is a question for you, Rinku: Have you ever been in a mental institution?

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 07:06 am UTC (link)
And to clarify the question: no, not merely visited someone in a mental institution, nor taken a tour of it, but have you ever been institutionalized yourself?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 07:37 am UTC (link)
This is not the kind of thing someone would usually publicly admit if they have, so I have to decline to answer on grounds of intrusiveness. I don't normally mind being honest, but personalized questions like this aren't really something I'm comfortable with discussing with strangers.

I will say at least that I've had a lot of friends and family who have.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 07:57 am UTC (link)

Then the best I can do is assume that you don't really know what it's like inside.

"I don't normally mind being honest, but..."

Why should an Objectivist mind being honest?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 08:02 am UTC (link)
That's fine. If you've been there, could you describe what it's like inside, so I could compare it to what I know? I also think it varies by the state and location.

Where did I ever say I was an Objectivist?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 08:08 am UTC (link)

If you're not an objectivist, why are you maintaining the Ayn Rand Forum, and why did newedition meet you in an Objectivist community?

And yes, I can provide you a personal account from my partner, who has been in it. Should you want one, then message asherwolf on LJ.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 08:24 am UTC (link)
One can be interested in a philosophy without belonging to it. I've read all of AR's published works (with the exception of the marginalia which I still haven't gotten around to reading), in most cases several times each; I know the philosophy pretty well, and I enjoy discussing it with others, but I've never called myself an Objectivist. I'd estimate that, even by their own admissions, more than half of the people in most Objectivist communities are not Objectivists. It's not particularly strange to be interested in a philosophy without being an adherent of it, no? Is everyone who likes reading Plato and participates in discussions of Plato a Platonist?

I wouldn't want to ask a stranger about it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 08:26 am UTC (link)
What is the benefit of your doing this? What secondary benefit are you gaining?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 08:28 am UTC (link)
Do you mean what benefits have I gained from Objectivism? A great deal, more than I could list in a LJ comment.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 08:36 am UTC (link)
Another Toohey. The search goes on.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 08:42 am UTC (link)
Could you elaborate on what makes you say that?

As an aside, there actually is a [info]toohey.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-13 07:11 am UTC (link)
You see a lot of these studies.
How many of these did you conduct yourself?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 07:39 am UTC (link)
None, but is it really necessary to conduct a study yourself before you give credence to it? It's always a good idea to read through the methodology, but provided the methodology is scientific, I don't see a reason to disregard data simply because I didn't collect it. Some of it is extremely prosaic data, like the amount of prescription drugs prescribed for different mental disorders per person.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2008-01-13 06:56 am UTC (link)
To give an example of someone doing the opposite, my mother has an OCD condition sometimes called 'pack rat' -- she collects everything, and the house is full of junk; if she sees something in the garbage she has to collect it and bring it home, no matter how useless I and others try to convince her it is. She constantly rationalizes this by saying she might one day use the item in question and all the other thousands of items that she's collected, even though she's about 55 and has pretty much never made much use of the huge pile of tens of thousands of pounds of junk that she's collected. I think she'd be far more sane to admit that she has a problem collecting things and doesn't know why she does than to insist that she collects it because she might use each and everything she collects one day.

Edited at 2008-01-13 06:57 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-14 03:47 am UTC (link)
There is a famous man characterized by his self-admitted lack of a coherent reason nor rationalization for his compulsive behaviors: Jeffrey Dahmer. Considering Dahmer was one of the most sane people in the world alongside sociopaths, since most criminals have specific and even rationalized motives, and we ourselves have rationalizations for why we DON'T engage in these behaviors, it's really a shame he was killed by his inmates.

(Reply to this)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-14 03:49 am UTC (link)
It's one thing to recognize that you don't know why you are doing something... it's something entirely different to not do anything about it (such as never going to a clinic because one perhaps doesn't exist). I can only imagine the scores of individuals and their families you'd bring harm things were your way.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-14 03:49 am UTC (link)
*harm to if things

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2008-01-14 06:07 am UTC (link)
I'm not sure I'm understanding your comments correctly, could you clarify?

But at least I agree that a person shouldn't just be satisfied with not knowing, and a person should always strive to understand themselves and their motivations. But the problems of false conclusions might be just as great as the problems of not having any explanation at all -- sometimes a bad explanation is better than no conclusion.

For instance, when we used to use the four elements of fire/water/wind/air to explain chemistry, a bad conclusion about how chemistry worked held back development of the periodic table; likewise with the sun going around the earth and so on; it might have been better if it were left open as unexplained rather than using false theories which blocked out the true ones.

Thanks for reading the entry though,

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-14 02:43 pm UTC (link)
I'm only reiterating what you said in a different form. You didn't talk about striving to figure out why, trying to reach a right conclusion if you can. You talked about accepting no conclusion at all.

You said in order to be someone who has a reason to do thing AND sane, one must accept that one has no reason and is insane. It's perceiving reality through misperception, which you should be familiar with given you discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy . It's covered in the first chapter of "The New Intellectual"

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-16 06:45 am UTC (link)
One's motivations can't be directly perceived through the senses, they're conceptual knowledge which requires a string of deduction to determine. As an example: what was your motivation in posting here? It's not something you can just sense or test. It may have been that maus_merryjest pointed the entry out to you and you had a motivation to support his argument; or it may have been that you just don't like the idea of not accepting some of your motivations as unknown; or it may have been a friendly concern for my well being; or it may have been a feeling of contradiction with your philosophy; or it may have been some entirely different motivation, or some combination. Such knowledge about one's motivations isn't automatic, it has to be figured out, and often, those that do so can get their conclusions wrong.

It is true that I didn't mention the importance of trying to determine what one's motivations are, but absence of saying something does not mean I don't believe something. Some things are just too obvious to state.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-16 10:38 pm UTC (link)
I'm not questioning your motives, or saying what your motives are. I will state again that you initially did not talk about striving to figure out why, and that you should try to reach a conclusion if you can. You hinted at it inconclusively at first to Maus, then completely ignored it again in your 'shoes' example. I never wrote what I thought you believed or your motivations, I wrote about what you wrote.

What catches me is your consideration of obviousness. I'd like to examine this state of 'too obvious'.

"Some things are just too obvious to state." ... "One gathers that? Do you mean you?"

You extend the first to yourself as a defense, but you do not extend that same courtesy to others such as your quoted reply to Maus.

"I'm comfortable saying I don't know why."

Are we to assume, because you don't say it and it's obvious, that you are comfortable with not finding out why? Or are we to assume, because you don't mention it and it's obvious, that you are not comfortable with not finding out why and instead wish to?

"... it's only a denial that they know what that reason is."

This is true. But you leave us to fill in the 'obvious' blanks for you, which no one should have to do to understand your argument if you present it well, and given the intellectual you are (after reading your reviews) I personally find the presentation lacking. You've had to re-clarify, and even back-pedal to fill in blanks you left out so many times now, it's unclear what you were trying to say in the first place.

"I don't normally mind being honest..."

Rather than being honest and simply stating that you wish to not discuss it in this forum, which you later state, you write that perhaps you AREN'T being honest. I mean, given the words alone, it is obvious to me that you are lying, otherwise you wouldn't say that you mind being honest. I'm sure it's obvious to you that when you said honest you meant the colloquial version of frankness, but it's not obvious to the rest of us, as you can see by Maus' reply.

"If you've been there, could you describe what it's like inside, so I could compare it to what I know?" ... "I wouldn't want to ask a stranger about it."

Is there something obvious I'm not getting about this contradiction?

"Do you mean what benefits have I gained from Objectivism? A great deal, more than I could list in a LJ comment."

I'm surprised that, given your purported intellectual substance, you can't summarize. I'll summarize my experiences as an example: in the last 15 years that I've studied and applied Objectivism I have gained a deeper understanding of value and principle. I have found that the virtues of selfishness are the only methods on which I've garnered any success, as opposed to other endeavors based on other notions. Without Objectivism I believe I'd be a good person whose belief system would constantly be battling with itself over all of its contradictions, rather than contemplating my observations and premises. Perhaps you think that's cookie cutter, but I find it sufficient to explain my benefits.

"I think she'd be far more sane to admit that she has a problem collecting things and doesn't know why..."

Yes she would far more sane to admit she has a problem.

In fact everything you've been trying to say has already been laid out in one form or another by Dr. William Glasser in Choice Theory and Reality Therapy, and in a much more consistent fashion. The difference is that he doesn't stop and say that it is sane to just realize you don't know why yet continue the behavior (your 'shoes' example), which is what you originally stated and then back-pedaled on because it was 'too obvious to state'.

Edited at 2008-01-16 10:41 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-18 06:02 am UTC (link)
I don't have time to respond to everything here, but a few points:

- What's obvious to my readers may not be obvious to you, who don't normally read my LJ. I wrote this LJ entry for myself and for my friends, it was not an argument designed for public consumption, so what is obvious to people who know me may not be obvious to people who don't. So of course the presentation is lacking; it's my personal journal, not the New Yorker.

- About the contradiction you mentioned, I asked him about the experience because he was using it to claim that I had no idea what I was talking about, and I only asked about it in that context, as a way for him to support his argument that his hearsay from you was superior to what I know about it, so I wasn't curious on its own merit.

- That's a good summary, but what I gained from Obj is different from that. I may write an entry about it one day, I just felt that a LJ comment couldn't do it justice.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-19 04:31 am UTC (link)
The contradiction still stands. You cannot determine if his 'hearsay' (which you now have an opportunity to hear it first person) is superior to what you know about it without actually having an interest in it's merit. He cannot prove it's superiority in any fashion without having to prove to you it's merit, thus taking the experience as a whole into account. You can't dismiss the experience in one breath, and then claim that you were giving Maus a fair chance to display the merit of the experience. This leads me to believe that you really might have been setting Maus up for a trap, since in the end, as you've stated, you weren't actually interested in the content of the argument but on the persuasiveness of the writer. It's somewhat like how you place more importance on discussing a topic than the topic itself.

On another note, I never said that what you gain from Objectivism was the same as mine, I said that you have not displayed, and continue to not display in this instance, the ability to summarize when such a summary would actually help your case. Next you'll be saying you weren't making a case... oh, you just did.

If it's not an "argument designed for public consumption" then why did you argue it? If you had told Maus this before anything else, you wouldn't have to argue it at all. It's plain to see that you did and do want to argue it, otherwise you wouldn't keep trying to back yourself up. You only give up on it now after, well, after a post of mine pulling everything you said together and pointing out how erratic it was. This is of course, from my point of view, as a random reader of your blog.

That's right, I've seen and read parts of it before. Not just this entry.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-19 04:52 am UTC (link)
I didn't mean to dismiss the experience, I apologize if it seemed that way. The contradiction does still stand, but it is possible to be interested in something and then not be interested in it later. As an aside, I'm still not sure what led Maus to bring up my knowledge of mental institutions, perhaps he misinterpreted the point of the entry, which I admit was easy to do.

I wouldn't say that it wasn't a case or that I have no case, just that it was a case only of interest to me. I am kind of surprised and honored he or you care this much about what I think.

I don't consider this LJ a blog, it's a personal journal. But I'm happy you read it.

If you really want a summary to ask twice, I won't deny you, though I don't see what relevance it has to this entry. As a summary, this is what I gained from Objectivism:

- A gained good introduction to epistemology from Objectivism, and through Objectivism I got started in thinking about its connection to aesthetics, and I think a big part of my skill as a game developer comes from my knowledge of aesthetics, my work has benefited a lot from this understanding.

- I met several of my best friends through communities and forums related to Objectivism; these include newedition, wynand, miyu_sakura, and several others. Even though this wasn't actually a benefit *of* Objectivism, I still think it's very important.

There's a lot more, but those two are likely the biggest two.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-16 10:38 pm UTC (link)
"Not that I'm defending mental institutions, I think everyone in them should be released immediately."

This is the one I find the most trouble with, in terms of obviousness. Is it supposed to be obvious to us that you think no one is really crazy? Is it supposed to be obvious that you think they mistreat patients? What alternatives are supposed to be obvious to us, that you do not provide, purportedly because they are too obvious?

This statement underscores everything you've said, and is why everyone seems to have a problem with it.

Where does someone go when they've gone manic or dysphoric and have to literally be sat on so they don't injure themselves until the police arrive to secure them and protect them against injuring themselves? If they go to the hospital, wouldn't that be mental treatment that's part of an institution? Let's say you don't count that.

Then where does the man who's schizophrenic, believes he absorbs energy from the sun (so he doesn't eat on his own), can't go to the bathroom on his own, can't take care of himself, believes he's god, and has no kin willing to take care of him go? Where would he be three-month certified to? What case-worker would be assigned to him to try to support him enough so he can live on his own and not be homeless like he was when he got to them? What institution would take care of him?

This statement is the reason why everyone here is conveniently misinterpreting and misunderstanding what you are saying, because your entire post is tainted with that one statement. We can only assume, out of obviousness, that your argument supports that statement.

In the end, it's not our job to fill in all the obvious blanks for you and then admire how intelligent you are. In fact, it seems to me personally, you use these obvious blanks to flit from one place to the next, fleshing out your argument in defense, in an almost inconsistent fashion. In short, you use that which is 'too obvious to state' to protect yourself from being wrong.

However, I don't expect you to provide a rationalization for why you do this, as one could say that would be providing a reason for a problematic behavior, and I don't think you want to be considered insane.

Edited at 2008-01-16 11:02 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-18 06:03 am UTC (link)
- That last part about releasing them was a joke; and again, that might be something that only people who know me may have perceived.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]maus_merryjest
2008-01-19 04:16 am UTC (link)
Charbile knows you, and he came to the same conclusion I did. Funny that.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-19 04:54 am UTC (link)
(02:18:42) Paul Eres: oh, btw
(02:18:46) Paul Eres: your two furry objectivist friends
(02:18:50) Paul Eres: found my entry through yours
(02:18:53) Paul Eres: and attacked me for it

(02:19:05) Kevin Loan: I saw that, sorry
(02:19:17) Kevin Loan: I wouldn't have linked to it if I knew
(02:19:53) Kevin Loan: they don't understand.. or i guess a better wording is they haven't made it to your level yet

(02:20:03) Paul Eres: neither have you

(02:20:11) Kevin Loan: they're still caught up in the 'ambassador of objectivism" phase

Kevin Loan is Charbile.

Edited at 2008-01-19 05:04 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-19 09:53 am UTC (link)
"or i guess a better wording is they haven't made it to your level yet"

I didn't realize this was a Dungeons and Dragons game.

I'm going to equate "level" with maturity and enlightenment for the moment, though I honestly have no idea what "level" is supposed to mean.

Is someone who posts the private conversation between him and his friend who obviously is not sharing the same opinion with you as he is with him a very mature, enlightened person? Does Charbile know you posted this?

Really, I'm done asking so many questions that you don't answer, so I'm simply going to state it. I'm not embarrassed by this reply-post. I don't feel backstabbed, and I don't feel deflated. I am confident to say I was fair in how I approached you and my interpretation of your post. If disagreeing with your position and feeling like it was something important enough to say something about is equivalent to 'attacking' you, then yes, I did 'come into' your journal (a journal which I already knew about independent of Charbile) and 'attack' you.

I can't control the fact that you have now taken this personally enough to consider it an attack, rather than a discussion of what you wrote. So the last part you wrote was a joke, fine, after having said my piece, I do actually believe you. Due to your behavior being beyond my control, I don't really care how you, or Charbile think of me. Honestly, I have nothing to prove when it comes down to it, as much as you have extended yourself this courtesy as well. I do this for fun, and have no investment in whether it has any effect on you at all. Paint that as ridiculous as you want, but you have stated the same thing in different forms across this whole dialog.

I used to passionately argue about Objectivism, thinking that everyone should agree with me, but I don't do that anymore because it's pointless, and really has nothing to do with what Objectivism is about. In fact, you might have noticed I mentioned Objectivism only in reply to when it came up in the discussion and the whole rest of the time I spent writing words about the words you wrote.

I also used to talk about "levels" or "phases" and how some people are in their first "phase" where they argue it, then their "second" phase where they want to be Galt, and so on. I don't talk about it like that anymore either, because it's equally as pointless and only serves to bolster your own ego through dependence on others alleged lack of understanding.

So... if I were to use yours and allegedly Charbile's words, no... I haven't made it to your level. I don't even have a level, because I am just what I am in no comparison to you, and thus, I don't care.

It's you at your level who are now attempting to raise the stakes towards a highly personal arena. It's you who are trying to make everything here become an attack and counter-attack, and I never wanted to play that game.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-19 10:11 am UTC (link)
I don't think he knows yet, but I don't think he'd particularly mind either.

I used the term attack loosely. I didn't take it personally. I found it fun. However I doubt you could interpret calling someone a "toohey" as discussion rather than an attack.

I agree that it makes little sense to talk about levels. But it's the way Charbile talks, and I humor him.

I posted this excerpt not as an attack or a counter-attack, I posted it only to show that Charbile got the joke and realized that you two didn't.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-20 07:30 am UTC (link)
I only spoke for myself, not for Maus, whom you quoted.

I didn't say that you posted this as an attack or counter-attack, if you interpreted me this way, I apologize. What I was trying to say is that by this posting you are raising the stakes towards an interaction of attacks and counter-attacks and that I wasn't going to go there.

As far as you and I go, I personally get the feeling that you hide behind mixed messages and then only state your convenient intentions later. I only feel this because you seem to pursue one thing one way, then claim you were attempting to procure something else from it. I don't believe our two personalities can truly pursue a productive discussion, nor would really desire to in the long run.

So, thank you for the discussion and the opportunity to finally write something in your journal.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-20 12:08 pm UTC (link)
I don't really see any of the messages as mixed. But again, this is something that easily gets lost in communication and I understand how you could be misinterpreting things. I don't think it's a good idea to judge someone's personality based on one interaction.

Not that I particularly want to pursue productive discussion with you or anyone else. I don't believe discussions work unless you know people well. Even among the most rational of people. This is because two people who don't have much experience with each other don't know much about how the other thinks, what they mean by certain words, their beliefs, and so on.

So I don't usually attempt them with strangers, I save it for friends, it's difficult enough with them. Or when I do speak to strangers, it's often as a game, I don't take it as seriously and I don't expect them to take it as seriously. I've observed countless times that things that my friends say where it seems obvious to me what they mean can be utterly misinterpreted and cause confusion in people who don't know them.

I think this is universal among communication; communication requires that each person knows what the other person's premises are, that they know what each other connotes and denotes with their words, etc.

I sometimes, years later, re-read early conversations I've had with a friend when I was first getting to know them. I like to save instant message logs, and LJ threads are forever. And what strikes me when I do that is how poorly we communicated and how often we misinterpreted the other in those early times, compared to how I am with that particular person now.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]asherwolf
2008-01-19 04:48 am UTC (link)
It's a joke now? After all of this, now it's a joke.

"It does make sense to me, though. It's to you that it doesn't make sense."

Was this also a joke? A, I know what you are but what am I, Pee-Wee Herman impersonation, or was this the serious part?

You say it's a joke now, but in the a reply-post you JUST made prior to this one you wrote, "I asked him about the experience because he was using it to claim that I had no idea what I was talking about, and I only asked about it in that context, as a way for him to support his argument that his hearsay from you was superior to what I know about it, so I wasn't curious on its own merit."

Since the mental institution part was an integral part of the argument at this point, why didn't you tell him that what you said about the mental institution was a joke? Did it not suit you at that particular time but it does now?

Really, Rinku...

How dumb do you think we are? Now your line of argument which you so ambiguously pursued has been broken down into, "Well, if you knew me then you would have understood."

Well, if you knew me Rinku, then everything I said would have been in a way that you would have agreed with me because you'd know to disregard the parts that don't make sense.

Doesn't that sound ridiculous? It is essentially, however, what you are saying after everything else you've said.

Everything you've written up until this point paints yourself as pursuing one argument or another, and the ultimate end of the argument that you are making, whether you meant to or not, is now claimed as a joke.

In summary, if this post was one of a personal journey with a little joke at the end, if you are being honest now, then you misrepresented yourself by pushing the post as something more. Either way you're lying.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]rinku
2008-01-19 05:02 am UTC (link)
That line to charbile was an in-joke, yes.

The reason I didn't tell him about the joke then was because I didn't care whether he thought it was a joke or not.

I agree that what I said was ridiculous. But it's still true.

I wouldn't call the post a personal journey with a little joke at the end, and I don't know what you mean by pushing the post as something more. The joke was integral to the entry, but not in the sense that it literally meant I thought we should empty out all the mental institutions.

As an analogy, think about something like this:

'I think it's a bad idea to cook dinner without knowing much about kind of food you're cooking. All chefs should be forced to take botany and zoology on penalty of starvation.'

Now the second part is obviously humorous and not intended seriously, but it's also not just tacked on, it's relevant in a way to the first part. This entry has a similar structure.

Edited at 2008-01-19 05:06 am UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]rinku
2008-01-19 05:19 am UTC (link)
To elaborate on why the ridiculous thing is true, I have a style of humor which can easily be mistaken as serious if someone isn't familiar with it. I agree that it's ridiculous to use that as an excuse normally, but it really is true that most of the things I write take some familiarity with my style of writing to get.

I often write in favor of positions that I don't agree with, and advocate them so strongly that they are humorous. If you're familiar with the type of comedy that Steve Colbert uses, it's somewhat similar, although his is a bit more obvious. Here are two examples:

http://rinku.livejournal.com/1367604.html
http://rinku.livejournal.com/1375555.html

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…