I really don't think you should waste time judging whether or not you want to be in a relationship with someone based on the fun level. Not after the age of 25 lol. What's more, I think if you find the other person attractive, have enough in common, and you're comfortable being yourself around them, then you're set for at least the short term. If you drive each other, then you're definitely set for the long term. Quit over-thinking it. You have this person in addition to your other friends for fun.You're wasting time and missing out on what could turn out to be pure happiness in the future.
On a side note, fun is a two way street. Do your part.
I dunno... I do find myself pretty boring, but only when I'm under-stimulated. I can be pretty entertaining given the right company. That's just the type of person I am, though. I feed off other people's energy. If you act bored around me, I tend to be boring. But when you're having fun around me, I tend to feed off of that. Like I banter a lot, but that's hard to do when you're checking your text messages or staring at the wall blankly, waiting for me to perform some magic trick. Its part of the reason I killed my inner monologue lol. I say what I'm thinking, when I'm thinking it. It usually stirs something up.... so speak up.
Meh.. A feathered, ill-prepped pseudo rant. Please pull up to the second window.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Mr. knowitall
I can't say that I've *just* noticed this, but I have realized that there is a definite difference between the way people perceive a person with natural talent or knowledge in TV/Movies than they do in real life. I speak of this not only with person experience, but as I have observed with others.
In movies, if you were a naturally talented person and are aware that you have this talent, and never really pushed it on anyone other than sharing your knowledge or speaking up when you know for a fact someone is wrong -- typically you create jealousy. People admire but hate you, and it usually stays at that.
In real life, you're a douche.
Because you took the extra time to learn something, and have fact to back it up, no no... you're not smart or talented. Instead, you're a know it all. Or you're accused of always having to be right even though the people accusing you have never proven you wrong, rather have proven themselves to be wrong more often than not. You don't even have to push it on them, they do it to themselves.
So one might argue, "Why do you always have to correct people?". My answer would be "Why not?". My biggest issue with this is how can anyone be so committed to ignorance? Why would you allow someone to go around telling others something like: "The alert F16 that was sent to take out flight 93 on 911 was only loaded with 105 rounds of 20mm and nothing else. It had to be a conspiracy" when you actually used to crew F16s and you know damn well that wasn't an actual alert jet and it is more likely that most of the F16s on that base were broken and this jet was probably the closest thing to airworthy and was loaded only with priming rounds, which is common." See if I presented that, not many would argue with me... although some still would. The point is, if I were to allow you to go on vomiting that rubbish, I would be a hypocrite. It is people like this, who take pieces of information and form "facts" out of them and then spread it as truth, who are a large part of spreading ignorance. More ignorant people will believe you, the smart ones would do more objective research on it. Me, actually knowing something factual, having lived it -- if I were to keep my mouth shut and let you go on believing whatever it is you've convinced yourself is true and to spread that, it would be like me saying it was alright to do so, and it really isn't.
It's this sort of passive attitude towards ignorance that breeds ignorance. So who made me an authority on everything I've learned, or *think* I've learned, so much so that I'm qualified to tell you that you're wrong? No one. And more times than not, if the other person has an educated opinion or view on a matter, I'll take it as that, and it remains a two way conversation or maybe a healthy debate. And honestly, if I don't have anything intelligent to say about something, that is if I have nothing to back my argument, then I will not pretend that I do. Or I'll offer what I do know, listen to you, ask myself a few questions about the subject based on what you offered, and then if i'm interested I'll go research it on my own.
A long time ago, while I was still guilty of being a juvenile, I once entered a discussion regarding politics. I didn't really have any working knowledge on the subject, only my opinions. I was ripped apart in that discussion and it really made me feel like an idiot. I didn't do my homework. Never again. Now, like I said, I will not dig into a discussion without anything real to offer.
Maybe that's the difference between people from California and people from Arizona. The environment I was part of in California was competitive. If you lacked at something, then it was time to get your shit together otherwise you were looked down on. In Arizona, everyone wants to play nice (think about ABODA not sanctioning ranking systems for band competitions), no one wants to upset the harmony. If that guy over there is an idiot, it's better not to let him know. FUCK THAT, dude. Get the fuck over yourself.
So, really. I don't *need* to be right all the time. If you really think that, then you're the one with issues, not me. I don't skew facts to support my own arguments. The problem is that 85% of people who engage me in arguments have little or nothing to offer other than opinions. Now if that's what we're doing, sharing opinions, then sure whatever, it's yours and I might debate you on it, but that conversation would be short and civil. But when you're trying to tell me that the services industry is not a source of revenue for a country, then sorry -- but you're just plain fucking wrong. And no, I'm not going to let that go. The funny part is that if you told me that you didn't care if you were wrong or not and you were just gonna go on believing what you want, I'd probably scoff at you and drop it right there. But if you're gonna try to argue with me in attempt to correct me that services don't generate revenue because they don't actually produce a tangible good, then NO. Sorry, not gonna happen. Why is my knowledge greater than yours on this subject? Because the nation recognizes that services industry accounts for 76% of the fucking u.s. gross national product! That's why. It's not about my definition versus yours, it's that the definition I am arguing happens to be a global fucking fact.
This is what I'm talking about -- ignorance. Call it a weakness that I can't let this stuff go but I don't see it that way. I call it integrity. I hate ignorance. There are countless things that I don't know and I don't have any deluded dreams of learning everything, but I don't argue points that I haven't already formally researched and verified through practice. I never argue opinion as fact. And if you corner me in an argument, I will leave that argument, do my homework, and then come back to you. It seems like I seek out these arguments only because they're memorable. Why would you notice the arguments I avoid? I would rather exchange knowledge with others than argue the inaccuracy of someone's unstudied comment.
I'm not being a snob. I'm not being arrogant. I'm simply pissing on hypocrisy and promoting erudition. If you're gonna argue with me or suggest that I'm wrong, you better have done your homework.
In movies, if you were a naturally talented person and are aware that you have this talent, and never really pushed it on anyone other than sharing your knowledge or speaking up when you know for a fact someone is wrong -- typically you create jealousy. People admire but hate you, and it usually stays at that.
In real life, you're a douche.
Because you took the extra time to learn something, and have fact to back it up, no no... you're not smart or talented. Instead, you're a know it all. Or you're accused of always having to be right even though the people accusing you have never proven you wrong, rather have proven themselves to be wrong more often than not. You don't even have to push it on them, they do it to themselves.
So one might argue, "Why do you always have to correct people?". My answer would be "Why not?". My biggest issue with this is how can anyone be so committed to ignorance? Why would you allow someone to go around telling others something like: "The alert F16 that was sent to take out flight 93 on 911 was only loaded with 105 rounds of 20mm and nothing else. It had to be a conspiracy" when you actually used to crew F16s and you know damn well that wasn't an actual alert jet and it is more likely that most of the F16s on that base were broken and this jet was probably the closest thing to airworthy and was loaded only with priming rounds, which is common." See if I presented that, not many would argue with me... although some still would. The point is, if I were to allow you to go on vomiting that rubbish, I would be a hypocrite. It is people like this, who take pieces of information and form "facts" out of them and then spread it as truth, who are a large part of spreading ignorance. More ignorant people will believe you, the smart ones would do more objective research on it. Me, actually knowing something factual, having lived it -- if I were to keep my mouth shut and let you go on believing whatever it is you've convinced yourself is true and to spread that, it would be like me saying it was alright to do so, and it really isn't.
It's this sort of passive attitude towards ignorance that breeds ignorance. So who made me an authority on everything I've learned, or *think* I've learned, so much so that I'm qualified to tell you that you're wrong? No one. And more times than not, if the other person has an educated opinion or view on a matter, I'll take it as that, and it remains a two way conversation or maybe a healthy debate. And honestly, if I don't have anything intelligent to say about something, that is if I have nothing to back my argument, then I will not pretend that I do. Or I'll offer what I do know, listen to you, ask myself a few questions about the subject based on what you offered, and then if i'm interested I'll go research it on my own.
A long time ago, while I was still guilty of being a juvenile, I once entered a discussion regarding politics. I didn't really have any working knowledge on the subject, only my opinions. I was ripped apart in that discussion and it really made me feel like an idiot. I didn't do my homework. Never again. Now, like I said, I will not dig into a discussion without anything real to offer.
Maybe that's the difference between people from California and people from Arizona. The environment I was part of in California was competitive. If you lacked at something, then it was time to get your shit together otherwise you were looked down on. In Arizona, everyone wants to play nice (think about ABODA not sanctioning ranking systems for band competitions), no one wants to upset the harmony. If that guy over there is an idiot, it's better not to let him know. FUCK THAT, dude. Get the fuck over yourself.
So, really. I don't *need* to be right all the time. If you really think that, then you're the one with issues, not me. I don't skew facts to support my own arguments. The problem is that 85% of people who engage me in arguments have little or nothing to offer other than opinions. Now if that's what we're doing, sharing opinions, then sure whatever, it's yours and I might debate you on it, but that conversation would be short and civil. But when you're trying to tell me that the services industry is not a source of revenue for a country, then sorry -- but you're just plain fucking wrong. And no, I'm not going to let that go. The funny part is that if you told me that you didn't care if you were wrong or not and you were just gonna go on believing what you want, I'd probably scoff at you and drop it right there. But if you're gonna try to argue with me in attempt to correct me that services don't generate revenue because they don't actually produce a tangible good, then NO. Sorry, not gonna happen. Why is my knowledge greater than yours on this subject? Because the nation recognizes that services industry accounts for 76% of the fucking u.s. gross national product! That's why. It's not about my definition versus yours, it's that the definition I am arguing happens to be a global fucking fact.
This is what I'm talking about -- ignorance. Call it a weakness that I can't let this stuff go but I don't see it that way. I call it integrity. I hate ignorance. There are countless things that I don't know and I don't have any deluded dreams of learning everything, but I don't argue points that I haven't already formally researched and verified through practice. I never argue opinion as fact. And if you corner me in an argument, I will leave that argument, do my homework, and then come back to you. It seems like I seek out these arguments only because they're memorable. Why would you notice the arguments I avoid? I would rather exchange knowledge with others than argue the inaccuracy of someone's unstudied comment.
I'm not being a snob. I'm not being arrogant. I'm simply pissing on hypocrisy and promoting erudition. If you're gonna argue with me or suggest that I'm wrong, you better have done your homework.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)