Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why go out?

brickmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Why go out?

#101

Post by JonnieCache »

okamiueru wrote: post #94
StavrosK wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, enough of that. Here's a new theory: There are no bins, there's a continuum of behaviours, and there's no good or bad.

I think, (and I'm being presumptuous here), everyone knows there are no true 'bins', and that people are complicated, and every characteristic is from in a continuous metric, and there is no good or bad. I also think that this is why bins are used. It's not an attempt at correctly describing people, but rather a simplification, using general terms in order to communicate the traits in a, best-effort, meaningful way.…

People have a massive incentive to put themselves in bins: it gives them the opportunity to hate on the people in the other bin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingroups_and_outgroups

Re: Why go out?

#102

Post by alexro »

icebraining wrote: post #99
alexro wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

God is something outside (and can be inside at the same moment) the Universe, meaning that it is something we cannot grasp. If we cannot grasp how God operates then whatever we look at is just an observation of a single event, however long we look at it. So whatever time we perceive within our Universe it may be just a single very short moment to God. Hence evolution isn't really how we interpret it - it can be compl…

So, let me replace "God" with your definition ("something outside the Universe"). If we cannot grasp how something outside the Universe operated then whatever we look at is just an observation of a single event, however long we look at it. So whatever time we perceive within our Universe it may be just a single very short moment to something outside the Universe. Hence evolution isn't really how we interpret it - it…

Exactly. It's the same as telling to a blind person about the shades of colours. Only in our case I'm blind too and simply dreaming up that what we touch isn't all there is.

Re: Why go out?

#103

Post by antidoh »

piaskal wrote: post #83
Swizec wrote: post #18

"Never mind, I replied, turning the key, for my curiosity surpassed my fear." And with that the author sums it up for me. I'm curious. I want to know. So I go out.

It's so easy to access all kinds of information from home nowadays, it can be better at fulfilling my curiosity than going out.

The you're not curious about the right things. Or probably more accurately, you're an exception. Humans are social animals.

Re: Why go out?

#104

Post by rimantas »

dr42 wrote: post #46
icebraining wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an atheist, I dislike such "spiritual bents" being forced into the concept. In no way does Atheism entail a belief* in evolution. It is merely a lack of belief in any god(s). Also, your argument implies that every atheist views sex-change operation as necessarily bad, since they're a fundamental modification to "the way you're bred". This is certainly not true. I find your argument uncompelling. *Not to be confuse…

While the dictionary doesn't define atheism as holding a belief in evolution, I would suspect there is an extremely high correlation between them. It's always the religious fundamentalists that reject evolution because anyone with any kind of scientific mind would accept the mountains of evidence. If one rejects the spiritual or mythological explanation for things being the way they are, it's hard to come up with ano…

Catholic church has no problem with evolution, only fundamentalists do.

Re: Why go out?

#105

Post by AnthonBerg »

yic2 wrote: post #71
AnthonBerg wrote: post #31

Unusually well written.

Agreed -- unusually well written. A pleasure to read a logical analysis of sociological behavior. Except for the very end, which was disappointing.

Interesting - the end is love or hate. Me and a friend really liked it, another friend was pained to read it.

Re: Why go out?

#106

Post by spacemanaki »

haberman wrote: post #74
david_xia wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are mistaking the dramatic flourishes of the essay for its true message. It's a well-written piece that has a twist ending (not entirely unexpected). "Maybe we go out in order to fall short . . . because we want to learn how to be good at being people . . . and moreover, because we want to be people." She's saying that addiction to people is not the same as addiction to cigarettes. This is a good kind of…

I agree with your assessment of the essay's conclusion. All I'm saying is that the essay's whole thought process began with the basic problem that social situations often backfire for the author in very negative ways. If these negative experiences didn't cut so deep, it might not have been necessary for her to spend 2500 words convincing herself that some socializing is better than completely cutting yourself off fro…

FWIW, I think your comments DO some off a bit presumptuous, and a bit condescending, despite you saying that you have a lot of compassion and are incredibly empathetic.

Using language like "This is not normal" and "crippling anxiety" is really making a lot of assumptions about the author. It kind of presupposes that you know what's normal. Of course it's possible that you actually do, maybe you're a psychologist or therapist, and as an expert can assert that you do know what's normal, but I would argue you can't infer enough from this piece to know for sure.

There was a review of Sheila Heti's new book in this week's NYer, and from that I gleaned that her work draws from life but also involves a lot of dramatization and fictionalization of her life, and isn't entirely non-fiction.

Re: Why go out?

#107

Post by icebraining »

rimantas wrote: post #104
dr42 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While the dictionary doesn't define atheism as holding a belief in evolution, I would suspect there is an extremely high correlation between them. It's always the religious fundamentalists that reject evolution because anyone with any kind of scientific mind would accept the mountains of evidence. If one rejects the spiritual or mythological explanation for things being the way they are, it's hard to come up with ano…

Catholic church has no problem with evolution, only fundamentalists do.

Where did parent say otherwise?

Re: Why go out?

#108

Post by cgmorton »

StavrosK wrote: post #30
jmduke wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have often wildly conflicting views on what it means to be an introvert. I subscribe to the definition that an introvert is someone who primarily derives validation and worth from himself, rather than external people or stimuli -- think staying late to solve a tough problem, rather than staying late to impress a boss. I'm definitely an extrovert, despite being relatively quiet and thriving in private situation…

I don't know why we have to bin people like that. I love staying in to program, or read, or whatever, but I need to go out a lot (every day, or more, if I can help it), because I love hanging out with friends, meeting new people, doing new things, etc. Intrinsic vs extrinsic validation doesn't really factor into it. I just like hanging out with friends and making new ones.

This is actually really easy.

"but I need to go out a lot (every day, or more, if I can help it"

Therefore, you are an extrovert.

Re: Why go out?

#109

Post by haberman »

spacemanaki wrote: post #106
haberman wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with your assessment of the essay's conclusion. All I'm saying is that the essay's whole thought process began with the basic problem that social situations often backfire for the author in very negative ways. If these negative experiences didn't cut so deep, it might not have been necessary for her to spend 2500 words convincing herself that some socializing is better than completely cutting yourself off fro…

FWIW, I think your comments DO some off a bit presumptuous, and a bit condescending, despite you saying that you have a lot of compassion and are incredibly empathetic. Using language like "This is not normal" and "crippling anxiety" is really making a lot of assumptions about the author. It kind of presupposes that you know what's normal. Of course it's possible that you actually do, maybe you're a psychologist or t…

That's fair. In retrospect I wish I had written my comment in more of the form: "If X, then Y", instead of presuming X. If the essay is fictionalized and she didn't actually move to a new city to avoid social interaction, or find herself totally consumed for weeks by one mean comment, then surely none of what I am saying applies.

Re: "this is not normal," if I sound like I'm claiming some kind of authority, it is only the authority of personal experience. I could have written those passages that I quoted, and not too long ago either. Those were my "normal." Once I experienced what it was like to feel secure and free of those unmanageable emotional responses, I found it incredibly liberating.

The strong belief I took from this experience is: no one should have to live that way. No one should have to structure their life around avoiding things that they emotionally can't handle. I can't say with certainty that this is her situation, but I know it was mine.

Re: Why go out?

#110

Post by DenisM »

WiseWeasel wrote: post #57
haberman wrote: post #55

The author sounds like she suffers from crippling anxiety and possibly depression, and I am incredibly empathetic because I have lived through similar things. I can understand from personal experience how a person could come to the conclusions she does. But I hope that she manages to find the solution that frees her of this burden. Whether it's meds, lifestyle changes, or moving to a place that gets more sun, I want…

You might be projecting the putative "crippling anxiety" into her words. I think she was trying to write something worth reading, and so naturally dramatized her story a bit. I thought it was well-written, displaying a healthy level of self-observation and satisfying developmental progress for the length of the piece.

You can say that about any piece though: "I dont think the author meant what he said". At some point we have to stop second guessing and discuss what was said, not what we think the author wanted to say. At the very least discussing the actual content is certainly not off-topic. :)
Post reply on HN