Fun Stuff > CHATTER
How "normal" do you think you are?
McTaggart:
Umm, the way I see it is that biologically and structurally and physically we're all pretty much the same thing. From here, I think that since we're basically the same, we should all respond to the same things in the same way. However, this is clearly not the case, and the way people respond to situations depends on their past experiences. So you include those past experiences into the set of things that people use for their descision making. However, the situations you end up in depend on other people's descisions too, you need to include everyone else in the set of things that affect people's actions. Essentially people are like incredibly complex and chaotic functions of a huge number of complicated initial conditions. Everyone's thoughts and actions are governed by the same function, but everyone's initial conditions are different.
So I'm perfectly normal, as is everyone else on a fundamental level.
Naturally, all the states that people are in would be different and you could do statisical things to see what is 'normal' or 'average', but that requires far too many value judgements to terribly meaningful in the long run.
jhocking:
--- Quote from: est on 03 Jul 2008, 18:22 ---Y'know, the kind of people who think that using comic sans in emails and company memos makes it seem more cheerful? Those fuckers.
--- End quote ---
Dimmukane:
My design and typography teachers taped this to their door when I printed it out for them.
KvP:
--- Quote from: McTaggart on 04 Jul 2008, 06:00 ---Umm, the way I see it is that biologically and structurally and physically we're all pretty much the same thing. From here, I think that since we're basically the same, we should all respond to the same things in the same way. However, this is clearly not the case, and the way people respond to situations depends on their past experiences. So you include those past experiences into the set of things that people use for their descision making. However, the situations you end up in depend on other people's descisions too, you need to include everyone else in the set of things that affect people's actions. Essentially people are like incredibly complex and chaotic functions of a huge number of complicated initial conditions. Everyone's thoughts and actions are governed by the same function, but everyone's initial conditions are different.
So I'm perfectly normal, as is everyone else on a fundamental level.
Naturally, all the states that people are in would be different and you could do statisical things to see what is 'normal' or 'average', but that requires far too many value judgements to terribly meaningful in the long run.
--- End quote ---
I would agree with this, but while we're all made up of the same stuff and are similar up to a point, it seems like the most miniscule differences in conditions can produce profoundly different results such that our apparent similarities are largely irrelevant in any case. I don't know if that makes any sense. It causes me to wonder, if you could control conditions absolutely, could you "recreate" a person exactly?
Nodaisho:
Well, I suppose my problem with discerning normalcy is what frame of reference to use. Within my subcultures, I think I am pretty normal, but to people that aren't on the internet frequently, jokes I make might make no sense, to people that don't listen to the same music, my music references will indubitably leave them uncomprehending, I am sure there are other examples that I simply can't think of right now.
I do tend to have odd thought progressions, though. They make some sense to me, but just about none to the people around me. Also, my personality changes a lot depending on the mood I am in, if you see me saying contradictory thins about my personality or my outlook on life, it is because it has changed since I made the last post, and will certainly change again before long.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version