The threads on this forum

EtherealStarlight wrote:

The discussion in the threads also mimics the structure of ordinary conversation. The language is largely colloquial or modern technical terms. Contractions are used to mimic speech. There is a great effort towards achieving pathos.

It is an internet forum, like any other. We're just going to say what we feel like saying, and we don't usually bother trying to purposely make ourselves sound intelligent. Like I said in one of my earlier posts, it's the idea behind what you're saying and the content, not how you say it.

I hope people don't make too many assumptions solely based on others style of writing. I don't feel comfortable writing in a strictly conversational style, but that's not because I care about making myself sound particularly intelligent. I just find leaves whatever I'm writing more vulnerable to misinterpretation, and I don't like that. The reason I sometimes write in a roundabout way isn't because I'm trying to educate people with my "superior intellect", but because it's difficult for me to determine which parts of my posts are most important with regard to getting the point across.

Though I understand why people make assumptions, so on "normal" forums I always make the effort to phrase myself in a more casual/conversational style, even though I find it tiresome. I find people tend to argue and gang up on people who come across as arrogant or psuedo-intellectual, just for the sake of it, which I feel might be what's happening here (the main issue with the original post was the style it was written in, not the actual questions, right?). I didn't think that would be much of an issue on this forum, but maybe I was wrong?

Vreedzame wrote:Personally I post here because I am quite bored and it's a way to pass the time and communicate with individuals who will be able to relate on topics and provide insight that I may have overlooked.

Also I think that people are getting a little too aggressive. While Jadeite does not deliver his ideas in the most considerate tone, he shouldn't be attacked just because his viewpoint is different to the norm. After all, we would despise "norms" who did the same to us.

The people who hate the original post are probably more intelligent than those who do not. I hate my own writing and the writing of every independent thinker who writes in plain language and the first person. Still, I will read as much as I can bear. One benefit of mutual hate is that it precludes friendships. On an ideal forum everybody would hate each other. However, the reality is that this ideal is shattered by those who write to be liked, like prostitutes along a street, trying to attract a customer. They write inconsequential things, so that it is in their greatest benefit to attract attention to the posts in the manner of their charm. This has the result of discouraging the uglier meaningful writing. To the unintelligent, such unadorned, independent writing is like a maggot vendor in food court.

Vreedzame wrote:However, the reality is that this ideal is shattered by those who write to be liked, like prostitutes along a street, trying to attract a customer. They write inconsequential things, so that it is in their greatest benefit to attract attention to the posts in the manner of their charm.

Would it be accurate if one were to bare down your idea to simply hating superficiality? It would make sense to me, and explain your confusion that on a forum full of what you may expect would be filled with people incapable of the superficial still consists of posts where people tip-toe around the feelings of others.

Jadeite wrote:However, the reality is that this ideal is shattered by those who write to be liked, like prostitutes along a street, trying to attract a customer.

That's the things about ideals though, isn't it? I mean ideals don't survive in reality.
So wanna buy one of my maggots?

Another point is that you only live once. Why would you aspire to an inferior ideal? One can only assume that people who act like peasants are peasants; people who dress like vagrants are vagrants; people who write like the illiterate are illiterate.

Why limit yourself in such a way when you can play dress ups and be all three?

Jadeite wrote:Another point is that you only live once. Why would you aspire to an inferior ideal? One can only assume that people who act like peasants are peasants; people who dress like vagrants are vagrants; people who write like the illiterate are illiterate.

Lay off the Twitter and YOLO. The only ones that care about living their life to the "maximum" are ones who already have empty lives. Like the aforementioned social media users.

shailene wrote:Isn't striving for emotional gratification through the feeling of superiority just as much of a crude and predictable human behavior, though? The tendency to overcompensate through ones perceived strengths, only to satisfy an innate (or primal/genetic, if you will) need for reward, because one is lacking the ability to gain reward through successfully adapting to societies norms or other definitions of success? This all sounds like perfectly average human behavior to me, no more, no less.

We all engage in crude and predictable human behavior. The feeling of superiority and its outward manifestations are a natural outgrowth of a superior man who must interact with well-bred society. Whether or not the obvious outward manifestations are perceived strengths or not is irrelevant. There is much justification for aspiring to an ideal and failing to meet it; little for deliberately suppressing the self and becoming a coquette.

As for reward, if you consider self-esteem and exterior identity a reward, I can see why you would say that. Your thoughts on society, however, are ridiculous for this forum.

Dalloway wrote:

Jadeite wrote:As a schizoid, why exactly is it that you have a dislike for other people? Is it not because of their crude, predictable behavior? And yet it is the crudest, most predictable threads, and the invitations to the basest, most self-indulgent discussion that accrue the most responses and views.

Thank you for this assembly.

The young people under 23 are also mostly undiagnosed and living with their parents.
Also my impression is their posts are not as far away from affect as they claim or wish to be.

This reminded me of the passive aggressive pd.
“The behavior often reflects an unexpressed hostility or resentment stemming from a frustrating interpersonal or institutional relationship on which an individual is overly dependent.” “It results in persistent pervasive ineffectiveness, lack of self-confidence, poor interpersonal relationships, and pessimism that can lead in severe cases to major depression, alcoholism, or drug dependence.”

The bold self-diagnosis could be part of reinforcing ineffectiveness. The inconsequential chitchat dominating this forum is in my opinion the un-schizoid, normal way to banter and find self-affirmation. The behavior is more consistent with a clique than a discussion board, not to mention a schizoid one.

Personality disorders are diagnosed later in life for a reason. You know much more about the inner workings of a person from how he lives his life at thirty than twenty. Speaking as somebody who underwent intense intellectual growth throughout his twenties, my thoughts when I was in my early twenties were transitory and confused. When I was in my teen-aged years I was entirely ignorant of the reality of the world, and believed what happened in my circle of friends was what I would be doing for the rest of my life.

The average age of marriage seems to be about twenty-five. An unmarried man at thirty makes a much more interesting case study than one at twenty. The former having qualified as an individual, the latter being a brat.

Jadeite wrote: Personality disorders are diagnosed later in life for a reason. You know much more about the inner workings of a person from how he lives his life at thirty than twenty. Speaking as somebody who underwent intense intellectual growth throughout his twenties, my thoughts when I was in my early twenties were transitory and confused. When I was in my teen-aged years I was entirely ignorant of the reality of the world, and believed what happened in my circle of friends was what I would be doing for the rest of my life.

The average age of marriage seems to be about twenty-five. An unmarried man at thirty makes a much more interesting case study than one at twenty. The former having qualified as an individual, the latter being a brat.

I agree that in young adulthood angst is pretty common and seems to level off somewhere after you hit your thirties.

But can you see how your statement that an unmarried man at twenty being a brat is absurd?