Friends?

[PlantinMoretus]

 

No, a lot of people (well, me at least) are saying that if you are writing off most people as dull and boring and have trouble finding worthwhile companionship, the problem is probably you.

 

But that's just an insult based on your assumptions, you have no evidence to back it up.  It also does nothing to address the problem - even as you define it.  What should such a person do?  How much time and energy should they give to banal conversations?  How much of a real friendship can you have with people who really do only ever want to talk about banal stuff?

 

And before you say "you are not the judge of what is banal!", consider the kinds of topics that I'm saying are banal: the terms of one's car insurance and the insurance payouts to various people you know who had car accidents; finding a good deal on a baby stroller on a trip out of town and the hassles involved with bringing it home; what clothes to take on a Vegas vacation; how your family decided to exchange gift cards rather than gifts for Christmas this year to save hassle.  That is just a sampling of the typical conversations had among most of the people I know.  Tell me how someone with an intellectual bent is supposed to work up an interest in all that?  On a day-in day-out basis?

 

I mean that quite seriously: tell me how to solve that problem.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

But that's just an insult based on your assumptions, you have no evidence to back it up.  It also does nothing to address the problem - even as you define it.  What should such a person do?  How much time and energy should they give to banal conversations?  How much of a real friendship can you have with people who really do only ever want to talk about banal stuff?

 

And before you say "you are not the judge of what is banal!", consider the kinds of topics that I'm saying are banal: the terms of one's car insurance and the insurance payouts to various people you know who had car accidents; finding a good deal on a baby stroller on a trip out of town and the hassles involved with bringing it home; what clothes to take on a Vegas vacation; how your family decided to exchange gift cards rather than gifts for Christmas this year to save hassle.  That is just a sampling of the typical conversations had among most of the people I know.  Tell me how someone with an intellectual bent is supposed to work up an interest in all that?  On a day-in day-out basis?

 

I mean that quite seriously: tell me how to solve that problem.

Then you know some lame ass people. You want us to feel sorry for you because everyone you know talks about banal shit? I don't really see what you're getting at. The OP was saying how he has trouble making friends. Then it turned into the whole intellectual vs simpleton and academic vs layman debate. Some people have fun personalities and/or talk about deep shit. There are boring plumbers and boring scientists. There are interesting plumbers and interesting scientists. So everyone you know is boring and talks about banal shit. What's your point?

[QASP]

But that's just an insult based on your assumptions, you have no evidence to back it up.  It also does nothing to address the problem - even as you define it.  What should such a person do?  How much time and energy should they give to banal conversations?  How much of a real friendship can you have with people who really do only ever want to talk about banal stuff?

 

And before you say "you are not the judge of what is banal!", consider the kinds of topics that I'm saying are banal: the terms of one's car insurance and the insurance payouts to various people you know who had car accidents; finding a good deal on a baby stroller on a trip out of town and the hassles involved with bringing it home; what clothes to take on a Vegas vacation; how your family decided to exchange gift cards rather than gifts for Christmas this year to save hassle.  That is just a sampling of the typical conversations had among most of the people I know.  Tell me how someone with an intellectual bent is supposed to work up an interest in all that?  On a day-in day-out basis?

 

I mean that quite seriously: tell me how to solve that problem.

 

Well, my intention is not to insult so much as to challenge you to consider the problem from a different angle and I made it after several more complex and thoughtful post above from various others failed to get the message through (and, given that the implication of your statements is that more than half the world is dimwitted non-intellectuals not worth knowing, I don't feel too bad insulting/challenging just one person).

 

I'm not sure what "evidence" you expect me to have; neither of us has "evidence," this is a conversation on the internet. My evidence is your post. I could cite the many people I know who are intelligent and deep but that others perceive as dull because they don't get to know them well enough to see them open up and talk about their philosophical interpretation of Spike Lee films or whatever else. I also know people who complain constantly about others but who are clearly not putting in the effort or get frustrated too easily about the "banal" nature of much typical human interaction. I'd also say that you and others in this thread are complaining you are unhappy due to the types of human interactions you have; your reaction to others is very much your problem.

 

I could get pretty deep on the nature of gift giving myself. I'd recommend you consider all of this from the perspective of the fundamental attribution error (look it up if you're not familiar). You are saying most people are not interesting, but are you sure it's not just that you don't know them well enough or in the right surroundings?

 

Let me tell you a couple stories.

 

In another life, my boyfriend wanted to introduce me to a couple friends of his who he implied were real academic types, and a bit country club as well. I can be a pretty weird and out there person, so for these friends of his I toned myself down and acted in the way I thought was appropriate for them. I thought we were having a great time, as I put on this sort of act for them. It later came back through a friend of a friend that basically meeting me was "imagine the most boring person you have ever met, and now double that experience." They thought I was dull and banal, because I was playing out what I thought the expected social role was in that situation. Kind of hurt in that situation, but actually in terms of people I work with in an office environment on a day-to-day basis I'd much rather they say that than know some of the stranger things about me.

 

Just this weekend, I went to a party at a friend's house. I've been there before, and had many deep and worthwhile conversations with the friend and the various people who tend to come out for his events. This particular weekend, however, a lot of people who frustrate me showed up, and they ended up monopolizing the conversations with my otherwise interesting friends. But it's not that my friends aren't interesting, it's just that they are also capable of having these fairly boring conversations with people who don't seem capable of going beyond that. It was, in fact, a pretty boring weekend, but hey I rode through it and I'll have deep conversations with the people I do like again. I'm not saying there are no boring people, but I genuinely do not think it is "most people." A lot of the people I know are academics who enjoy intellectual conversation but also are capable of (and appear to enjoy) discussing credit cards, Vegas vacations, and popular television shows. Thus suggesting a piece of the problem is you and your approach to things, not everyone else.

 

I don't know what to tell you about the people talking about baby strollers though. Hang out with homosexuals? People with kids are nuts.

Edited May 27, 2014 by QASP

[PlantinMoretus]

 

 are you sure it's not just that you don't know them well enough or in the right surroundings?

 

Yeah, I am sure.  All that was drawn from a variety of people I've known for different lengths of time in various settings.

 

Also, I'm in my mid-40s so I've met lots of people over the years, including a stint overseas, and have been involved in different community/group things too.  It seems unlikely that in all that time, lots of those people had hidden depths that I just failed to discover.  Trust me, I looked, I waited, I tossed out a few pebbles and... nothing.

 

Remember what I said upthread about how most people do not read a serious book or long article on a serious topic (or watch a documentary or go to an event or whatever) in an entire year.  The functional literacy of the general population is like less than 50%.  Look at what the most popular TV shows are - THAT is where the culture is at.  Is it really surprising that an intellectually curious person would find few people to talk to in such a culture?  The numbers alone work against them.

 

 

your reaction to others is very much your problem

 

Nope, you can't just throw it onto the other person without justification.  Particularly when you relate anecdotes that show your own, not 100% positive not 100% under your control, reactions to certain people.

 

And you can't just decide to feel that you have connected meaningfully to another person, anymore than you can just decide to be physically attracted to someone.  It has to be genuine.  And frankly, no, I don't feel that I am flawed in some way because a diet of car-insurance or celebrity-gossip discussions doesn't cut it for me.

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Yeah, I am sure.  All that was drawn from a variety of people I've known for different lengths of time in various settings.

 

Also, I'm in my mid-40s so I've met lots of people over the years, including a stint overseas, and have been involved in different community/group things too.  It seems unlikely that in all that time, lots of those people had hidden depths that I just failed to discover.  Trust me, I looked, I waited, I tossed out a few pebbles and... nothing.

 

Remember what I said upthread about how most people do not read a serious book or long article on a serious topic (or watch a documentary or go to an event or whatever) in an entire year.  The functional literacy of the general population is like less than 50%.  Look at what the most popular TV shows are - THAT is where the culture is at.  Is it really surprising that an intellectually curious person would find few people to talk to in such a culture?  The numbers alone work against them.

 

 

Nope, you can't just throw it onto the other person without justification.  Particularly when you relate anecdotes that show your own, not 100% positive not 100% under your control, reactions to certain people.

 

And you can't just decide to feel that you have connected meaningfully to another person, anymore than you can just decide to be physically attracted to someone.  It has to be genuine.  And frankly, no, I don't feel that I am flawed in some way because a diet of car-insurance or celebrity-gossip discussions doesn't cut it for me.

If you've been reading this thread, you would've seen the debates about academics vs non-academics. Some people were saying they can only get along with other academics because, like you said, those are the few people in society who are functionally literate. But you're making it sound like in all your 40 years on Earth, you can't find any functionally literate people. They exist. They're in society, through few and scattered, and they're heavily concentrated in academia. So I still fail to see your point. I'm of the group that knows a lot of non-academics in society who are capable of having deep conversations, but I do agree that the likelihood of finding an intelligent person is in academia. You're making it seem like you've been all around the world and everyone you've come across is only capable of talking about taxes or television. Well, sucks to be you. Maybe you associate with a bunch of uptight, brain bleached suburbians. Maybe you need to learn how to let your hair down and joke around. If you can't find anyone to converse with, that's your own damn fault. I've only been on this Earth for 28 years and I've found groups I can get philosophical with, get creative with, exchange jokes with, get all intellectual and academic with, and talk about "mindless" shit like football. Sorry your life has sucked so bad. 

[dstock]

But that's just an insult based on your assumptions, you have no evidence to back it up.  It also does nothing to address the problem - even as you define it.  What should such a person do?  How much time and energy should they give to banal conversations?  How much of a real friendship can you have with people who really do only ever want to talk about banal stuff?

 

And before you say "you are not the judge of what is banal!", consider the kinds of topics that I'm saying are banal: the terms of one's car insurance and the insurance payouts to various people you know who had car accidents; finding a good deal on a baby stroller on a trip out of town and the hassles involved with bringing it home; what clothes to take on a Vegas vacation; how your family decided to exchange gift cards rather than gifts for Christmas this year to save hassle.  That is just a sampling of the typical conversations had among most of the people I know.  Tell me how someone with an intellectual bent is supposed to work up an interest in all that?  On a day-in day-out basis?

 

I mean that quite seriously: tell me how to solve that problem.

 

A lot of people just make that kind of small talk because its safe, easy for others to relate to, appropriate for a work setting, etc.  Its just basic vanilla conversation that lets you connect w/most people on a superficial level and won't risk offending anyone.  This is obvious right?  Many people have more substantial interests below the surface.

 

You mentioned all people want to talk about is celebrity gossip/car insurance/etc.  Many people have interests in art, activism, different periods in history, reading, community-related things, economics, current events, etc etc. Maybe not academic thesis level discussions (is that what you are looking for?) but definitely several steps above banal celebrity gossip and pop music you are referencing.

[Scarf in the wind]

A lot of people just make that kind of small talk because its safe, easy for others to relate to, appropriate for a work setting, etc.  Its just basic vanilla conversation that lets you connect w/most people on a superficial level and won't risk offending anyone.  This is obvious right?  Many people have more substantial interests below the surface.

 

You mentioned all people want to talk about is celebrity gossip/car insurance/etc.  Many people have interests in art, activism, different periods in history, reading, community-related things, economics, current events, etc etc. Maybe not academic thesis level discussions (is that what you are looking for?) but definitely several steps above banal celebrity gossip and pop music you are referencing.

I guess you're lucky. The people I'm around at work, and outside of work, are not in any way interested in anything but celebrity gossip and pop music, and other banal stuff. Depends on who you are around. Again, I only get the type of talk above all of said banal crap in academia, not outside of it.

[dstock]

Yeah, I'm not saying everyone has deeper interests but these people are out there!  You may have to steer the conversation in that direction or ask questions to facilitate.  I was trying to say those are the easiest/default topics to go to with people you don't know well.  And some people do have interests but just prefer to keep the conversation light. 

 

I am actually satisfied a nice mix of banal discussions, sharing personal experiences (things they do with their families, activities/events/hobbies they do in the community) with an occasional deeper topic when there is a common interest.  (I may not be much luckier than you in terms of people, I just am OK with a lower level of conversation, haha)

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

Yeah, I'm not saying everyone has deeper interests but these people are out there!  You may have to steer the conversation in that direction or ask questions to facilitate.  I was trying to say those are the easiest/default topics to go to with people you don't know well.  And some people do have interests but just prefer to keep the conversation light. 

 

I am actually satisfied a nice mix of banal discussions, sharing personal experiences (things they do with their families, activities/events/hobbies they do in the community) with an occasional deeper topic when there is a common interest.  (I may not be much luckier than you in terms of people, I just am OK with a lower level of conversation, haha)

You break it down very easily. I agree when you said "banal" talk is obviously filtered conversation as to not offend strangers. Like you say, it's obvious. Which is why I'm confused that a group of intellectuals is having such a hard time grasping this. 

 

Also, people are acting like society is this giant place filled with everyone who is the complete opposite of you. Of course it's easier to find intellectually stimulating conversation at a university. It's a fuckin university. Much like you're pretty likely to hear conversations about drums and electric guitars at a music store. Society is just the cesspool where we all live. All of us in society do something. We're academics, musicians, politicians, doctors, soldiers, athletes, etc. You just don't know who's who since we're all just randomly assorted. It isn't a concentration of one type of person like at a university or a music store. That's the whole point of socializing. You get to know these people and figure out who's who. There are even other academics out in society. You just don't know they're academics until you talk to them. It seems like people are having trouble with starting the conversation and getting it beyond a point of filtered small talk to a point of deeper, more meaningful talk. Most people have something interesting to talk about. The problem is, you have to get them to talk about it. We don't know who's who out in society. That's why it's harder to "be ourselves" initially. We filter ourselves until we get a feel for someone. We don't want to start cursing like a sailor only to find out the person is extremely religious. It seems like people think people out in "society" are only capable of filtered conversation. No. You're just not a good enough conversationalist to get them to start talking about deeper shit. 

[spectastic]

[CageFree]

 

Yeah, this thread has gone in such a different direction from where it first started... I think? I can't even remember what the OP was asking about anymore. 

[MakeYourself]

As the thread starter, I second this.

[Scarf in the wind]

As the thread starter, I second this.

 

Well, that's the nail in the coffin. Rest in peace thread. Rest in peace.

[spunky]

Well, that's the nail in the coffin. Rest in peace thread. Rest in peace.

 

these types of threads NEVER go forever... i foresee it rising within at the command of a gradcafe newbie....

 

That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.

[PlantinMoretus]

If you've been reading this thread, you would've seen the debates about academics vs non-academics. Some people were saying they can only get along with other academics because, like you said, those are the few people in society who are functionally literate. But you're making it sound like in all your 40 years on Earth, you can't find any functionally literate people. They exist. They're in society, through few and scattered, and they're heavily concentrated in academia. So I still fail to see your point. I'm of the group that knows a lot of non-academics in society who are capable of having deep conversations, but I do agree that the likelihood of finding an intelligent person is in academia. You're making it seem like you've been all around the world and everyone you've come across is only capable of talking about taxes or television. Well, sucks to be you. Maybe you associate with a bunch of uptight, brain bleached suburbians. Maybe you need to learn how to let your hair down and joke around. If you can't find anyone to converse with, that's your own damn fault. I've only been on this Earth for 28 years and I've found groups I can get philosophical with, get creative with, exchange jokes with, get all intellectual and academic with, and talk about "mindless" shit like football. Sorry your life has sucked so bad. 

You've completely misrepresented my comments.  I never said it was about inside v. outside academia or downtown v. the suburbs.  I also never said it was a matter of finding people who are functionally literate.  Lots of people are functionally literate but dull as dishwater.  It helps to be able to read but if you never, ever read anything intelligent about anything of importance, it doesn't do you much good re: developing your mind, worldview, etc.

 

I can't understand why you can't understand that when an entire culture is largely slush, most of the people in that culture will have slush in their heads most of the time, and have no idea that it's slush.   Or that the person who wants to go beyond slush sometimes will struggle to find fellow travellers.  To use my Huxley example, how does a person who reads Huxley get by in a culture where the majority of people would not understand a Huxley reference or even know who he was?  Sounds like you think they should just assume the problem is theirs, take more soma and go to the feelies.

Edited June 9, 2014 by PlantinMoretus

[Guest Gnome Chomsky]

You've completely misrepresented my comments. I never said it was about inside v. outside academia or downtown v. the suburbs. I also never said it was a matter of finding people who are functionally literate. Lots of people are functionally literate but dull as dishwater. It helps to be able to read but if you never, ever read anything intelligent about anything of importance, it doesn't do you much good re: developing your mind, worldview, etc.

I can't understand why you can't understand that when an entire culture is largely slush, most of the people in that culture will have slush in their heads most of the time, and have no idea that it's slush. Or that the person who wants to go beyond slush sometimes will struggle to find fellow travellers. To use my Huxley example, how does a person who reads Huxley get by in a culture where the majority of people would not understand a Huxley reference or even know who he was? Sounds like you think they should just assume the problem is theirs, take more soma and go to the feelies.

It basically sounds like you're saying anyone who hasn't went through higher level academia has a head full of slush. You're not just saying people don't read (a lot of people read). You're saying they don't read and understand high level stuff like Huxley so they have a head full of slush. I'd love to sit and have a conversation with someone like George Carlin, who never finished high school and probably never read Huxley, but according to you he's slush brains. Edited June 9, 2014 by Gnome Chomsky

[spunky]

HA! i *KNEW* this thread would be revived eventually!

Edited June 9, 2014 by spunky

[Scarf in the wind]

It basically sounds like you're saying anyone who hasn't went through higher level academia has a head full of slush. You're not just saying people don't read (a lot of people read). You're saying they don't read and understand high level stuff like Huxley so they have a head full of slush. I'd love to sit and have a conversation with someone like George Carlin, who never finished high school and probably never read Huxley, but according to you he's slush brains.

 

1. Nope, you didn't get it at all.

 

 

HA! i *KNEW* this thread would be revived eventually!

 

2. It's alive!

[spectastic]

time for distraction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LLYEPZXqYY

Edited June 9, 2014 by spectastic

[spunky]

time for distraction

 

NO!

 

i demand another 5 pages of asinine discussion for TEH LULZ