|
|
Post by karl on Oct 2, 2019 15:02:40 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Lone Wanderer on Oct 2, 2019 18:30:32 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 2, 2019 19:24:13 GMT
Hate being online. It's stupid. Off-line for introverts. Lack of the introverts makes Apocalypse much closer to us all.
Don't put your lives on the line too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 2, 2019 20:24:47 GMT
Hate being online. It's stupid. Off-line for introverts. Lack of the introverts makes Apocalypse much closer to us all. Don't put your lives on the line too much.
If it hadn't been for introverts, extroverts wouldn't even have been living in straw huts. They'd be living in caves, but without cave paintings. For the cave painters were among the introverts of the stone age. Without introverts there would be no philosophy and no science, and hence no basis for technological development. And had one eliminated all introverts overnight, it would have killed off 97% of the top computer programmers, leading to instant digital collapse.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 6, 2019 21:45:21 GMT
Hate being online. It's stupid. Off-line for introverts. Lack of the introverts makes Apocalypse much closer to us all. Don't put your lives on the line too much.
If it hadn't been for introverts, extroverts wouldn't even have been living in straw huts. They'd be living in caves, but without cave paintings. For the cave painters were among the introverts of the stone age. Without introverts there would be no philosophy and no science, and hence no basis for technological development. And had one eliminated all introverts overnight, it would have killed off 97% of the top computer programmers, leading to instant digital collapse.
They say many geniuses were introverts. I suppose its closer to the truth. Me I'ma an extrovert because of my life conditions. I'd never chose this role for me. Hate being extrovert. I don't hate people, but spending time alone I feel much more comfortable. Besides it seems more sincerely to be yourself doing time lonely... Day by day I notice this practice goes nowhere: the number of humans is not decreasing, the places you've been walking, skating, running, shopping, were less crowdy than now. It's awful. Worst scenario the world's never had. I would think about this bad phenomena as a conspiracy against those who against communism or similar social theories. "To not to be lonely" - is their recipe. I don't like this one bit. I want to think - being overcrowded it's hardly to release; I want to get a grip and resolve something - noise makes me calmless. Horrible things. So, despite what I want they turn me to the other people to make me feel uncomfortable. It's even interesting than Hitler knew about this fact, and he wrote at his famous book that being forced to spend time even with your own relatives for a long time together in, for example, a dining-room, or a bed-room would turn your and your roommates life into a living nightmare. So, isn't this an experiment over us? I mean all that "being 100% connected all day long, and all night long"!? Games with only cooperative regime, and all that stupid collect of achievements!? This is a socialistic idea. Marxism's ideas should be erased from our planet as a creepy poison once and for all; for the sake of all the humanity. (My "stylish" writings seem double the problems of understanding of what I've planned to say: Grammar + unusual type of speech. So, I'll try to repeat myself less strangely.) 1. I'm an extrovert, because I've been spending lots of time with people as an introvert. I like to be alone. It makes me feel much more naturally. 2. Overcrowded of cities, increasing a number of people all over the world is nothing, but a conspiracy against humanity. Lack of feeling lonely causes many dangerous brain deceases. 3. Such a conspiracy is something like communists strike. Socialistic themes are based on living together. Crowd is a good pattern in those theories. 4. Media and other forms that surround us are based on typical to such socialistic forms. 5. Surely, I don't wanna be so positively sure about my thoughts, because they base on intuition, and that's all. Bad inference in a complex proposition, with a strong feeling of righteousness of it, might be a good reason to doubt in such proposition. That's why I don't want to be blamed in rhetoric constructions. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 7, 2019 13:34:07 GMT
If it hadn't been for introverts, extroverts wouldn't even have been living in straw huts. They'd be living in caves, but without cave paintings. For the cave painters were among the introverts of the stone age. Without introverts there would be no philosophy and no science, and hence no basis for technological development. And had one eliminated all introverts overnight, it would have killed off 97% of the top computer programmers, leading to instant digital collapse.
They say many geniuses were introverts. I suppose its closer to the truth. Me I'ma an extrovert because of my life conditions. I'd never chose this role for me. Hate being extrovert. I don't hate people, but spending time alone I feel much more comfortable. Besides it seems more sincerely to be yourself doing time lonely... Day by day I notice this practice goes nowhere: the number of humans is not decreasing, the places you've been walking, skating, running, shopping, were less crowdy than now. It's awful. Worst scenario the world's never had. I would think about this bad phenomena as a conspiracy against those who against communism or similar social theories. "To not to be lonely" - is their recipe. I don't like this one bit. I want to think - being overcrowded it's hardly to release; I want to get a grip and resolve something - noise makes me calmless. Horrible things. So, despite what I want they turn me to the other people to make me feel uncomfortable. It's even interesting than Hitler knew about this fact, and he wrote at his famous book that being forced to spend time even with your own relatives for a long time together in, for example, a dining-room, or a bed-room would turn your and your roommates life into a living nightmare. So, isn't this an experiment over us? I mean all that "being 100% connected all day long, and all night long"!? Games with only cooperative regime, and all that stupid collect of achievements!? This is a socialistic idea. Marxism's ideas should be erased from our planet as a creepy poison once and for all; for the sake of all the humanity. (My "stylish" writings seem double the problems of understanding of what I've planned to say: Grammar + unusual type of speech. So, I'll try to repeat myself less strangely.) 1. I'm an extrovert, because I've been spending lots of time with people as an introvert. I like to be alone. It makes me feel much more naturally. 2. Overcrowded of cities, increasing a number of people all over the world is nothing, but a conspiracy against humanity. Lack of feeling lonely causes many dangerous brain deceases. 3. Such a conspiracy is something like communists strike. Socialistic themes are based on living together. Crowd is a good pattern in those theories. 4. Media and other forms that surround us are based on typical to such socialistic forms. 5. Surely, I don't wanna be so positively sure about my thoughts, because they base on intuition, and that's all. Bad inference in a complex proposition, with a strong feeling of righteousness of it, might be a good reason to doubt in such proposition. That's why I don't want to be blamed in rhetoric constructions.
That you're forced to socialise, doesn't make you an extrovert. That you hate it, is a clear sound of that you're introverted. I don't see it as a conspiracy per se. In every culture there is a power struggle between different personality types on who get to set the standards for everyone else. And it used to be extroverts who dominated. This is their last stand. They have socialised academia for the past 30 years. In the past one used to concept "free student". (Free, as in being liberated.) One did what one wanted for the semester, and showed up for a few exams at the end of it. Then little by little, one started to micromanage students. More home assignments in addition to regular exams and more mandatory courses. Slowly but surely, the student was being turned into a school pupil, considered to be unable to make his/her own choices. It's a bit like how Microsoft is increasingly treating Windows users as children who can't even choose when to update their own system.
But there's a reality outside of the institutions that the extroverts have no control over, and never will. The Internet has created a space for Introverts unparallelled in human history. In the future, how well you understand computers will be a bigger factor for how much influence you have, than how extroverts used to define "social skills" in the past. What we're seeing are the extroverts' final attempts to maintain their control in a changing world. -Like how those who had built their personal power and prestige on the Christian faith only really started the witch hunt hysteria once they felt they were losing their power with the advent of the scientific method.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 7, 2019 18:28:30 GMT
They say many geniuses were introverts. I suppose its closer to the truth. Me I'ma an extrovert because of my life conditions. I'd never chose this role for me. Hate being extrovert. I don't hate people, but spending time alone I feel much more comfortable. Besides it seems more sincerely to be yourself doing time lonely... Day by day I notice this practice goes nowhere: the number of humans is not decreasing, the places you've been walking, skating, running, shopping, were less crowdy than now. It's awful. Worst scenario the world's never had. I would think about this bad phenomena as a conspiracy against those who against communism or similar social theories. "To not to be lonely" - is their recipe. I don't like this one bit. I want to think - being overcrowded it's hardly to release; I want to get a grip and resolve something - noise makes me calmless. Horrible things. So, despite what I want they turn me to the other people to make me feel uncomfortable. It's even interesting than Hitler knew about this fact, and he wrote at his famous book that being forced to spend time even with your own relatives for a long time together in, for example, a dining-room, or a bed-room would turn your and your roommates life into a living nightmare. So, isn't this an experiment over us? I mean all that "being 100% connected all day long, and all night long"!? Games with only cooperative regime, and all that stupid collect of achievements!? This is a socialistic idea. Marxism's ideas should be erased from our planet as a creepy poison once and for all; for the sake of all the humanity. (My "stylish" writings seem double the problems of understanding of what I've planned to say: Grammar + unusual type of speech. So, I'll try to repeat myself less strangely.) 1. I'm an extrovert, because I've been spending lots of time with people as an introvert. I like to be alone. It makes me feel much more naturally. 2. Overcrowded of cities, increasing a number of people all over the world is nothing, but a conspiracy against humanity. Lack of feeling lonely causes many dangerous brain deceases. 3. Such a conspiracy is something like communists strike. Socialistic themes are based on living together. Crowd is a good pattern in those theories. 4. Media and other forms that surround us are based on typical to such socialistic forms. 5. Surely, I don't wanna be so positively sure about my thoughts, because they base on intuition, and that's all. Bad inference in a complex proposition, with a strong feeling of righteousness of it, might be a good reason to doubt in such proposition. That's why I don't want to be blamed in rhetoric constructions.
That you're forced to socialise, doesn't make you an extrovert. That you hate it, is a clear sound of that you're introverted. I don't see it as a conspiracy per se. In every culture there is a power struggle between different personality types on who get to set the standards for everyone else. And it used to be extroverts who dominated. This is their last stand. They have socialised academia for the past 30 years. In the past one used to concept "free student". (Free, as in being liberated.) One did what one wanted for the semester, and showed up for a few exams at the end of it. Then little by little, one started to micromanage students. More home assignments in addition to regular exams and more mandatory courses. Slowly but surely, the student was being turned into a school pupil, considered to be unable to make his/her own choices. It's a bit like how Microsoft is increasingly treating Windows users as children who can't even choose when to update their own system.
But there's a reality outside of the institutions that the extroverts have no control over, and never will. The Internet has created a space for Introverts unparallelled in human history. In the future, how well you understand computers will be a bigger factor for how much influence you have, than how extroverts used to define "social skills" in the past. What we're seeing are the extroverts' final attempts to maintain their control in a changing world. -Like how those who had built their personal power and prestige on the Christian faith only really started the witch hunt hysteria once they felt they were losing their power with the advent of the scientific method.
Yes, I fully agree what you've said. It much more closer to the truth. (Closer than what I've over-theorized.) I don't get along with that Jung's "introverts&extraverts" types. Honestly, I quit reading Jung after his book of Job (I don't remember the correct name of it). There were too much spare expressions and blames to that book, or something else? I'd tried to use that terms not in their common sense. For me the one is "introvert" if and only if he likes to be alone, or spends his time in silence; "extrovert" is reversed version or a negation of "introvert" definition. But what you said above is very closer what I am. Or, at least, it is another version (or another interpretation) of the situation. It doesn't seem well to say that West and East is something very different, but there are some barriers; some researchers did say that. For example, Altfield - a catholic philosopher ecologist - said something the same in his writings on "Christianity and Ecology" (where he tried to maintain the situation round Christian influence on ecology problem. He said that Christianity should be ashamed of its bad influence. And also that st. Francis is an animal patron and - therefore - must become the new Christian patron). So, the difference is under the core in psychological understanding of things. In this situation: a) if there's forced socialization;
b) if there's forced socialization it provides extrovert behaviour.I agree that it's hard to think (a) and (b) are true, but if meaning of extroversion might be changed to mine ("one likes to be among the crowd, in noise...") I think that it's possible to get something like this: c) forced socialization makes some people to become extroverts.The last one might be analyzed and transformed to this one - that looks less messy: d) forced socialization makes some people to act* like extroverts.(*Here act I guess may be changed into think, behave or similar verbs.) This (d) shows (that you've written it about - of hatred implies introversion) that some introverts should appear too. However, why on Earth it stand me on extrovert side? - It's my shield. Inner and outer behaviour. Eastern practices suppose that inner behaviour. For example, if a sergeant dissed a soldier from his platoon, then I guess a soldier especially if he's a rookie is suffering, and feeling really angry at his sergeant. In East sergeants wouldn't stop on a simple diss act. (Oh, yeah, what is that "diss act"? I mean that the sergeant could have shouted loudly at the soldier, or he forced the soldier to clean his boots, etc.) So, why eastern sergeant (and the other "bosses") wouldn't stop on it? - (I want to underline that it is just my own opinion. I don't think I'm right here.) - They knew that dissing body is a half of the work. The could must be dissed too. So, eastern thinking contains something that we call "dual nature or psycho". (Maybe eastern people have two souls?...) Sergeants would do anything to make soldiers to feel suffer maybe for their further (future) life. (Again, it's just my thoughts. I'm not sure it is a correct reflection.) Ok, here's a light table: Western sergeant Eastern sergeant Timeline P ---x---->F stop P ---x--->F...x - appearing of diss; F stop - a certain time point in (near) Future; F... - Future. In other words, eastern sergeants (and the other bosses) want their subordinates suffer eternally, because they count to harm not their bodies (scars may be cured or medically operated; soul scars mayn't), but souls. I apologize for the turn I've made (I mean I answered just partially), but I wanted to show that it would be still possible to think that forced socialization could make people extroverts (surely, in the sense I gave). |
|
|
|
Post by karl on Oct 8, 2019 12:41:27 GMT
That you're forced to socialise, doesn't make you an extrovert. That you hate it, is a clear sound of that you're introverted. I don't see it as a conspiracy per se. In every culture there is a power struggle between different personality types on who get to set the standards for everyone else. And it used to be extroverts who dominated. This is their last stand. They have socialised academia for the past 30 years. In the past one used to concept "free student". (Free, as in being liberated.) One did what one wanted for the semester, and showed up for a few exams at the end of it. Then little by little, one started to micromanage students. More home assignments in addition to regular exams and more mandatory courses. Slowly but surely, the student was being turned into a school pupil, considered to be unable to make his/her own choices. It's a bit like how Microsoft is increasingly treating Windows users as children who can't even choose when to update their own system.
But there's a reality outside of the institutions that the extroverts have no control over, and never will. The Internet has created a space for Introverts unparallelled in human history. In the future, how well you understand computers will be a bigger factor for how much influence you have, than how extroverts used to define "social skills" in the past. What we're seeing are the extroverts' final attempts to maintain their control in a changing world. -Like how those who had built their personal power and prestige on the Christian faith only really started the witch hunt hysteria once they felt they were losing their power with the advent of the scientific method.
Yes, I fully agree what you've said. It much more closer to the truth. (Closer than what I've over-theorized.) I don't get along with that Jung's "introverts&extraverts" types. Honestly, I quit reading Jung after his book of Job (I don't remember the correct name of it). There were too much spare expressions and blames to that book, or something else? I'd tried to use that terms not in their common sense. For me the one is "introvert" if and only if he likes to be alone, or spends his time in silence; "extrovert" is reversed version or a negation of "introvert" definition. But what you said above is very closer what I am. Or, at least, it is another version (or another interpretation) of the situation. It doesn't seem well to say that West and East is something very different, but there are some barriers; some researchers did say that. For example, Altfield - a catholic philosopher ecologist - said something the same in his writings on "Christianity and Ecology" (where he tried to maintain the situation round Christian influence on ecology problem. He said that Christianity should be ashamed of its bad influence. And also that st. Francis is an animal patron and - therefore - must become the new Christian patron). So, the difference is under the core in psychological understanding of things. In this situation: a) if there's forced socialization;
b) if there's forced socialization it provides extrovert behaviour.I agree that it's hard to think (a) and (b) are true, but if meaning of extroversion might be changed to mine ("one likes to be among the crowd, in noise...") I think that it's possible to get something like this: c) forced socialization makes some people to become extroverts.The last one might be analyzed and transformed to this one - that looks less messy: d) forced socialization makes some people to act* like extroverts.(*Here act I guess may be changed into think, behave or similar verbs.) This (d) shows (that you've written it about - of hatred implies introversion) that some introverts should appear too. However, why on Earth it stand me on extrovert side? - It's my shield. Inner and outer behaviour. Eastern practices suppose that inner behaviour. For example, if a sergeant dissed a soldier from his platoon, then I guess a soldier especially if he's a rookie is suffering, and feeling really angry at his sergeant. In East sergeants wouldn't stop on a simple diss act. (Oh, yeah, what is that "diss act"? I mean that the sergeant could have shouted loudly at the soldier, or he forced the soldier to clean his boots, etc.) So, why eastern sergeant (and the other "bosses") wouldn't stop on it? - (I want to underline that it is just my own opinion. I don't think I'm right here.) - They knew that dissing body is a half of the work. The could must be dissed too. So, eastern thinking contains something that we call "dual nature or psycho". (Maybe eastern people have two souls?...) Sergeants would do anything to make soldiers to feel suffer maybe for their further (future) life. (Again, it's just my thoughts. I'm not sure it is a correct reflection.) Ok, here's a light table: Western sergeant Eastern sergeant Timeline P ---x---->F stop P ---x--->F...x - appearing of diss; F stop - a certain time point in (near) Future; F... - Future. In other words, eastern sergeants (and the other bosses) want their subordinates suffer eternally, because they count to harm not their bodies (scars may be cured or medically operated; soul scars mayn't), but souls. I apologize for the turn I've made (I mean I answered just partially), but I wanted to show that it would be still possible to think that forced socialization could make people extroverts (surely, in the sense I gave).
Before I respond to the part about West vs East, I need one clarification: When you say "Eastern", do you mean Eastern as in Asia, or Eastern as in Eastern Europe?
If someone is trapped in an environment created by extroverts, one becomes adapted to that environment, even if it feels alienating at the same time. So on that sense, one becomes and extrovert in some shallow sense. And if one at some point in one's life is offered to live life as an introvert, it will become at odds with established neural networks in one's brain, which represents the hardwired manifestation of one's adaptation, and may only be unlearned over an extensive period of time. So even though one has a natural inclination towards enjoying solitude, one might feel anxiety at the prospect of not having many friends to relate to. It's like daring to let oneself fall, not being entirely sure whether what's beneath you is a comfortable stack of hay, or a bottomless abyss.
But being an introvert does require that one has some people to relate to, since no man is an island. It's socialisation in groups that many introverts detest. Or, as the saying goes: "Two is company, three is a crowd."
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 8, 2019 20:50:54 GMT
Yes, I fully agree what you've said. It much more closer to the truth. (Closer than what I've over-theorized.) I don't get along with that Jung's "introverts&extraverts" types. Honestly, I quit reading Jung after his book of Job (I don't remember the correct name of it). There were too much spare expressions and blames to that book, or something else? I'd tried to use that terms not in their common sense. For me the one is "introvert" if and only if he likes to be alone, or spends his time in silence; "extrovert" is reversed version or a negation of "introvert" definition. But what you said above is very closer what I am. Or, at least, it is another version (or another interpretation) of the situation. It doesn't seem well to say that West and East is something very different, but there are some barriers; some researchers did say that. For example, Altfield - a catholic philosopher ecologist - said something the same in his writings on "Christianity and Ecology" (where he tried to maintain the situation round Christian influence on ecology problem. He said that Christianity should be ashamed of its bad influence. And also that st. Francis is an animal patron and - therefore - must become the new Christian patron). So, the difference is under the core in psychological understanding of things. In this situation: a) if there's forced socialization;
b) if there's forced socialization it provides extrovert behaviour.I agree that it's hard to think (a) and (b) are true, but if meaning of extroversion might be changed to mine ("one likes to be among the crowd, in noise...") I think that it's possible to get something like this: c) forced socialization makes some people to become extroverts.The last one might be analyzed and transformed to this one - that looks less messy: d) forced socialization makes some people to act* like extroverts.(*Here act I guess may be changed into think, behave or similar verbs.) This (d) shows (that you've written it about - of hatred implies introversion) that some introverts should appear too. However, why on Earth it stand me on extrovert side? - It's my shield. Inner and outer behaviour. Eastern practices suppose that inner behaviour. For example, if a sergeant dissed a soldier from his platoon, then I guess a soldier especially if he's a rookie is suffering, and feeling really angry at his sergeant. In East sergeants wouldn't stop on a simple diss act. (Oh, yeah, what is that "diss act"? I mean that the sergeant could have shouted loudly at the soldier, or he forced the soldier to clean his boots, etc.) So, why eastern sergeant (and the other "bosses") wouldn't stop on it? - (I want to underline that it is just my own opinion. I don't think I'm right here.) - They knew that dissing body is a half of the work. The could must be dissed too. So, eastern thinking contains something that we call "dual nature or psycho". (Maybe eastern people have two souls?...) Sergeants would do anything to make soldiers to feel suffer maybe for their further (future) life. (Again, it's just my thoughts. I'm not sure it is a correct reflection.) Ok, here's a light table: Western sergeant Eastern sergeant Timeline P ---x---->F stop P ---x--->F...x - appearing of diss; F stop - a certain time point in (near) Future; F... - Future. In other words, eastern sergeants (and the other bosses) want their subordinates suffer eternally, because they count to harm not their bodies (scars may be cured or medically operated; soul scars mayn't), but souls. I apologize for the turn I've made (I mean I answered just partially), but I wanted to show that it would be still possible to think that forced socialization could make people extroverts (surely, in the sense I gave).
Before I respond to the part about West vs East, I need one clarification: When you say "Eastern", do you mean Eastern as in Asia, or Eastern as in Eastern Europe?
If someone is trapped in an environment created by extroverts, one becomes adapted to that environment, even if it feels alienating at the same time. So on that sense, one becomes and extrovert in some shallow sense. And if one at some point in one's life is offered to live life as an introvert, it will become at odds with established neural networks in one's brain, which represents the hardwired manifestation of one's adaptation, and may only be unlearned over an extensive period of time. So even though one has a natural inclination towards enjoying solitude, one might feel anxiety at the prospect of not having many friends to relate to. It's like daring to let oneself fall, not being entirely sure whether what's beneath you is a comfortable stack of hay, or a bottomless abyss.
But being an introvert does require that one has some people to relate to, since no man is an island. It's socialisation in groups that many introverts detest. Or, as the saying goes: "Two is company, three is a crowd."
Yes, this determination is important to be differ. (Hmm... I would add that it's not enough to differ Asian and Eastern Europe, more correct to differ Asia on Far, Middle and Near (East). Each of them not very similar.) I guess it would be fair to mention Eastern Europe elsewhere I wrote "Eastern". If to be even more fair, I put "Eastern" as the Orthodox Church meaning. Eastern Europe is a region where Orthodoxy is very widespread. Many nuances of "such" Eastern thinking can be found in around V B.C. Holy Fathers debates of Holy Spirit, of the Nature of Christ, and so on. Also, similar things can be found in Foucault's "Discipline and Punish" (in Discipline chapter; speculations on Epimeleia). Foucault wrote about the practice that be done in monasteries primary. Surely, you're right, it's very important not to take a look at an introvert as I did - as a completely isolated person. So, I'd like to correct myself saying that I am that person - the one who don't like to deal with other ones, but I feel that I have to. There's no other way; I got used to it. "I Am A Legend" in a protagonist's shoes existence for "such introvert like me" - seems much better than Robinson Crusoe's or the other introverts existence. |
|
