/ot/ - Off-topic

I thought this was obvious… are you telling me people don't realize they do the same thing as the rest? They may as well not think of themselves as human.

>>18040
It does seem pretty obvious, but it's been getting on my nerves lately. Since nobody seems to be outright saying it, I can't help but think they don't realize it. I have a hard time believing that people could have that level of cynicism and at the at time never acknowledge the thing they are cynical about.

I agree. There's all this talk of individuality and how you're not like anybody else 'cause you wear a big hat or you paint dogs or something, but humans operate in a certain way which has little variation until environmental factors come into play. Everything we do is the one reaction that we can have to that stimulus. This is why I think considering humans as programs that can edit themselves is useful.

>I know this might sound edgy
No need to discredit yourself, an interesting idea is an interesting idea.

>>18042
>There's all this talk of individuality and how you're not like anybody else 'cause you wear a big hat or you paint dogs or something
This part of your reply really resonates with me. I feel that, especially in modern society, people are far too preoccupied with the superficial. America's idea of, "individualism", has more to do with appearance than actual thought and personality. People can dye their hair any color or get nose piercings or wear stupid clothing, and they act like that's freedom, but people aren't allowed to be too introverted or be too critical of modern views or have too polarizing ideas. Personally I feel that in a society where everybody is expected to have a decent outward appearance, people would be forced to develop them self in more meaningful ways. Instead of dying your hair, read a book or get a hobby. Try to improve yourself. People use their freedom as an excuse get attention through personality substitutions. I don't agree with you that people are necessarily actually following a program. Maybe from a scientific view that could be considered the case, but I don't think that kind of programming makes our specific reactions to things as rigid as they seem to be. I don't literally believe that people are actually following some kind of program(although for all I know that really could be the case), I phrased things that way for dramatic effect. I am more bothered by the callousness of responding to everything in such a predicable way. I don't like that idea that when a person dies you're supposed to do x and everybody just goes along with it. What's more important, the person who died, or the expected way to respond to their death? I can't tell what people really care about more.

>>18041
By the way, now that I read my post again, I didn't meant to spite your thoughts or sound pretentious in any way there. It just strikes me as natural that we know human nature enough as to not to get surprised by how we react the same way for the same kind of events and thus people don't give it much consideration.

>>18043
>What's more important, the person who died, or the expected way to respond to their death? I can't tell what people really care about more.
And what should happen, then? What if I didn't post anything even though I consider the news a sad one?
Also, on the same line of thought, some people react differently to the same events. Suppose trump died tomorrow, his supporters will do pretty much the same thing you described with Miyazaki, while the people who disliked him would react happily. Now, this is, again, predictable for the very same reasons as your Miyazaki example, but what if a cop died during a shooting after killing a black kid AND his killer was another black kid? Supporters of the Black Lives Matter would of course blame everything on the cop and call the pigs on him (again, the predictable outcome), but what about other people, not in touch with the news/whole racism problems/'murrica thought pattern/whatever you want to call it? Say, for example, people outside of America. Can we really predict exactly what the reactions would be, or things start to dilute?
Some people will blame it on niggahs because "black people are like that". Others will talk shit about police abuse. Others will say it's the government for not giving the kids a chance to be something else. Others will blame drugs. Others will… etc, etc, etc.

>>18044
>And what should happen, then?
I don't like how predictable people are when showing their condolences. Having a fill in the blank, robotic response to every death of a respected artist seems disingenuous to me. It would be better if they didn't write articles about him. If they didn't try to benefit from his death by getting clicks and not caring if they repeat each other. It would be better if people either did nothing at all, or did something that is specific to that person in my opinion. Instead of posting on social media about how you're sad, why not re-watch his films in silence? All of this is still coming to me. I didn't plan out this whole thought process, I just wanted to express my disdain for the practice. Now I realize that I think grief should be dealt with silently and in personal way. Grief should not be a marketable thing to circle-jerk about. Treat people like people and not like an intangible idea. When somebody close to you dies, you don't write articles about it. If you really care about Miyazaki, you shouldn't indulge in such perverse things. Be an individual. I have less of a problem with the predictability of emotions, and more to do with the predictability of the way those emotions are expressed. The cut and paste method people express themselves in makes me not believe that those emotions are genuine.

>>18045
Right, I get what you mean. I think the problem here is that you are watching the whole picture and trying to look for at least a whit of originality among the little parts that compose it, which you won't (because the people you're looking for aren't even there). We live in a society where we were taught we should express ourselves and that when someone dies (specially somebody important), we have to pay a respect of sorts (and that usually involves writing how good of a person they were, and what an inspiration for other people they've become, etc).
Now, I really don't get surprised at how mainstream media reacts, since they don't really care for what they say as long as that brings bucks into their pockets, and the death of somebody known is a relative good clickbait, but this explains why common people do all that stupid shit. If everybody is doing the same, and there's nothing preventing me of doing the same, then I should go for it too. I mean, people constantly post pictures of them doing stupid shit, pictures of food, status where they complain their fonts are too small; jesus christ, I wouldn't be surprised people posted every time they farted. So naturally, they will jump into this boat of "I WAS A FAN TOO!" to get their dick licked by other people doing that.

>The cut and paste method people express themselves in makes me not believe that those emotions are genuine.
Ah well, it seems you actually can't do much to pay respect for somebody other than to express it publicly, "otherwise people won't know", right? Our society is, sadly, mainly extrovert, so most people simply prefer to spit cliché than to shut up and light a candle in the privacy or their homes and wish the person had a happy life and managed to achieve most of their dreams.

>>18048
Ah, it gets frustrating sometimes. People really need to tie mourning with social gain? What benefit does a person get by making others recognize that they're a fan too? It's like people are gluttonous monsters that endlessly gorge on the validation of others. I get why impressionable children would just copy what main stream media does, but shouldn't adults eventually get enough self-awareness to have that, "spark"? The seemingly obvious realization that their feelings don't matter and other people don't need to know them?

>>18049
I don't think every single person writing something is necessarily looking for social approval, however the fact they post it publicly means that they actually have the need to speak it out instead of staying quiet. Why is this any different than silent mourning, beats me. When I was around 14 I remember wishing Kurt Cobain a happy birthday for a few years every February 20. Back then I felt this was just a way to connect with him. Nothing deep, it was just like, when you are watching/reading a story and something happens to a character you like and feel empathetic about the situation. It may not have meant much, but nonetheless I felt better by wishing him a happy birthday as if he was still alive. I can't exactly say what was going on my head back then, but I wished my words crossed whatever barriers that exist between the dead and those alive, and that made me feel better about the thing.
Nowadays I realize how meaningless that is and wouldn't do it, but I really didn't mean much in regards of social approval when I was doing that. Maybe it's a form to deal with the idea that things eventually disappear? Some sort of escapism to make things feel better? I really can't tell, and honestly I am not that interested in my psyche back then, so I'll probably never know.

>What benefit does a person get by making others recognize that they're a fan too? It's like people are gluttonous monsters that endlessly gorge on the validation of others.
I think it's because people think that having a personality involves playing a certain role and you can't leave that box. And having a role usually involves people recognizing that role as such, otherwise it doesn't exist. Otherwise you don't have a personality.
That always has interested me, why are humans so scared to lose their personality? Is it uncanny? That's why we dislike dolls and robots? I, sadly, have a very strong personality (or at least I believe I do). Not very outward, but I have very solid opinions about most of the stuff going around in my life, and thus I cannot change as easily as somebody who hasn't got them, but still I wouldn't mind trying if it was possible.

>I get why impressionable children would just copy what main stream media does, but shouldn't adults eventually get enough self-awareness to have that, "spark"? The seemingly obvious realization that their feelings don't matter and other people don't need to know them?
No. Ever since I became an adult I realized that they're the most childish people you will ever find. More than children, because children don't realize they are acting as such. But adults? No, they just learn how to "act" adult, they never stop being children. Sum to the equation how easy is to spit bullshit around thanks to technology, and you have bottles full of gas suddenly exploding all their bottled opinions.

>>18050
>Why is this any different than silent mourning, beats me.
I am personally bothered by, "loud mourning", because it is unnecessary and callous. Funerals are one thing, but those are private events. Mourning should not be a public event and people should not all circle-jerk over it. I can't convince myself that somebody who expresses their sadness in such a robotic and inhuman way can possibly be telling the truth. I just don't but it. Ironically, in trying to, "preserve", their personality, they become less of an individual. If people think their personality is more than what you think your personality is, then they're delusional. I can't relate to people who aren't at least introspective enough to not think their identity is dependent on other people. How could somebody think that?
>Ever since I became an adult I realized that they're the most childish people you will ever find.
Don't people learn from their mistakes and life experiences? Don't they think back on what they did in the past with a grain of self-awareness? I get if you don't want to think about the person you used to be, but if you haven't changed all that much, why wouldn't you dissect yourself? Isn't that in people's best interest?

>>18051
>but if you haven't changed all that much
But I have, that's the main reason. I've gained a lot of knowledge that made me change my perspective and approach to matters in life. I would punch my old self if a could, but then again, who wouldn't?

>why wouldn't you dissect yourself? Isn't that in people's best interest?
Because I understand that which drove my thought pattern back then, I'm just not interested in the mechanics I used to justify it. I was just simply mesmerized with his lyrics and way of thinking and felt they connected with me. There's nothing too deep with that, it's a feedback thing, it's some cycle of thoughts that feeds itself. So I naturally felt inclined to open more bridges between that and me. In the same way people feel connected to god, I suppose. You need to reaffirm that once in a while to feel it's real. Of course I wasn't as nuts as to go that far, it's just an analogy.
Whatever it was, it isn't really important in my eyes now, because if I have dropped it and got over the whole thing, I don't think wasting my time and energy thinking about the past will make any difference. After all, I'd naturally reach a conclusion based in how I think right now, so what's the difference? I already think the way I think now. The past is gone and won't come back. I'd rather focus on my present so my future will be bright.

>>18052
You forgot the part where I said if you didn't change that much. Those questions weren't directed at you, but the people who seem to never think about themselves. Why don't they. I can't imagine that most people are in your boat.

>>18053
Oh right you are then, for a second thought it was the other way around.
Honestly, I wonder the same from time to time, but for me it seems that people don't care. "I am, whether I think or not" sort of thing. I think people tend to analyze their lives when something out of ordinary happens to them, say, somebody close dies, they discover they have lung cancer, or simply something that makes them go "Oh. Damn." and suddenly they realize the kind of life they've been going out and about with. But until that happens, how many people do wonder about anything at about themselves? They usually just pay a therapist to do the job for them and they don't even listen.

Humans as a whole may be predictable but how they react to things changes over time, and how it will change is unpredictable, how things were 100 years ago they never could have guessed how society would be today.

Also… Aren't you only look at humans reactions to things as well… What shows up on the surface? Like if someone knew about the death of someone and didn't post about it you wouldn't even know, there could be more people not posting about it then the number of people who do, there probably are. Extroversion will always be the most potent part of society, because it's the only part we see, even if it's only the tip of the iceberg. Also… What makes quiet mourning any better than loud mourning? Is mourning in some way sacred? But is it not just a social construct, or perhaps personal opinion, aren't both social construct and personal opinion equally as human?

and personality… When you define who you are you limit yourself to that definition, you create boundaries… People will always take pride in what they are and what they do, if you don't your life feels miserable, do you not take pride in how you can recognize how people act so predictable,or perhaps detached from them, isn't that what everyone wants?

…
…
… Humans made very predictable, but they are less predictable than any other animal…
…
… I'm drinking a lot right now so don't take anything I say here too seriously I'm just rambling my thoughts but I haven't posted in a serious conversation here in ages so it feels nice

>>18072
What people copy from each other may change, but that doesn't change my personal grievance, which is the predictability in it of itself. Humans may be more predictable than other animals, but humans are also the only animals with such a things as mass media and society. The predictability in these uniquely human things is different from the predictability of animals.
>you wouldn't even know
Ghibili could just make an announcement, and that's it. I don't know.
>What makes quiet mourning any better than loud mourning?
What is the purpose of mourning? Is it to be social, or to send off a person who you personally cared about? Sensationalizing a person's death just seems despicable to me.
>When you define who you are you limit yourself to that definition
Personality is not something that needs to be defined. It just is. Your beliefs and how you react to things are what you feel are the most natural way to think. It just feels right. What feels right is what your personality is.
Discussing stuff is nice, right?

>>18074
this place had an edit feature once long ago
… Anyways…
I disagree about personality what we are and what we believe strongly defines us and we are often willing to defend it beyond the point of usefulness… Have you never argued with someone, realized you were wrong and kept arguing anyways? It's kind of like that, or it is that… I remember myself in junior high, I remember living very rigidly along the lines of who I thought I was, the role I filled, I never "broke character" so to speak.
An interesting study I heard about, whether or not someone believes in global warming has no correlation to how informed on the subject they are, it seems to Correlate entirely with political alignment… Who you are defines what you believe, or maybe what you believe defines who you are? Hmmmmm "true self is without form"

maybe that's all more an object of the social role thats hard to break once it becomes what's expected of you, but it also consequentially becomes what you expect of yourself

>>18075
Huh, I personally have never experienced any desire to protect my identity because my identity always felt completely natural to me. I acknowledge to myself that I put on a facade around other people. I know that that's not the real me, it's the me I present to other people. This in itself a facet of my identity, the fake identity and desire to maintain it. Maybe it's because I always have spent so much time in my head, but I always saw a very clear and absolute line between my true self and who I present to the outside world. I even put on a mask when using ubuu. The mask is closer to who I really am, but I certainly withhold information. I do this as a defensive mechanism against other people because I know my true self has a lot of off putting qualities. It has nothing to do with a desire to fit in, it's a desire to not stand out. In an argument, I always start by being almost certain of my position. If the other person starts to beat me in the argument, I have a tendency to bend the definitions of words and logic to try and twist things so that i'm still right. If I fail to do this, I might actually change my perspective on something. I don't feel that defensive about my identity. I have no problem with the notion that in ten years I might be totally different. The hope that life might make me a superior person to who I am now is actually comforting to me.

I don't know, I guess with human predictability, the reason it seems so predictable is because for every situation (in the example you give for instance), there is a limited amount of possible reactions. This is especially relevant to culture. The way humans react must in some way be shaped by our culture, values, self preservation, communal perception etc, so I feel to some degree, reactions will only fall into a certain general set. This set might be diverse—in the case of mourning, think of how many view death in the context of reincarnation—but it will ultimately have a general feel. Thus, it's probably best to look for the subtle nuance in how we react, and to be genuine. Being contrarian doesn't make sense as a general life strategy, but being critical and sincere in your thought and will at least allow you to understand our predictability.

>>18076

>> In an argument, I always start by being almost certain of my position. If the other person starts to beat me in the argument, I have a tendency to bend the definitions of words and logic to try and twist things so that i'm still right. If I fail to do this, I might actually change my perspective on something.

>>I don't feel that defensive about my identity. I have no problem with the notion that in ten years I might be totally different. The hope that life might make me a superior person to who I am now is actually comforting to me.

Isn't that moment of maintaining correctness still in some deep rooted way preservation of identity? I guess realising that your opinion changes and that you put on a mask, as well as fundamentally understanding your self preservation in argument negates that to a degree, but I'm not sure it totally separates your identity from your opinions.

>>18079
I do that because I hate losing. I have a stubborn streak and it extends to other things.

>>18078
>The way humans react must in some way be shaped by our culture
Why is that a necessity? There lies what my problem fundamentally is. All humans experience the emotion of grief in the same way. The feeling is consistent, yet the reaction to it is not. Is mourning a cultural exercise, or a personal affair? Common practice in society is inevitable and necessary in some cases, I understand this, but the way in which we mourn in modern society rubs me the wrong way. There is nothing natural about it as it is only possible because of technology. There is no diversity in society's reaction to something. The diversity you speak of is from one society to another, it is not from individual to individual. Mourning is an emotion that is experienced by an individual and an individual can only truly feel their own pain. Because of this I feel that the emotion should be reacted to individual(or with people who you actually have a strong relationship with). No click bait articles, no capitalizing on the object of mourning, no social media posts. I believe that these practices cheapen death and turn it into a digital circus act for people to gawk at and feign empathy for. Even if participating is a, "good life strategy", I want no part in it and it disturbs me.

>>18039
Groups are predictable; the individual is not.

>>24048
A machine is made predictable by its predictable components.