Do you do things just so youve something to say to people?

[JackOfSpades]

yes, people do. who cares that you went to vegas? so, you pissed away a bunch of money to see flashing lights and bump elbows with down-and-out creeps.

OR maybe they

1.Went to a play
2.Read a classic book
3.Took up an instrument
4.Learned to cook
5.
6.
7.

Edit: who knew self improvement was so controversial

 

[truffleshuffle]

^
I disagree.



Also, read what he posted: "...can you really succeed at the thing you are forcing yourself to do if your heart isn't in it? Can it not make you more apathetic?"

This is suggesting that the experiences are being tried, and any new-found interest isn't being sparked. Therefore the point you're trying to make is moot.

And about this...



Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that a person legitimately doesn't have ANYTHING to talk about? They have never done ANYTHING? They've done absolutely nothing. Just sat in an empty white room their entire lives. Actually, even that would work. I mean any sort of interest has even the smallest of followings.

How do you get to have something to talk about? You have exsperinces. its not a strech. When I have been couped up in my apartment for a week or two I don;t have anything new to talk about with the people I talk to. I mean if you didn;t have experinces it would really be a one sided conversation. I like new experinces even if I think I won;t like it but how would I know if I didn;t actualy try it doing it? I mean you don;t have to do everything that comes down the pike but you need to try on occasion you knever know you might like it.

 

[dottie]

OR maybe they

1.Went to a play
2.Read a classic book
3.Took up an instrument
4.Learned to cook
5.
6.
7.

Edit: who knew self improvement was so controversial

yeah, that's totally what people go to vegas for!

 

[truffleshuffle]

yeah, that's totally what people go to vegas for!

Lol I went to vegas once. Didn;t spend any money was to young but I did enjoy the lights and the circus that was in the middle of the circus circus casino lol.

 

[Razzlecherry]

Edit: who knew self improvement was so controversial

I'm arguing a point that goes against the constructs of society. I am passionate about uniqueness and going against the groove. What I've gathered from this thread is one simple point: Is it ok to sacrifice part of what you are in order to appeal to society? The idea of self improvement didn't even seem to be a factor in the original post.

I understand that this is the real world we live in and I understand people fake themselves to get ahead, but that doesn't mean I have to like it and agree with it.

What you are trying to argue is completely different that what I am trying to say.

EDIT: I mean I'm not trying to hurt any feelings.

 

[JackOfSpades]

yeah, that's totally what people go to vegas for!

My point was that why does the experience have to be Vegas? Was the point that doing things to have something to say is shallow? Because thats what my response was addressing.

Secondly, I'm all for uniqueness, but if you expect people to unconditionally be interested no matter how "unique", then it's just not being realistic. We pick conversations and find interest often in what is relatable or relevant or inspiring. To not be willing to sacrifice sometimes is not a virtue.

And thirdly, I think part of the discussion is addressing the value of experiences and sacrifice? And another discussion is about pushing comfort zones too far. i think new experiences are good for you. But I think putting yourself in positions of immense discomfort is overwhelming and defeating. It's important to involve yourself at a pace you can tolerate, emotionally.

 

[Razzlecherry]

And thirdly, I think part of the discussion is addressing the value of experiences and sacrifice? And another discussion is about pushing comfort zones too far. i think new experiences are good for you. But I think putting yourself in positions of immense discomfort is overwhelming and defeating. It's important to involve yourself at a pace you can tolerate, emotionally.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.

You say new experiences are good. I'm not arguing with that. I've already discussed this in the previous page:

Also, read what he posted: "...can you really succeed at the thing you are forcing yourself to do if your heart isn't in it? Can it not make you more apathetic?"

This is suggesting that the experiences are being tried, and any new-found interest isn't being sparked. Therefore the point you're trying to make is moot.

The OP is talking about forcing into a situation that has already been deemed uninteresting and uncomfortable. This is a new experience that has been tried, but with no satisfaction. I'm saying that continuing to do this is not a good idea. Even if there was comfort, but it wasn't in the slightest interesting.

Secondly, I'm all for uniqueness, but if you expect people to unconditionally be interested no matter how "unique", then it's just not being realistic. We pick conversations and find interest often in what is relatable or relevant or inspiring. To not be willing to sacrifice sometimes is not a virtue.

I really don't know what that is supposed to mean.

 

[JackOfSpades]

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I'm trying to say.
You say new experiences are good. I'm not arguing with that. I've already discussed this in the previous page:

That wasn't directed at you. It was something relating to other posts talking about things they've done, while we were talking about more abstract things.

I really don't know what that is supposed to mean.

I thought it was largely self explanatory so I'm not sure how to respond. But it was relating to the idea of the man sitting in a room being interesting or expecting to be.

 

[Razzlecherry]

I thought it was largely self explanatory so I'm not sure how to respond.

Was it directed at what I wrote about uniqueness? If that's the case then I don't understand how that relates to anything I said.

 

[dottie]

@jackofspades you're coming across as really argumentative but i wasn't reading your discussion, i was responding to the OP. it seems like the topic has strayed from the original post.

do people do things just so they've something to talk about?
vs
should people challenge themselves so they've something to talk about?

 

[JackOfSpades]

Was it directed at what I wrote about uniqueness? If that's the case then I don't understand how that relates to anything I said.

It was about the idea that the man who's done nothing but sit in a white room is still interesting to someone. And that may be true. And if he's happy sitting in the room and with the level of interest people have in him, then I dont see anything wrong with it (all other mental health concerns aside). But if he's unhappy with the amount of interest shown in him, or feels he never has anything to say and is otherwise boring, then despite however much he likes that room, he's essentially just complaining and doing nothing to help himself by not experiencing.

 

[Razzlecherry]

Don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to say that a person legitimately doesn't have ANYTHING to talk about? They have never done ANYTHING? They've done absolutely nothing. Just sat in an empty white room their entire lives. Actually, even that would work. I mean any sort of interest has even the smallest of followings.

That was just an extreme exaggeration to get my point across. My point was that everybody has something that interests them. Ergo something to talk about.

Would probably make more sense in context. This is what I was responding to when I posted that:

How is that bollocks? If you never had any new exsperinces then you would never have anything to do or talk about anyway

 

[JackOfSpades]

I realize it's an extreme example, but I felt it worth using because I think there are plenty of people who do spend time doing next to nothing and do feel they have very little to talk about. Being (or rather feeling) boring sometimes seems as much a symptom of the SP as anything else.

 

[dottie]

My point was that why does the experience have to be Vegas? Was the point that doing things to have something to say is shallow?

sorry, i'm having a hard time following you. i had to reread this a couple of times. anyway, my point simply answered the question of the subject line that, yes, everyone does things, on some level, with the intent to share it with others. some broadcast it to the world, some share it only with a few others. that is part of what experiences are about. people like to share. that, in itself, is not shallow... rather, human nature.

but, i think there are a lot of people who do stupid, flamboyant things for the sake of attention and lack of creativity. (just look at american media) so, really i think there is a scale to the shallowness of it depending on what they do, the extent they go to, and how they broadcast it. everything's relative, right?

as far as people challenging themselves, yeah, people should push themselves a little, obviously. but don't feign interest in things just to have something to talk about.

i suppose i mentioned the vegas thing because i know a coworker who really gave me the vibe that she went to vegas solely so she had something to talk about. like, "hey, i am going to vegas just so that i can say i went to vegas. and now let me talk about how i drank. in vegas."

 

[Razzlecherry]

But... you're not supposed to talk about what happens in vegas...

You betrayed the LAAWW!! - YouTube

 

[truffleshuffle]

That was just an extreme exaggeration to get my point across. My point was that everybody has something that interests them. Ergo something to talk about.

Would probably make more sense in context. This is what I was responding to when I posted that:

Just like I said before if you never have any new experinces you have nothing new to talk about. Eventualy people will become tired of the same chats they had with you 100 times. If you don;t try new things how do you know you arn;t actualy going to like it and even if you don;t like it you still have something new to talk about how much you hated what ever it was. We will just have to agree to disagree Razzle

 

[Razzlecherry]

Just like I said before if you never have any new experinces you have nothing new to talk about. Eventualy people will become tired of the same chats they had with you 100 times. If you don;t try new things how do you know you arn;t actualy going to like it and even if you don;t like it you still have something new to talk about how much you hated what ever it was. We will just have to agree to disagree Razzle

The problem is that you aren't understanding what I am saying. You're trying to argue a point that I agree with. I've never said that new experiences are bad.

Let's see:

This is what Smarty said: (I'll highlight the bits that are important.)

Hi JackOfSpades, but can you really succeed at the thing you are forcing yourself to do if your heart isn't in it? Can it not make you more apathetic?One salsa class I went to I just couldnt stop crying. Sometimes I just cant deal with being around people; like I worked cleaning in an office and I'd have to do the job crying

This is how I responded:

I say do what you want to do. I think forcing yourself to thing's you aren't interested in is just plain silly. There are people that have interests similar to yours, even if they may be different and weird.

This is how you responded to me:

Having a new exsperince is what doing things is all about What if you had no intrest in something but someone you knew did and you kinda forced your self to go along and ended up actualy liking it? I often force my self to do things I know I don;t like just because someone else im around would and sometimes I end up having fun or atleast with more infromation than I had before.

Are you getting it now? I'm saying that forcing oneself to do things that aren't interesting is dumb. Obviously in this context the person already had experience with these things and had developed an opinion on them.

You are arguing that new experiences are good, and I agree with you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying.

 

[coyote]

instead of doing new things, just meet new people

that way you can talk about all the same old stuff

but it will all be new to them

 

[truffleshuffle]

The problem is that you aren't understanding what I am saying. You're trying to argue a point that I agree with. I've never said that new experiences are bad.

Let's see:

This is what Smarty said: (I'll highlight the bits that are important.)



This is how I responded:



This is how you responded to me:



Are you getting it now? I'm saying that forcing oneself to do things that aren't interesting is dumb. Obviously in this context the person already had experience with these things and had developed an opinion on them.

You are arguing that new experiences are good, and I agree with you, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what I am saying.

And I am sayin forcing yourself out of your comfort zone from time to time is not bad becuase you get a new exsperince even if you don;t actualy like it but you also may actualy enjoy it. I have done that plenty of times even though I thought it was dumb and I complained about not really want to do it only to actualy enjoy the experince. I am not saying force your self every single time but step out of the confort zone on occasion. Just because you may think something is dumb just try it out every once in a while you never know thats all im saying.

 

[Razzlecherry]

And I am sayin forcing yourself out of your comfort zone from time to time is not bad becuase you get a new exsperince even if you don;t actualy like it but you also may actualy enjoy it. I have done that plenty of times even though I thought it was dumb and I complained about not really want to do it only to actualy enjoy the experince. I am not saying force your self every single time but step out of the confort zone on occasion. Just because you may think something is dumb just try it out every once in a while you never know thats all im saying.

Yeah, I completely understand what you're saying. I am in no way arguing against that. This is my point:

I'm saying that forcing oneself to do things that aren't interesting is dumb. Obviously in this context the person already had experience with these things and had developed an opinion on them.

EDIT: For example. I try apple pie. I projectile vomit the apple pie out because it tastes like ass. I've never tried apple pie before this, this is a new experience. I decide that I hate apple pie. I would not walk around eating apple pie because I hate it. If I would force myself to eat apple pie to appease someone / (have something to talk about) then there is a problem.