House of Eratosthenes

That was incredibly lame. Was it supposed to be some kind of tongue-in-cheek humor?

It’s boring if taken as humor, and completely worthless if taken as some kind of serious commentary on the phenomena associated with human interaction. It presupposes that, contrary to all available evidence and observation, that humans aren’t designed from the get-go with a built-in need for social interaction.

In other words…it is either un-funny or useless. Take your pick. It encourages people to sit around by themselves, become introverted, and retreat into the recesses of their own minds. Quite frankly, we’ve got a society full of people for whom that’s the absolute last thing they should be doing. It’s how we wound up with people like that nutjob who gunned down 28 people at Virginia Tech. He spent a lot of time alone, and consequently there was nobody around to tell him he’d gone crazy and needed help.

We all need some time to ourselves, but you said it yourself, Morgan in your Things I Know list. Certain temptations become revolting (or even harmful) when we get too much of them.

Oh, don’t get me wrong, I can identify with plenty of that list. I grew up as an only child and usually wound up playing alone. It’s a trend which continued well into adulthood.

Quite frankly though, there is no substitute for quality, frequent interaction with like-minded people, especially if the group is organized around a shared religious faith. And there is certainly none for the companionship of someone in the capacity of wife or girlfriend.
- cylarz | 12/02/2008 @ 03:24
Uh, I’m not following. I’m reading through it again…seems like pretty reasonable stuff.

Where exactly is your “You don’t really mean that, do you??” moment, Cy?

For me, with regard to what you wrote, it’s the insinuation that too much alone-time leads to shooting up a school. You don’t really mean that do you? Whatever logic there is in your rant, seems to depend on that supposition. I could just as easily say when people deprive themselves of their alone-time, to the point they can no longer distinguish between being alone and being lonely, they end up voting for Obama.
- mkfreeberg | 12/02/2008 @ 12:37
I’m with Morgan here. And I don’t see it as encouraging “people to sit around by themselves, become introverted, and retreat into the recesses of their own minds.” It just says that on the one hand some people are pre-disposed to that sort of thing (and are probably pretty intelligent), and on the other, some people affect themselves into that sort of thing because they think there is some kind of romance to it (not so intelligent).

I think another point revolves around this: “Quite frankly though, there is no substitute for quality, frequent interaction with like-minded people…”

He is saying that as intelligence increases, like minded people become harder to find in one place, so the geniuses of the world are are either left largely to their own devices, or can commit the character suicide of pretending to want company. Not pretending to be the life of the party, but pretending to BE ABLE TO BE the life of the party. Some folks just can’t. Some of the ones who can’t, wish they could, some are perfectly happy that they cannot.
- Andy | 12/02/2008 @ 13:20
The school shooting-up was an extreme (albeit real-world) example of what happens to people who spend too much time alone. Surely you see that.

All right, I’m feeling a bit lazy today, and I’ll pick on #4 from the list, even though I still think the entire piece was trash. Just curious whether this passage was in that “sixty to seventy percent” you agreed with:

4. Relationships require effort
Usually of the non-rewarding kind. Relationships with chicks involve doing things that serve no practical purpose whatsoever, as gestures. Chicks love gestures. You take this much effort it means that you love me this much. The idea that there is no correlation between love and effort for a man never occurs to them. I think this all started with that old Percy Sledge song “When a Man Loves a Woman” in which the singer tells all the things men will do for women they love. It was BS made to sell records. Effort is what men put out when there is a tangible reward at the end of the job. Like sex. The gestures are all about sex, not to show affection. Those flowers are not merely because I know you like flowers and I want to make you happy, they are because I know you like flowers and I want to fuck you.

Seriously Morgan, you don’t see a problem with this? “Usually of the non-rewarding kind?” How the f— would he know? He goes on to specifically single out relationships with women as being especially problematic. He presupposes that all men out there think exactly like he does, namely, that every last little “gesture” we do for some gal has nothing to do with actually just wanting to do something nice because we care about her, or want her to like us back for its own sake. No, it’s all in pursuit of a single objective: getting into her panties. And once that’s accomplished, presumably it’s off to the next target whereupon he’ll lavish more of those “gestures” on some other gal for the same reason as before.

It’s kind of funny how it apparently escapes this fellow – that if women are so much hassle, and being alone is so awesome, why he doesn’t just masturbate instead.

I think what irritates me the most is that furthers the stereotypes that women seem to have about us – that we’re all after one thing and that we do pretty much nothing involving them unless it somehow benefits ourselves in the process.

If this guy wants to sit home alone on Christmas Day reveling in his “genius” and “insight” and all the other bullshit he came up with….let him. I’m going to go spend the day with my family.
- cylarz | 12/02/2008 @ 13:41
It just says that on the one hand some people are pre-disposed to that sort of thing (and are probably pretty intelligent), and on the other, some people affect themselves into that sort of thing because they think there is some kind of romance to it (not so intelligent).

Yeah, I used to think that, too. Then one day it sort of dawned on me that I had no friends, nobody to count on or take to events….and I decided maybe it was time I got involved and stopped missing out on life.

He is saying that as intelligence increases, like minded people become harder to find in one place, so the geniuses of the world are are either left largely to their own devices, or can commit the character suicide of pretending to want company.

I noticed that you left off the last half the sentence of mine which you were critiquing. Shame.

Hey, though, maybe you’re right. People who think they’re too intelligent to be of like-mind with me – maybe they ought to stay home and be by themselves. I certainly don’t want that kind of arrogance around me in a voluntary social setting. I get my fill of it at work, when people lose patience with my ability to understand something they’re explaining to me. That sounds exactly like what I’d have to put up with at a cocktail party, from someone who really doesn’t want to be there.
- cylarz | 12/02/2008 @ 13:56
Okay, it’s interesting you picked #4 because I did have some divided feelings about that one. On the one hand, I do nice things for my gal, all the time in fact, just because I want to and it has nothing to do with wanting to get some (more). So this one doesn’t work for me. But — on the other hand, he’s talking averages here, and the lady I’ve got is very, VERY far from average.

And before she came along, I ran into massive problems with the female set, mostly because of their average-ness. Remaining a representative sampling of the population around you, is a full-time job, it is a couple-commitment, and we had conflict because I was not holding up my end of the job. When people dedicated to being ordinary, pair up with people who are not so dedicated, life gets rough.

On the gender divide with respect to gestures and what they mean — yes, he’s perpetuating a stereotype, but only by acknowledging it exists and coming up with an explanation for it. In fact, his explanation somewhat vindicates the gentlemen, does it not? It provides a rational reason why men and women have the conflicts over these things that they do, without the motivations of deceipt or subterfuge being attached to us. I think he’s on to something here: On Mars, work is one thing, affection is an entirely different thing. Women don’t expect this, and so we end up with confusion and conflict. He’s on to something here.

Of all the things ordinary women do that I don’t understand, it seems roughly half of them come from those women latching on to a boyfriend when what they really needed was a dog. The other half come from them latching on to a dog when they really needed a boyfriend. This misunderstanding about gestures, I’m thinkin’, falls into the first of those two. I’ll avoid, at this time, the stuff that falls into the latter…it’s a little…blech.
- mkfreeberg | 12/02/2008 @ 13:58
I’m thinking Muslim Jihadists are VERY social people so let’s stop with that analogy equating anti-social types with deranged mass murderers.

Being happy and content with one’s life and having sound metal health as very little do with being a social butterfly. Do some ant-social people have problems yes, but I’m willing to bet just as many who are considered “social” have some serious issues also.

Additionally, I see a lot of people walking around supposedly being “social” but in reality they’re just talking or texting on their cell phones, iPods plugged into their ears and/or using some portable video game player thingees.

And another thing, just being social isn’t enough. I’m tired of people who are rude, have no idea what proper manners are, can’t communicate beyond a sixth grade level and think sarcasm is a substitute for exchanging thoughts.

While I can relate do much of this such as despising drama and small talk , I don’t consider myself ant-social since nor a genius but hey, maybe I just haven’t spent enough time alone lately to realize it.
- tim | 12/02/2008 @ 13:59
I’ll not hide from my omission, cylarz. I don’t like doing that sort of thing, smacks of avoidance, but I thought that part of the sentence didn’t actually have much bearing on the point. Sort of a red herring. Could just as easily have said “especially if the group is organized around a shared culinary preference,” without changing the meaning.

But again, apologies for omitting it. It is bad form.
- Andy | 12/02/2008 @ 14:20
Well, I AM anti-social and I agree with about 80 ~ 90% of what was said in the article/list. I fall down on the “genius” bits… that sounds a little arrogant. The rest rings semi-true, to me. We all have our quibbles with this, that, or the other… and I have some quibbles with this article, too. None that I want to take the time or space to dissect here, tho.

I spent 58 years of my life being extremely social… in the workplace, in a 20+ year marriage (while it lasted), in the military, and with great good friends… most of whom I maintain contact with but am geographically distant from. I’ve lived a solitary and VERY satisfying sort of life for the last six years, with nary a socially deviant thought (like murder & mayhem)…beyond the odd private musing about the women I see. My life doesn’t meet social norms, but it damned sure works for me. I may never re-integrate… and I’m certainly of no mind to do so at the present time.

My $0.02.
- Buck | 12/02/2008 @ 16:24

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

AntisocialTuesday, December 2nd, 2008

Antisocial
Tuesday, December 2nd, 2008