/ot/ - Off-topic

It makes me sad knowing that, while humans can be such wonderful and complex creatures, thanks to my lack of communication skills and my general off-putting demeanor, I'll never be able to see more than their most shallow surface.
Well, no one truly will til the point when we invent mind reading devices, and most probably don't want to, either - that'd entail being exposed to plenty of unpleasant experiences. Not that realistic close relationships don't entail that, since one of the prerequisites, or maybe tests of a true bond is going through hardships together. But no one will most likely let me get even to that point.

On the topic of unpleasant human states of mind, though this isn't really a direct response to your post, on a conscious level I don't agree with the "demonization" of certain feelings or behaviours. In my opinion even some seemingly negative personality traits have merit to them, if only by making a person interesting. Being prone to "ugly" emotions like jealousy, fear, anger etc. isn't practical in daily life, true, but such traits don't exist in a vacuum, they're part of a complex picture that makes a person, with parts sometimes starkly contrasting one another, like you've said, and prone to change with experience. I remember being asked what my opinion was of an acquaintance, and getting a surprised and sort of disbelieving response when I said he "seemed sort of arrogant/smug, but clearly smart and cool." So apparently you can't have a positive opinion of a person if you think they're smug at the same time. Yet if he's arrogant, that means that he underestimates certain people, but then the things/people that he DOES value might have more worth than they do to regular people. What makes these things so valuable in his eyes? And what brought him to think this way? What kind of personal experiences has he had? Aren't these things interesting to think about?
A person at their lowest, one that's hysterically sobbing on the floor or locked up in a musty, dark room is interesting in a similar way, and makes me think 'what if I could help them out of their misery?', 'I wonder what they'd look like if i could get them to smile honestly at least once', 'what does a happy person look like after they've gone through this?' Basically, ugly things give more value to pleasant ones. And yet while I say all this, if someone is unpleasant directly to me or someone that I'm close to, intentionally or not, I usually get frustrated pretPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>19602
This is an interesting take on people, but i'm not really sure if the majority are actually messed up in any interesting way. Whenever I'm talking to people and being social, it's sort of like being another person. Even the way I think seems different when i'm in this mode. At first, this side of me was like a mask or facade, but as I got more comfortable slipping into this role, it somehow felt more real. To go with the eb and flow of conversation, to pick up on all the little things a person communicates, to cycle through the options of what you could say and eliminating anything inappropriate, this is stuff that some people don't even have to think about.

Maybe some people are perpetually in this mode unless forced out of it? It's like a default. I always like to sort of play dumb to lull people into a sense of security and reveal more to me than if I seemed opinionated myself. I like to get as good of a sense of people as I can. I just don't know if everybody is so complex. Even when I pick up on their insecurities or their little habits, I'm not sure how aware they are of themselves. Some people, especially kids, just feel like models in a production line.

Maybe there's just some irredeemable mental lines you can't cross that I've alreasy violated.
As for your question, it would depend on the feeling that person gave me. Maybe I would stay apprehensive, but I don't know.

I don’t believe personalities are the constant, inflexible shell that it seems to me most people accept it to be. What I’ve studied from sociology, animal rehabilitation, and even just from writing, just doesn’t allow me to see people that way.

The mind for me is possibly the most flexible, unstable, moldable muscle in the body. I believe what we perceive as “personality” is only a combination of cognition and reactions, that manifest our basic but amazingly complex animal adaptative skills, that we inherit genetically or developed through our lives. Very little traits of the personality are tightly rooted.

The contrast you describe I find it natural. Everybody is very unstable, is what allowed us to evolve so well as we did against our challenges. Our adaptative skills react to the world, to other humans, to circumstances, to hormones, to body sensations, to thoughts, to whatever synapses activate in our brain, to so many things. With so many stimuli influencing us, it must be difficult to stay immune to all. Having an inflexible personality might even be harder, everything may feel more challenging than necessary because you’re bad at adapting.

So everybody is constantly changing, some less and others more, some to better and other for worst. If your personality stopped adapting, if there weren’t any stimuli to read or react to, would you cease to exist? Would you become your real true self without outside and inside influence, or become an empty, unresponsive shell?

You can control this change, and cultivate or trim it as to guide it to your liking or your needs. It is a matter of how well you can manipulate yourself, your adaptability, and how much conscious you are to the stimuli.

I knew some terms for some of these things, but my memory for this kind of things is horrible.

I like xenomorphs, and if one became a cute monster boy that would be a dream come true. This aside, it would depend on a lot of variables.
Sorry for any awkward English or if I’m being out of context. It’s not my first language so some things are still a bit difficult to grasp.

>>19635
Just today I read an article about this sort of thing. As per usual, regardless of science and what's actually reality, society won't change the way it works. If a person murders your family, you're not going to forgive them because their current personality technically isn't the same one as when they killed them. That's an extreme example, but the same principle applies to most people. There's certain things they find irredeemable. When they meet a person they like, they just assume they haven't crossed that line in their head. Even I do that, so I guess it's another inherent part of people.

Get a new waifu, anon.

people died of cancer waiting for her to come home…miracle of the devil

>You mostly assume that people are honest and fair, however you are wary and hold back from trusting people completely. You believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. You are guarded in new relationships and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth about yourself. You do not particularly like helping other people. Requests for help feel like an imposition on your time. You are not adverse to confrontation and will sometimes even intimidate others to get your own way. You are not affected strongly by human suffering, priding yourself on making objective judgements based on reason. You are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
>Often you do not feel effective, and may have a sense that you are not in control of your life. You are a reasonably organized person and like to have a certain amount of routine in your life. You find contracts, rules, and regulations overly confining and are sometimes seen as unreliable or even irresponsible by others. You are content to get by with a minimal amount of work, and might be seen by others as lazy. You have a reasonable amount of will-power and are able to follow through on tasks that you feel you need to complete. You can be distracted however and have been known to procrastinate. You are not an overly cautious person. You will think about alternatives and consequences but make up your mind fairly quickly.
Here's the more recent report.
>Your Personality Type is The Designer (RIOGS) Designers are emotionally reactive, which means that they experience their emotions strongly and can be very passionate., however also have a higher tendency to experience emotions such as anxiety, anger and depression. Due to their independence and reserve, sometimes the Designer can be perceived as arrogant or unfriendly, however this is merely because they don't require the same level of social stimulation or interaction that others may seek. The Designer enjoys a good balance between the real world and fantasy, they are mostly aware of and in touch with their emotions. Being open-minded to new and unusual ideas helps them to interact with the world. With a healthy skepticism of the motives of others, and a belief in justice and being self made, sometimes the Designer can come across as guarded or intimidating. However the Designer has a refreshing impulsiveness about them, tPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>Often you find the real world is too plain and ordinary for your liking, and you use fantasy as a way of creating a richer, more interesting world for yourself. You are reasonably interested in the arts but are not totally absorbed by them. Generally you are not considered to be an emotional person, however you are aware of and in touch with your emotions. You can tend to feel uncomfortable with change. As a person who is open-minded to new and unusual ideas, you love to play with and think about ideas. You also like to debate intellectual issues and often enjoy riddles, puzzles and brain teasers. Often you exhibit a readiness to challenge authority, convention, and traditional values. Sometimes you feel a certain degree of hostility toward rules and perhaps even enjoy ambiguity.
>You generally see others as selfish, devious, and sometimes potentially dangerous. You believe that a certain amount of deception in social relationships is necessary. You are guarded in new relationships and less willing to openly reveal the whole truth about yourself. You do not particularly like helping other people. Requests for help feel like an imposition on your time. You do not enjoy confrontation, but you will stand up for yourself or push your point if you feel it is important. You feel superior to those around you and sometimes tend to be seen as arrogant by other people. You are not affected strongly by human suffering, priding yourself on making objective judgments based on reason. You are more concerned with truth and impartial justice than with mercy.
This is pretty strange because I've actually become much better at talking to others and getting work done diligently. I also have a way thicker skin. Maybe I've become more honest with myself? Either that or I'm going crazy and getting better at hiding it.

http://www.seemypersonality.com/Personality-Report?x=PIx4x5833635-4979854xs4hj2x4

Well it's not wrong.

I took the test again. Apparently i'm less moral and driven to do work, but more social and open-minded. I don't know how much this is affected by self-perception.

Op here. I decided on watching Akira since I never got around to it before and it seems close enough to horror. Happy Halloween.

My neighborhood is always totally deserted outside. It's like a ghost town compared to developments. I don't think even one person took from the basket I put outside…

>>19566
I finished it. Akira might be the best action film ever made. I'd say its sort of like The Matrix, in that its very high-concept, except its better in every way. It's action and visuals are more interesting and impressive, and it doesn't water-down its concepts to be more accessible. Akira gets praise more for its merit, while the Matrix is praised because it's different and dares to make the audience think in an environment of total schlock. The Matrix is also somewhat(very) unoriginal and derivative. Even from a character standpoint, Akira is superior. Despite having a large cast and having little time spent just talking, even supporting characters are more fleshed out and compelling than Neo or Trinity or Morpheus(Cipher's not bad actually). The few talking scenes were poignant and moved the plot along in some way, while the Matrix indulged in longish, repetitive speeches that only served as exposition dumps or to indulge itself despite being in a visual media and having other options for communicating information. Akira came out more than ten years before too. The Matrix being far better remembered in the public conscious is a poor sign to me.

I liked the Matrix when I first saw it and that was only last year, so nostalgia didn't play any part in that enjoyment, but it didn't even come close to blowing me away enough to make me write word vomit like this.

>>19568
I'd also say Akira says a lot more about people, the way they perceive each other, and their relationship with authority and the government than the Matrix, which just alludes to the idea that what authorities tell people could be deceptive, and most people just extrapolate that the movie implied the government lies about so and so or just everything for nefarious purposes. The Matrix's 'best' theme of what reality actually means and whether it matters or not is hardly explored in a meaningful way(impacts characters and story). Again, most of the laundry list is only briefly touched on in some characters conversation. That's why Cipher and Anent Smith are the best characters and could potentially make for more compelling protagonists than what we got with the whole chosen one crap.

>>19592
Thank you very much.

>>19591
why are you writing this in off-topic? there is a Yume Nikki board for that

>>19594
sorry, i thought /ot/ stood for on topic

Moved to >>>/hikki/5262.

A couple more pics

It looks very interesting. Kind of psychedelic.

this looks really cool. i'm interested!

I'm going to go ahead and move this to the indie gamedev board.

Moved to >>>/ig/946.

>>19474
Nah you're just mad cool people enjoy cool things.

>>19480
People aren't allowed to like things anymore, don'tcha know?

>>19479
If you want to believe it's worthwhile, please consider that this chan might have just been paid for, and will continue to be so, at least until Sei or Writer decides to pull the plug.

It's gonna happen, guys.

>>19479
It depends on its users, Ubuu's history is being slowly documented in the wiki too.

UboaChan will never die.

>>19529
But he isn't wrong.

>>19531
My point is that you don't know me and you haven't changed my mind about having a child. Your assumptions are wrong.

>>19539
>you don't know me
lol, such a cliche line
>Your assumptions are wrong.
What assumptions? You said you expected your kid to make sure you weren't lonely when you're old, right? How should somebody interpret that? I wasn't even trying to convince you not to have kids. I'm just saying that they don't owe you whatever you expect them to do for you after they become independent, and you should be mindful of that.

>>19539
So I just found out about this thread, and if your reason for having a child is just not wanting to be lonely at your old age, I think it is selfish just like anon says, a baby is a living thing.

>>19543
No I just want someone to call so they can tell me about their day in the evening. Someone who will go for a coffee with me on a Sunday. You assumed I wanted a child to be my full-time carer and cash cow which is a huge and wild assumption and doesn't apply to me at all. Do you understand now?
>the expectation that they'll be your friend/nurse/piggy bank as an adult

Honestly it just motivates me more. My new goal is to be a better parent than yours were if you get so defensive at someone even mentioning that they want to have a child, that's scary. Idk what happened to you but not all parents are narcissistic, overbearing monsters. Mine weren't and maybe that's why I have a more positive view of raising kids.