Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ppw

Regulars
  • Posts

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by ppw

  1. Hah! Ayn Rand didn't like small talk either. Surprise surprise!
  2. I may have realized something very important; being able to use small talk to build relationships is a skill like any other, and one I'll likely need to master. I've bought this book called "Conversationally Speaking" for that purpose - it just might do the trick.
  3. Well I care. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/01/70015?currentPage=all
  4. Come on, this is old news. Some of us want to go beyond exercise, hard work and coffee. Geez, think out of that box a little. Rand ostensibly used amphetamines to finish The Fountainhead. Peikoff also admitted to using certain stimulants in one of his podcasts. But like I said before, there's more to nootropics than temporary stimulants.
  5. OK, so some types of thinking take up less energy for an individual than other types of thinking. Let's focus on the type of thinking that takes up energy more substantially - in your case, that's thinking about calculus. I am certain that if you worked (even?) harder on calculus, thinking about it would take up less energy for you. (I guess the effect would depend on your age.) The rationale behind this is that if it is indeed true that calculus requires a different kind of thinking, then it very likely uses some other parts of the brain which would need to be trained to be as (energy-)efficient as those which are used to think about epistemology. So it's a sort of mental conditioning that would be required, making those parts more 'fit', eventually requiring less energy for that type of mental process. The same principle should apply to social skills. "Not thinking takes up no energy" -- in comparison to thinking, I would argue that it takes up a negligible amount, yes. Thinking -- again -- depends on what type of thinking we're discussing. And, of course, on the type of thinking you've done in the past. (Man basically carries his past with him his entire life.) I did not argue "Some people who talk a lot are unthinking" ==> "All people who talk a lot are unthinking". It could as well be that they're better trained in social interaction, leaving them free to talk a lot without losing much energy. No. It could as well be that you're better trained in that activity, so you don't get tired easily from it. This discussion has certainly been draining on me.
  6. Keeping in line with the topic, can anyone recommend any good books on improving social skills?
  7. Not all nootropics are stimulants. I think there are some that have a permanent (or at least long-lasting) positive effect on the brain, long after the substance has been ingested for some interval of time. Quercetin, for example, may stimulate the growth of brain mitochondria. 1. Creatine 2. Quercetin 3.
  8. How is it insulting? Thinking is a difficult mental process. It IS draining. Noone is expected to think when they talk. He is not expected to think when he talks. It's not forced upon him. Some people choose to think when communicating - others do not. The former get drained depending on the level of thinking involved and how "mentally fit" they are (think physically fit, only pertaining to the mind), the latter do not. Yet dispensing with epistemology and focusing on whether someone was insulted or not, giving emotions primacy, speaks volumes about your character.
  9. Good God, I was only arguing against their definition of the word 'introversion' - I hold Peikoff's definitions of the words introversion and extroversion.
  10. Can you name some that you've tried and have had actual success with them? I wouldn't say caffeine actually accelerates concept-formation per se; I would argue that it simply speeds up the thinking that has already been done in the past (remembering something, performing some mental operation etc.). Besides caffeine, the only other thing that I could really call a nootropic (and one that actually did help with my learning), and which can be the first entry of this list, is: 1. Creatine 2. Care to add any of your own?
  11. Why do you think that happens? Well, let me tell you why - because you actually think when communicating to others - that's why you feel drained - not because you're "introverted": You can learn to talk while not thinking - I have - but I don't think that empty talk serves any purpose, which is why I choose not to do it. And the people who choose default (i.e. don't think) can talk all the time because they're not drained by the thinking involved. It's really that simple.
  12. I disagree with that. Search for 'introversion' in Peikoff's podcasts and play the result that appears to know why.
  13. Just focus on what you're suggesting You're essentially saying that you should do something, because if you don't, other people might not like you.
  14. I advise the reader to go to the original entry; the layout of this text makes it seem as if though Weiss' words are Cline's.
  15. This is an interesting perspective. Do you really think it boils down only to these three possible cases? What if they have no motive behind it, but are just used to doing it as an act of habit?
  16. Am I not then putting social connections above my own values?
  17. I'd like to know the exact meaning of that phrase, because there is one major issue with it as I understand it. For something (or someone) to be interesting, there needs to be an interested party. The question is then: interesting to whom? When you're dealing with a group, you're dealing with a multitude of individuals, all of which have differing values and interests. But that doesn't really delve into the heart of the issue, which is: what if their interests don't fall in line with your own? Do you force yourself to study football to have something to talk about to fit in better with the group?
  18. If you hold omniscience as the standard, then you can never be certain about anything. Certainty is not a matter of degree, but of context. (I was using the term 'a little more' jokingly, but you latched on to it like a true skeptic would.) I can be contextually certain; completely, absolutely certain--within my context of knowledge.
  19. Not omniscient. Certain. Figuring people out is hard. People you've known your whole life, however, you can be a little more certain about.
  20. They become obnoxiously loud. They're good at finding "common denominator values" - i.e. topics that everyone can say something about - but those are usually so bland and uninteresting that I zone out when they become a topic of discussion. Usually it's about badmouthing another person or group, i.e. gossip. Every single thing they say is a bromide. I cringe on the inside when I hear stuff like 'you should lie all the time to women to keep them with you'. I get the impression that in order to be a successful group talker (in MY particular group), you have to throw out all rationality. Well, that's not going to happen, so they can stick their objections with me up where the sun doesn't shine.
  21. I'd like to add that I'm good at building one-on-one connections, i.e. I'm good at communicating with individuals when they're not surrounded and observed by other people (it's hard for me to understand why people behave so differently when they consider themselves part of a group vs. when you catch them alone), but I'm not good at building one-to-many connections, i.e. being a "crowd pleaser" - I'm horrible at that.
  22. Isn't that obvious (that everyone should be on the same page)? If it's not, then it's the job of the superior to fix any issues with that. Do your own epistemological figuring out. That I can agree with. That I am doubtful about. Well, I won't be spending 1/3rd of my life with them. With relatives, no, but that's because my mind about them is made up - my moral judgment of them is complete - I know exactly what they're thinking and how they're going to deal with (if at all) the problems that will come about, I know their relationship to reality (and how poor it is) - and yes, that applies to almost all of my relatives. (On another note, I loved small talk with my grandma - she was a lot like Rand in many ways - but her fire is dying out quickly, and ever since her husband died, all she seems to be doing is waiting for the end.) With friends, yes, I do. Friends, however, are a different story from acquaintances from work. Friends are chosen.
  23. But there is no such thing as a 'team atmosphere' - that's a floating abstraction, like 'collective rights' and 'collective consciousness'.
  24. This is a false dichotomy - someone who is not very talkative is not necessarily an asshole, and I'd rather have a relationship with a capable asshole than an incapable friendly guy.
×
×
  • Create New...