Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

aureliusofthenorth t1_jdgpar2 wrote

This is terrible advice.

Social interaction is a healthy and super important part of life - without it you're a lot more likely to develop mental health problems like depression.

You don't need to "disappear" to work on yourself. You can do it while also catching up with friends once or twice a week. It won't stunt your progress. In fact, it will probably make it easier because you'll feel more refreshed and less god damn miserable.

10

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdgvc5y wrote

Is this from personal experience or professional expertise? Or are you just talking out of your ass?

Some of us actually do need a full disconnect in order to properly calibrate ourselves and reenter reality.

Your 'advice' is crap.

−5

aureliusofthenorth t1_jdh2h3m wrote

It’s from personal experience, experience of others, from my passive interest in psychology and neuroscience, and from general common sense.

If you want to take life advice from a hooky quote probably made up by a 17 year old on Reddit, go ahead.

3

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdh3kmi wrote

I'm not taking life advice from a kid online. I don't need it.

If you are so certain of your knowledge base, then it's nowhere near so comprehensive as you think. By and large, isolation is the onky way to figure out who you are. Everything else is just prattle.

−1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdiw374 wrote

So you have a Ph.D. in psychology and neuroscience then, and thus can rightly call your knowledge base significantly more extensive?

−1

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdj4gah wrote

Does writing a comment like this make tiu feel smart? Do you enjoy being immediately combative and disagreeable?

Don't ask questions that you don't really want answers to. And, since you're looking for some kind of fight, look elsewhere.

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdj4xve wrote

No, it has nothing to do with feeling smart; it just is that if you're going to make a dismissive, cocksure sounding comment of your own, then I can inquire just as curtly as to how you can justify it honestly, too. For the interests of even further honesty, it makes me angry because I hate seeing other people treated dismissively like that when I can sympathize with their plight due to it peeling scabs off years of past trauma that still I have not fully and entirely recovered from (if there is such a thing as recovery), but I also am simultaneously open-minded to that maybe you have good reason to say as you do, too, in spite of that anger, and so I then inquire about it, with the intent of procuring an honest answer.

Hence, you don't know what I "really want" answers to - not even the half of it. Trying to guess if someone "really wants" an answer to a question or not is a silly game I decided myself not to play a long, long time ago. Can you answer the question? If it's a "yes" - great for you, then you win points on both me and your original opponent. If it's a "no", then tell me how you justify your comment's truthfulness in the absence of possessing such knowledge.

1

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdj5wuh wrote

Then try asking genuinely. While this is a public forum, you are not the person I was interacting with. I owe you nothing.

So... if you want something from me, approach me with the same tone & manners you would like for me to use with you.

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdj6p9r wrote

OK, how about, "How do you know though that your knowledge is more extensive and thus can ask that someone accept your claim more than theirs? Do you have more extensive, formal training than they in psychology and neuroscience? A Ph.D., perhaps?"

And in any case, to me "genuine" means one thing: that what you say is what you honestly want. And that is exactly what I did. You chose not to interpret it that way because it didn't fit some preconceived mold you have regarding how that "should look". If you want to argue about tone, then ask me to "ask in a softer tone", not "ask genuinely" because "genuine" is not a tone but rather a statement of concordance between what is said and what one wants. And that concordance has been there from the get-go on these posts of mine.

0

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdjbgsm wrote

You're defining the terms of the conversation as if you have some control over things, which you don't.

Me? I don't care about what you think is happening here. There are plenty of people in the world who know how to insert themselves into a conversation that started before they entered the metaphorical room who don't require constant social correction. I'd rather deal with them than the chip on your shoulder.

In case it has not fully sunk in yet, I'm not going to give you what you're demanding from me. While I'm sure you're likeable in some places of the world, I don't find you particularly pleasant after the way you barged in here. Pretentious and entitled don't win points.

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdjbv94 wrote

>You're defining the terms of the conversation as if you have some control over things, which you don't.

You did the same to me when you decided what my words meant / my intent was, so fair is fair. And you did that first - because my first post was just a question.

>Pretentious and entitled don't win points.

Why should I care what you think? Caring what someone else thinks about you is not typically talked of very kindly in my experience, so why do you bring this piece of opinion up? (Note how I'm not going to assume your intent, see? I ask a question so I do not assume something that is not correct.)

But maybe you're right, it's better not to bother answering again because all it's doing is making both of us angry and saying shit to each other that isn't going to help make us do anything more than further increase/escalate our anger levels and feelings of mutual indignation.

So let's end the convo gracefully with a bow-out, and I will say to the person you responded to (i.e. this part of my message is for u/aureliusofthenorth) if you can work on yourself while keeping a level of social interaction, great - you're not wrong! But if you (i.e. u/FatherOfLights88) need isolation, great for you too. Keep doing what works for your own individual constitutions. Both of you know yourselves far better than you do each other or I know either of you.

Goodbye!

1

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdjdq10 wrote

Do you honestly think that you're the only person in the world who communicates like you do? Your first post was not "just a question". It was an attempt to 'judge as worthy' or 'discredit'. There's a part in the dark recesses of your mind that thinks it knows better.

Until you correct the disagreeable part of your character, this "conversation" will continue to be nothing but circular, boring, and uninspired.

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdjkppx wrote

OK, here's something else, now that I have been away from this a bit and calmed down.

How should I correct the "disagreeable part of my character", exactly? What would an "agreeable" way of approaching it, that would ask what I've stated is my actual intent to ask, but in the proper way that makes that clear, look like?

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdjfbs7 wrote

>Do you honestly think that you're the only person in the world who communicates like you do?

No, I don't. I also don't bother to keep a ledger of who communicates in what style, nor do I particularly care to.

And I don't have to be the only one in the world who communicates the same way I do, either. They'd probably make better convo partners than you and I do.

>Your first post was not "just a question". It was an attempt to 'judge as worthy' or 'discredit'. There's a part in the dark recesses of your mind that thinks it knows better.

The motivation of my first question was because it seemed to me you were being rather nasty yourself toward that person, treating them like they were so awful for simply disputing a piece of life advice given on an Internet forum. That got me mad to see you treat them that way. It seemed to me like you were grandstanding over them, so I wanted to call that out. I am not sure if that means I think something in my mind "knows better" (what does that even mean? "Knows better" about what, than who? You? Him? I legitimately am having trouble decoding the referent there) - I don't "know better" than you who is or isn't "ultimately right" on this, as I said I think it's really dependent on the individual which path will/won't work for them so I don't think that either one is more or less "right". But I did also honestly want to know too, because I know I could be wrong.

So yes, maybe the question did serve a rhetorical purpose (not sure it's exactly the one you are saying it is though given the aforementioned reading comp problem viz. the phrase "knows better") but for me, whenever I ask such a question I also am doing so just as much with an open mind to that the answer may very well defeat my rhetoric, too, so it's double-purpose, not single.

Also, since you have said this conversation is circular and boring, why are you still trying to rope me back into it?

0

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdivsfa wrote

"Some of us" also need the opposite.

So your comment kind of contains its own refutation.

There "real cold hard truth" here is there is no one size fits all formula for everyone, and neither the OP's nor the person you are responding to's, are that formula, because it doesn't exist.

1

FatherOfLights88 t1_jdj3zsm wrote

Not really. I was being polite.

1

SpiritStriver90 t1_jdjldfs wrote

See, that's the thing. How am I supposed to understand what you're saying was meant that way as opposed to simply what it said on its face? Though I can see the logic, there seems no way to distinguish it on the dint of what you have written.

And then I still get back to having to ask you, even if my anger has had a chance to dissipate some now, because I truly honestly can't see it, how you can think it must be the same for everybody, that there is an only "one-size-fits-all" approach given how diverse human beings and their circumstances are. And how you can justify such a sweeping, exception-free statement and, in doing so, what credentials or experience you bring to the table that is at least as good as what the person you were talking to were claiming as their credentials (or else, some evidence that they lack the credentials they have stated they have). Of course, maybe they too were making a sweeping statement, but then - again following logic - that just means two of us need to "pony up", not one.

And how exactly was your post calling that person "talking out of your ass" and "your opinion is crap" very "polite", exactly, much less "agreeable", and at least more agreeable than everything I have said to this point? It's hard to accept correction from someone who seems like they might (and I say "might" because again, I am trying to be open to the possibility I am wrong, so I can be fair) be a hypocrite.

1