THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => CHATTER => Topic started by: fatty on 02 Jul 2008, 21:58
-
Okay there are few factors that should be acknowledged before this poll takes place, because they're usually what comes to mind first when we talk about sanity.
- People may say you're "crazy" or "wacky" or "weird". Doesn't mean you necessarily think you're on the 'fringes' of society. Rather, those people are probably pretty boring.
- You might think that you're slightly unusual and unique because you have "alternative tastes". Reading webcomics, socialising with the internet, strange music tastes etc. This doesn't necessarily make you "abnormal".
The kinds of "norms" I'm suggesting are like:
- interpreting things differently to those around you
- having different priorities to other people your age/gender
- how 'well-adjusted' you are
- how you compare to your friends
--
I think I'm pretty sane in the sense that I'm focused and kind of know what I want. I have different priorities and ideas to those people around me and sometimes it's frustrating, but I have lots of different friends and never really feel isolated.
-
I like to think myself pretty well adjusted, but in many places, that is a deviation from the norm. I pretty much know what I want, I think I am fun to be around, and I can take care of myself. Growing up in suburban America, that is apparently strange.
-
Most people like to say "normal" is a bogus term, but I'm less normal than usual.
-
I'm curious to know whether or not anyone would consider themselves normal.
-
Compared to the average person I meet in my day to day activities I am about as normal as Tahoma is to Comic Sans.
-
Adam raises a good point, is being well-adjusted the "norm"? Because frankly, it seems natural for a lot of people my age to be 'ill-adjusted' around work/uni/social life, school and study, family and responsibility and shit like that.
-
I don't believe in time. No, seriously. My feelings towards time are comparable to someone realizing they don't believe in the religion they were raised on. I always took it for granted because it is such a part of all of our lives, and then I realized one day that it is all made up, and I don't believe in it. As far as having different views than other people, being 'weird' or what ever, I've always thought I was on the normal side of things, just with pink hair. I'm passionate about the modernist ideas about language, but I'm a Lit major, that's still within the realm of normal. When I started to try to tell people about my thoughts on time though I realized that no one really shares my views.
-
I don't think I'm on the fringes of society by any means, but I have had vastly different experiences than most of my peers. I won't go into specifics, but I have witnessed Stuff that really no one should have to see. Many other people have seen and had to go through much worse, but it's still something that I have had to deal with.
I think that maybe because of that experience, I do things and think things that are way out of the norm. Apparently everywhere else it's normal to rarely see your extended family, and you never look forward to it. Mine is apparently exceptionally close. I don't know if that has to do with the incident or if maybe it's a regional thing.
My thought processes confuse everyone else. I tend to think in a weird way, I guess? It's rarely anything actually insightful, but the rationale I use to solve a problem makes sense to me and ... pretty much only me.
I guess I do have some pretty radical views on certain things (I think I freak the crap out of my co-intern because I think death is a positive thing in the most general sense, more so because I'm the exact opposite of what you'd call "morbid") but I don't think that's really what you're going for with this question.
Though really, I am probably much more "normal" than I think I am; everyone is a little fucked up in their own way, and it's hard for me to compare myself and my peers who are also who I would classify as deviates from a whole heck of a lot of norms to what I would consider to be a "normal" person, because I tend to stick to certain places and people that are admittedly a little "out there". I don't have enough experience with "normal" people to know how I really compare to them; especially since I have this tendency to lump people together (ie: the "type" of person who buys clothes from, say, American Eagle or Aeropostale or something I guess. Those are the people I view as normals and I am admittedly kind of biased against them and don't hang out with them even though really I'm sure there are a bunch who aren't boring and don't suck)
-
I recently paid someone to use a scalpel and split my tongue.
In all honestly, I'm probably in the "Fringe" category. I'm incredibly different from most of the family in practically every way possible and I Imagine I must have been a very confusing child for my parents to raise. On the other hand I think i came out pretty well adjusted, depending on your definition, if not very socially awkward.
Once again, on the other hand I find it totally impossible to understand why people find 99% of the things they find strange, to be strange. Like, once I am approached wtih something that I'm unsure if I'm comfortable with, I work through it in my mind and most of the time I come to a conclusion of why it is no stranger than much of anything else and am then baffled by how other people can not see why it is not really all that strange.
Perhaps I should come back to this when it's not 3am and expand on it with a little more brain power.
-
"Normal" is a term that irks me a little as it almost seems to be an evaluative statement, with "normal" obviously being positive and "different", "abnormal" or "unusual" being negative. That said I am probably further from the "normal" end of the scale than most, at least superficially. I mean, politically I fall into the mid-left side of things, I don't necessarily have one of those "five year plans" but I do know where I would like to go with my life and I have a reasonable outline of how to do that which is maybe different to most other middle class white males in their early 20s? I don't know whether I perceive things differently but I mabe think about things and attack problems from different angles than other people I know do. For the most part I am a pretty responsible kind of guy but if I get left on my own for too long and I get bored then I start to act a little odd (eg: running around my flat pretending to be a dinosaur, snarling at household appliances etc...). On the whole I'm pretty normal, but I'm also interesting (I hope) so I'm happy with that.
-
I have a couple semantic issues with this poll.
- People may say you're "crazy" or "wacky" or "weird". Doesn't mean you necessarily think you're on the 'fringes' of society. Rather, those people are probably pretty boring.
This is fairly exclusionary language at the end, and seems to invalidate the opinions that most of the poll's respondents will be at least somewhat reliant on. After all, this is a poll which asks you to place yourself on a scale relative to other people, and you are severely handicapped in this regard by relying solely on your own definition of "normal" and how you fit or don't fit that definition. Which leads into my next point.
The kinds of "norms" I'm suggesting are like:
- interpreting things differently to those around you
- having different priorities to other people your age/gender
- how 'well-adjusted' you are
- how you compare to your friends
I feel these go hand-in-hand with what I just said.
Obviously it's possible to answer this without relying on that information but I'd wager that how others view you is as important to this if not more important than how you view yourself. Norms are external conditions that exist independently of your own behaviour and have as their judges your fellow human beings. I think it only makes sense to consider how others perceive you as well as how you perceive yourself if you are to gauge how "normal" your behaviour is.
-
I am the norm, everyone else is different.
I don't know, I tend to wish for a bygone era more than my friends do. A bygone era as in about 100 years ago or so. I think I'd place myself in the fringe category.
-
I have a couple semantic issues with this poll.
Yes I get that. But a discussion about semantics when it comes to definition of "normal" is also worth having. The original poll question asks for a completely subjective and based on personal perception. Actually the whole post is biased, but I didn't try very hard to create an 'objective' and rationale poll.
My interest lies in what is percieved as "norm" just as much as where people believe they fall! Anyway, I'll write on this when I have more awakeness.
-
I think it's normal to believe that you're abnormal.
-
I don't believe in time. No, seriously.
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean? I just had a discussion with my housemate about 'what is time' and found it kind of irritating. I mean, do you disbelieve in the linear flow, the application of metrics, or the concept entirely? We impose our system on time and time would pass happily without our calendars, but calendars are still incredibly useful. Is your problem with the quantification of time?
Do you not believe in time at all? Like, completely not believing in time is, as far as I see it, like trying to disbelieve a spatial dimension. Like what is motion without time? I don't understand.
I am not trying to be a dick but I really want to know what would ever make you say those words.
-
I guess I am a little smarter than a lot of people my age.. I also don't do a lot of the things considered "fun" by a lot of folks at or around my age (drinking, drugs, lots o' sex).
-
If normal is what the greatest percentage of the population does, then yeah I'm pretty abnormal :P.
I'd say I like to do things differently most of the time, and it's pretty noticeable. It's fun though, and that's what counts rite?
-
I have had discussions with friends/colleagues about how I'm a lot more normal than most artists, and wondered if that'll hamper my artistic growth. The point of sharing this little anecdote is to point out that while I'm slightly odd by the standards of the majority of people, I'm pretty vanilla by the standards of artists. Moreover, the ways in which I'm odd tend to skew toward excessively nerdy, rather than what most people think of as weird or crazy.
Giving some specific examples of what I mean, I don't dress odd or have strange hobbies or anything, but I definitely have different priorities in life than most people do.
-
I'm honestly pretty goddamn normal. I might be a little eccentric at times but I function properly and I've never had mental problems of any sort.
-
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean? I just had a discussion with my housemate about 'what is time' and found it kind of irritating. I mean, do you disbelieve in the linear flow, the application of metrics, or the concept entirely? We impose our system on time and time would pass happily without our calendars, but calendars are still incredibly useful. Is your problem with the quantification of time?
Do you not believe in time at all? Like, completely not believing in time is, as far as I see it, like trying to disbelieve a spatial dimension. Like what is motion without time? I don't understand.
I am not trying to be a dick but I really want to know what would ever make you say those words.
I actually had the same argument with someone about five years ago. She was a friend of a friend and I am pretty sure she was off her fucking nut. She refused to admit that time existed in any linear manner. In my summation, it's all just bullshit pseudo-science from wannabe intellectuals who want to look special and out-there, so they subscribe to some bullshit notion that doesn't make shit worth of sense.
The argument actually cost me a date like a year later, too. Turned out the nutbag was friends with a girl I went on a single date with who, upon hearing from her friend that I was a close minded prick, avoided me for a while.
-
I get told a lot that I am weird or things I do/don't enjoy doing are not "normal". Then again, I have absolutely no desire to be "normal" because I find normal exceedingly boring. I like quirks. Also, I don't really get the whole idea about wanting to be different. I think the "wanting to be like everyone else" thing confuses me more than why people don't like weirdness.
But overall, I consider myself sane and sometimes I feel I'm more sane than other people. I still picked fringe, though, because what I find to be weird are what most people seem to do/believe/say.
-
i put that i'm "on the fringe" but i'm not sure if i'm actually that weird. i mean, i am pretty different from most people i know and it can be pretty frustrating at times. a few things that jump to my mind are:
- i would rather go on a picnic than go drinking.
- most of the girls i know are really, really fucking stupid with guys. i could never imagine making the mistakes that they make.
- i think people place too much emphasis on whether they are "straight" or "gay"
- i have internet friends
although these things make me really different from the people around me i don't know if they qualify me as "abnormal". for one thing, i am sure there are plenty of people who think like me, or who are similar to me, but i just don't know them. and for another thing, i think that everyone has weird quirks about them that makes them different to everyone else - it's just that these quirks differ from person to person.
for example, although i am probably by far the weirdest of my roommates (i look weirder and i am the nerdiest one) i am definitely the sanest. i am odd in the sense that i have an almost non-existent social life when i'm in italy because i hate just about everything my that peers enjoy, but i overall am a happy person - i accept what my circumstances are and i work around them. my roommates appear to be much more normal and well-adjusted than i am - they go clubbing and would never dye their hair purple. but one has weird hygiene issues and has regular mental breakdowns, another can't handle any aspect of her life - whether it's school, work or friendships - because she has no concept of consequences, and the third roommate is a bit delusional in general, and manages to make every wrong decision possible when it concerns romantic relationships - almost as if she is willfully trying to work against reason and rational thinking. i would much rather have my eccentricities than theirs!
-
If by norm you mean typical college male in Maryland, then I'm somewhat off-base. Around here the norm is that of a typical fraternity brother, minus the obnoxiousness. Get drunk on the weekends, hopefully hook up with an equally drunk college female, go to most of your classes. Probably a communications major. Enjoys any movies involving the Frat Pack, Family Guy, Simpsons, bad sitcoms. Doesn't read much, listens to Jack Johnson and Muse, and Lil' Wayne. Hopes to have an office job someday, get married and have a kid or two, probably wants to stay in Maryland.
I don't like drinking much. While I'm interested in girls, I've never made it a priority to hook up with any. Mostly this is due to any of them who show interest being crazy, but also my tendency to think things through too far ahead. I tend to not like most of the movies everyone else in my area does (I was actually quite upset that I got outvoted to watch Wanted instead of Wall-E). Same goes for television. I typically watch four kinds of things: mindless stuff (Cops, America's Funniest Videos), History/Discovery channel programs, The Daily Show, and Adult Swim cartoons/Simpsons. I don't make a point of watching every episode, either.
I am majoring in a degree that boils down to video game design (the actual title is longer). I want to someday work for a well-respected developer, move to Canada, go to conventions all over the world. Getting married, at least right now, doesn't have to be part of the equation. I also have ambitions of being a screenwriter/director/actor/musician, but haven't had any real schooling in these areas. I plan on at least trying to write a movie, co-direct, and act in it; and maybe release an album or something (not necessarily for profit). I hope I get a chance to work on something I can consider my magnum opus, to at least be a footnote in human history.
I'm also typically far more patient than most people in my area. I tend to live life on a daily basis, rather than have a plan for everything. I think it keeps me from getting upset if something goes wrong, and is also less structured and therefore more interesting. Dying is also not a concern of mine. The way I see things, I will be reincarnated. Not with any memory of previous lives or ideals, or connected to my original mind in anyway, but as a new person, who will get to see and hear and feel things that I haven't.
As I'm still not entirely sure what you mean, I'll leave it at that.
-
I don't believe in time. No, seriously.
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean?
Certainly the earth continues to turn with out us having a way to mark it. The sun rises every day and I am getting older. It's not that I refuse to admit that, it's just our system of dividing it is arbitrary and I feel like the people around me don't understand that. In the beginning the words we used to describe time were just tools to make talking about something so abstract possible. Winter, summer, year, day, thats fine. I don;t want to plat all my crops on the first warm day in February because I didn't know it wasn't spring yet. I might have some issue with 'Fridays' being more valuable than 'Mondays', but I fell like people don't let that rule their lives as much, particularly since as a world we still use more than one system to divide the year. What really irks me is clocks not calendars. It used to be noon when the sun was highest in the sky. That's useful to have a name for, and then from that we divide the day into units. But we didn't all use to have clocks so it was an approximation, and so I figure people probably didn't let the arbitrary numbers rule their lives. Then the railroads came and it was decided that we needed the time zone things because it was ridiculous to have it be a hundred different times in one state, it's more useful if we have less times to worry about. Then we decided that we needed daylight savings time. And then in the first half of last century they changed the definition of a second. While it still used to be based on the revolution of the earth around the sun, now it based on the decay of an isotope. The thing is, all of this would be ok, if people still treated it like a useful tool, but people run their lives around it. Now we all have precise clocks and we all use them to gauge our lives. "Oh god, I'm so lazy, I slept until 11:00" "Oh it's 6:00 I have to go eat dinner." ("My God, it's not even noon, you can't have a margarita..." :) ) People get so stressed out about it, and its all fake, I mean it is only 11:38:53 because Congress decided it was and if I am hungry I will eat, and if I am tired I will go back to bed. Certainly I'm not suggesting that we should do everything when ever we want. I mean I have to go to work and it is not useful if I show up 12 hours late, or early. If I want to benefit from my classes I need to be there when they start. But people check their clocks constantly and they let them run their lives. In class people start packing their books 5 minutes before class ends, because they are less concerned with learning, than with leaving the room at 1:50 when the class is over. But on the other hand some professors will lock the door at 2:00:01 so maybe some of them have a reason to panic and race to the next class. People get mad when someone is 5 minutes late meeting them. It just all seems stupid to me. It doesn't help people it makes them more stressed out.
I liken it to someone believing that there is a God, because that can be a useful way to try and make sense of the big abstract concepts in the world. But then compare that with someone who lets their religion rule their life (which some would argue is what a religion should do). It seems silly to someone on the outside that people don't eat meat and milk in the same meal, or won't eat pork, or wouldn't get married on a certain day because it is not an auspicious day according to the charts or would torture and kill people for not following the same arbitrary rules.
-
- interpreting things differently to those around you
In this way I am abnormal. I interpret things on a level that is more basic than others, or rather I see through unneeded information and simplify things for myself, so I can hit the crux of the concept being put before me. Other people are more easily distracted by extraneous data.
- having different priorities to other people your age/gender
Definitely. Truth over security and freedom over safety, both in emotional and psychological ways. I like to believe that I lie to myself less than others do and see the flaws in our perception of "freedom". It's all very pretentious and long-winded. Long explanation made short, I think I've reconciled with my own flaws and the flaws in my viewpoints far earlier and more effectively than most of my age group.
This means my major priority is to become a person I'm happy with, who I think deserves the love of others.
- how 'well-adjusted' you are
I dip into and out of depression monthly or fortnightly. It's not clinical, but I doubt it's normal to feel the way I often do. On the other hand, I am quite in control of my emotions.
- how you compare to your friends
Really general. I'm the most intelligent, but physically weakest of them. If my friends and I were in D&D, I would be the Sorceror or Wizard. With a few levels of Bard.
I am completely aware that the above makes me sound like a douchebag of the highest degree, but honestly I can't see the point in lying about my viewpoint when it comes to my own behaviours and thought processes.
-
So your concept of time is kinda like how math only works because we assume we're using the correct system of numbers?
-
i don't know how i would compare to my friends of my own age... since i've moved to california i don't really have any friends of my own age. most of the people i see outside of work are closer to 30 or older and are knitting friends, which i guess already makes me not normal. but when i was in college and shortly after, when most people i hung around with were my age, it was pretty clear to me that i am not all that normal.
ways that i feel i differ from the average person of my age...
-i don't like to go out to bars and clubs and stuff. at first i thought it was because those places are smoky and i can't handle smoke... but now that smoking isn't allowed in those places, i still don't want to go. i just don't like going out and paying ridiculous amounts for drinks and listening to music i don't like while watching everyone try desperately to score a mate for the night. maybe i'm going to the wrong places?
-my idea of an awesome saturday night - knitting and watching ninja warrior.
-i get along with my family and i genuinely enjoy their company. growing up i rarely had any problems with my parents or how they were raising me. yes, they were a little over-protective at times, but even then i understood why.
-watching other people destroy their relationships or stay in relationships that destroy them kills me. so many people that i know seem to enjoy sabotaging things! women who make a big deal out of everything and seem to enjoy the drama that ensues... what the hell? i don't get it. relationships aren't easy, but they're not all that hard either. people that can't see that they deserve better for themselves... i can't live like that anymore and i am starting to forget how anyone else can. granted i had some pretty extreme experiences with this before i finally learned not to take shit from people...
-if i want something, i'm going to do what it takes to get it. if i like a guy, none of this sitting at home wondering, wishing he'd call, debating about it shit. i will do something about it and find out if he likes me too. if not, he's not worth my time, move on to someone else. i don't get people that don't go after what they want.
-i think it is perfectly fine to have a network of friends that lives in my computer. traveling across the country to meet up with people that you don't technically know, perfectly okay. also it is fine to date them. ^_^
-if you guys knew what sort of stupid shit jason and i talk about when no one else is around... well let's not get any further into that.
that being said... i don't feel abnormal either.
-
This is such a hard question to answer.
I think most people wouldn't consider themselves "normal".
Honestly I never really fit in anywhere and I don't make friends very easily.
I did well on standardized tests and did well in all schoolwork without working too hard. But I am not really smart. Not in a way that let me make a ton of money or anything. Plus I am too lazy to really do any of the "important" things that would get me ahead in society.
I don't really have any strong views on anything. Except that people lie to themselves too much.
It seems like sometimes I am just sleeping through life and sometimes I wake up and I realize just how separated I am from reality.
I dunno. I mean I suppose from the outside I am doing well. I have a cake library job through the city. I get to help people with genealogy questions and order books. I am paying off my college dues and own my car.
But I still don't have any friends and I don't believe in anything because most other people on this planet seemed to be filled to the brim with horseshit. I am am scared to death that I am missing out on something and that I just did something I could find out really matters.
-
Ha. I spend most of every day dealing with people who have Axis II disorders. I know for a fact that I'm one of the sanest people around.
However, to answer this in the spirit in which it was presented, I think most people have some sort of group in which they're considered 'normal'. Even crazy people don't seem quite so odd when the only people they interact with are other headcases. I don't drink heavily, do drugs, or sleep with slutty girls, so I don't fit in with other young guys; but whenever I hang out with people ten to thirty years older than me, I fit in perfectly.
-
Every single person is different!
-
I am on the fringe. Certain people do not understand me, or some of the crazy stuff I do with friends/family. Like yelley.
-
WORDS
It seems like you have a lot of problems with the way people deal with, react to, and think about time. I don't think that qualifies as 'disbelieving in time'. Saying you do not believe in time is kind of misleading in my opinion. To me it sounds like you are saying "I do not in spatial dimensions" when in fact you have issues with the metric or imperial systems.
And while 11:38:53 may seem fairly arbitrary, so is language. A common time system just lets us interact and communicate efficiently. I understand that some people are really picky about being five minutes late and this is annoying, but busy people need to get stuff done without waste.
Why do I need a standard time thing? So I can know when to leave my house to make it to the airport. Better yet, when do I leave Toronto to get back in time to make it to work and relieve the person that's been there eight hours over-night.
-
That most people are saying things like "everyone believes they are not normal", questioning the semantics of the original post & just generally saying that this is a hard question to answer makes me kind of happy! I am pretty glad that this thread didn't turn into a "omg, I am liek, soooo abnormal"-fest, because that would be pretty shit.
So anyway, I made my Tahoma-Comic Sans reference because while I think I am a pretty normal kind of guy I work with a bunch of people who are completely different to me, but also normal. Y'know, the kind of people who think that using comic sans in emails and company memos makes it seem more cheerful? Those fuckers. I may disagree with them on just about everything, but it doesn't mean that either of us are odd. We're just different people.
-
So anyway, I made my Tahoma-Comic Sans reference because while I think I am a pretty normal kind of guy I work with a bunch of people who are completely different to me, but also normal. Y'know, the kind of people who think that using comic sans in emails and company memos makes it seem more cheerful? Those fuckers. I may disagree with them on just about everything, but it doesn't mean that either of us are odd. We're just different people.
Here was me thinking you were a typography nerd. Good thing I didn't make any jokes about fonts and such.
-
Normal-esque
From time to time I enjoy having conversations with myself in weird voices, laughing at odd pitches, or even barking out the window at cars that I drive by. Often when I wash my face I believe I look like the Joker, crack the biggest smile I can, and ask the mirror, "Why so serious?"
-
Every single person is different!
Exactly! Normal is a setting on the dishwasher.
-
If it provides any comfort at all, you are a biological marvel. Your inner workings and functions are astounding. The fact that you are alive to read this makes you absolutely incredible. Don't fuck it up, you have a finite amount of time to enjoy this preposterously unlikely scenario we call life.
. . . i'm kind of depressed now. i am spending my finite amount of time pipetting small amounts of liquid back and forth and talking to people in my computer. i should travel more.
-
What about working towards a non-viable career?
I'm going to be a fucking dragonslayer.
-
OFF-TOPIC
I don't believe in time. No, seriously.
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean?
Certainly the earth continues to turn with out us having a way to mark it. The sun rises every day and I am getting older. It's not that I refuse to admit that, it's just our system of dividing it is arbitrary and I feel like the people around me don't understand that.
The thing is, all of this would be ok, if people still treated it like a useful tool, but people run their lives around it. Now we all have precise clocks and we all use them to gauge our lives.
I liken it to someone believing that there is a God, because that can be a useful way to try and make sense of the big abstract concepts in the world. But then compare that with someone who lets their religion rule their life (which some would argue is what a religion should do). It seems silly to someone on the outside that people don't eat meat and milk in the same meal, or won't eat pork, or wouldn't get married on a certain day because it is not an auspicious day according to the charts or would torture and kill people for not following the same arbitrary rules.
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. Likening the existence of Time to God is not really suitable. Time exists and it is considered a 'fundamental quantity'. God is a belief, an act of faith in believing in something that can not be proven.
What you are referring to is not time itself, but the metric quanitifcation of time being arbitary and 'meaningless'. In which case, the comparison to belief in God is slightly more appropriate. But when one person says they do not believe in God, it is assumed they do not believe in a higher 'spiritual' being. By admitting that you actually do think the measurement of time exists, you can not say you don't believe in it.
Furthermore, Slick's assertion is completely accurate, every form of measurement and communication is arbitary. Just because you don't like the effect of exact measurement of time, doesn't mean you can say it ceases to exist in your reality.
The way you have distinguished measurements of time such as seasons/years and hours/minutes has no grounds. If you eat when you are hungry and not because it's noon, that is still obviously affected by the time it takes for your body to have digested the last meal and let your brain know it's hungry.
If time actually does not exist in your reality, and my interpretation is completely wrong, I love to read an elaboration of what your alternative concept is.
-
I like to think that I'm relatively krazy (not the K instead of a C, thus showing just how unusual I am). But chances are I'm probably not that weird. I like some relatively weird music; I'm pretty antisocial and I guess a bit unfriendly, much of my value system is stuck in the 50s, and when I'm not working I tend to just go down south and spend my week off (I work in the mines on a fly in fly out thing, see) surfing by myself. I like to think I'm a weird dude, but fact is that I'm mostly likely just another faceless automaton (as we all are) consuming products like a bunch of sheep sitting around in a paddock chewing grass.
-
I am Batman. :-D
-
TIME DOES NOT HEAL DARK ANGEL FUCK YEAH
I think the idea here is that time is an abstract concept, in that it has no physical existence. We just named and put a system to the measurement of a sequence of events. So time, really literally, doesn't exist even though it does. I think it's kind of a pointless thing to argue because things will happen regardless of our conclusions about time.
Also, ON TOPIC, I would argue that NORMALCY IS A LIE. I don't think anyone feels truly normal, which is evidence enough for me that being "normal" is pretty impossible.
-
Hey, someone did a reference to dark angel? I can't believe I missed that.
THE CITY IS EMPTY! THE CRIME IS LIFE! THE SENTENCE IS DEATH! DARKNESS DESCENDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
etc.
-
So, recently I had a job interview where they gave me one of those stupid personality questionnaire things (not Myers-Briggs, but something like it). The idea was that it was supposed to rank you against certain personality traits and then indicate how well you'd, say, work in a team or what style of working you're best suited to or whatever. Anyway, I got pissed off with the test because for each question, you were given a set of 7 fixed answers, and then had ten "points" to split between at most three of them to indicate how they reflected you; frequently, none of the answers quite fit, and other times, some did but with caveats, and so on.
When my test came back, the interviewer had a quizzical look on her face. Apparently my results were "unusual". I'd ranked highly in two categories - two categories at opposite ends of a spectrum. Well, says I, I found that for many of the questions, I could say which "end" of the spectrum I was - there are times when, for example, I am dead sociable and talkative, and there are other times when I just want the world to fuck off and leave me alone - and so I just distributed the points evenly. I was surprised that they were surprised at this, because surely everyone is like this? People might tend one way or another, but unless you've got some sort of borderline personality disorder, surely everyone is a little bit of everything?
Anyway, I didn't get the job, and I'm can't say as I was terribly upset by that, because anyone hiring on the basis of trying to pigeonhole people into artificial categories probably isn't hiring for the kind of job I want to do, and anyone who is willing to let themselves be pigeonholed is probably setting themselves up for a fall later on.
I think what I'm trying to say is that if you start trying to quantify what constitutes a "normal" person, you get into difficulties very quickly. Sure, there's edge-case things like psychologically disturbed people, people with sociopathic tendencies and that, but most people, by statistical definition (and by whatever measure you choose to quantify on) are within a standard deviation from the norm - and equally, I'm sure if you pick the categories carefully enough, you can find something for which you lie in the 99.9th percentile too.
Stop worrying about whether you're normal, and go fly a kite or something. Kites are awesome.
-
Stop worrying about whether you're normal, and go fly a kite or something. Kites are awesome.
That's something that normal people do. :x
-
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.
-
Y'know, the kind of people who think that using comic sans in emails and company memos makes it seem more cheerful? Those fuckers.
(http://globalnerdy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/achewood-comic-sans.gif)
-
My design and typography teachers taped this to their door when I printed it out for them.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
I am me, but who am I?
-
Probably a few different people!
-
It causes me to wonder, if you could control conditions absolutely, could you "recreate" a person exactly?
i wonder about this all the time. i wish it were somehow possible to figure this out, but i don't think it ever will be.
-
Actually it probably would be possible, just really difficult. Also I'm pretty sure no ethics commitee would let you go through with it.
According to one of my lectures last year on Abnormal Behaviour, normal pretty much encompasses 95% of the world population. To be considered "abnormal" you have to be way out on the fringes and I'm sorry but getting piercings and tattoos and even the more "extreme" body mods like tongue splitting doesn't really take you out to that other 5%. Maybe if you thought that everything was made of knives you could be abnormal...
-
Knife eye attack wasn't nearly as badass as I thought it would be.
I wouldn't agree that people could be recreated, but that is just me, I think that there is nature as well as nurture, either that, or someone was giving me really strong subliminal messages to make me different than my mother taught me to be, and I don't think myself important enough to actually have a conspiracy based around me.
-
OFF-TOPIC
I don't believe in time. No, seriously.
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean?
Certainly the earth continues to turn with out us having a way to mark it. The sun rises every day and I am getting older. It's not that I refuse to admit that, it's just our system of dividing it is arbitrary and I feel like the people around me don't understand that.
The thing is, all of this would be ok, if people still treated it like a useful tool, but people run their lives around it. Now we all have precise clocks and we all use them to gauge our lives.
I liken it to someone believing that there is a God, because that can be a useful way to try and make sense of the big abstract concepts in the world. But then compare that with someone who lets their religion rule their life (which some would argue is what a religion should do). It seems silly to someone on the outside that people don't eat meat and milk in the same meal, or won't eat pork, or wouldn't get married on a certain day because it is not an auspicious day according to the charts or would torture and kill people for not following the same arbitrary rules.
I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. Likening the existence of Time to God is not really suitable. Time exists and it is considered a 'fundamental quantity'. God is a belief, an act of faith in believing in something that can not be proven.
What you are referring to is not time itself, but the metric quanitifcation of time being arbitary and 'meaningless'. In which case, the comparison to belief in God is slightly more appropriate. But when one person says they do not believe in God, it is assumed they do not believe in a higher 'spiritual' being. By admitting that you actually do think the measurement of time exists, you can not say you don't believe in it.
Well spoken. Or written. Whatever.
Furthermore, Slick's assertion is completely accurate, every form of measurement and communication is arbitary. Just because you don't like the effect of exact measurement of time, doesn't mean you can say it ceases to exist in your reality.
Actually, his statement is not completely accurate. He likened it to language, but as a linguist and an etymologist I can tell you that it is not the same thing at all. Language may begin this way, but as soon as the specific vocabulary or grammar rules begin to be assumed by other people it becomes a whole other animal. Languages as we know them now are not arbitrary communication but the cumulative statement of particular peoples' cultures filtered through thousands of years. A language is a a window into the cultural unconscious of the people who speak it. It evolves into an amoebic thing, always changing and adapting to new shapes and ideas. Yes, you are right in that it can be arbitrary; you can make all sorts of sounds and noises that you have made up yourself and hope your point gets across. However, you will probably not have much success unless you use sounds and noises that other people are already making and understand.
I would like to say that unless I am really missing something here, I don't see how you can really compare time or its measurement or people's problem with it to language. Time and/or its measurement does not itself communicate anything, nor is it a tool of communication. The only relation I can conceive is that the measurement of time is the product of language and the need to communicate thoughts and concepts about the passage of time, and this is completely irrelevant to any of this discussion at all.
I would also like to say that I have to agree with whoever-it-was's statements about how people center their lives around hours and minutes and seconds and milliseconds. It is useful for things like making flights or meeting for class or whatever, but does it really have to dictate everything we do every day down to the smallest task? I find this obsession with minutiae draining and annoying and I have been working for years to work out some sort of happy medium for myself (so far to no avail).
tl;dr: I also have a lot of problems with the way people deal with, react to, and think about time.
-
Katie: Point taken. My bad!
TIME DOES NOT HEAL DARK ANGEL FUCK YEAH
I think the idea here is that time is an abstract concept, in that it has no physical existence. We just named and put a system to the measurement of a sequence of events. So time, really literally, doesn't exist even though it does. I think it's kind of a pointless thing to argue because things will happen regardless of our conclusions about time.
This is equivalent to saying 'mass is an abstract concept'. Basically time is one of the few fundamental quantities, like mass, which is used to define other quantities.
-
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?
In general I think it's too vastly complicated and chaotic for it to have any kind of general predictive power. Mostly the model is there just because I like to have models for things and I like the process of making models. Models are things that I can put my faith in, I just function much better with them to fall back on. It's also neat to explain the things that are easy to fit in to it. I think that if you could control conditions absolutely you would be able to recreate a person. However, as Jimmy said even if you could develop an experiment to test this there is no ethics committee in the world that would let you do it.
(Incidently, my bedtime reading right now is on dynamical systems and the chaotic properties thereof, maybe this shows.)
-
This is equivalent to saying 'mass is an abstract concept'. Basically time is one of the few fundamental quantities, like mass, which is used to define other quantities.
Consider the possibility of there being no living entities in the universe. If there is no living thing to define the past, present and future then only the current instant of time exists. The previous instant influenced the current one, but without a memory to recall the previous instant the concept of time is lost and there is only now.
The past and future don't exist, in any case. Whether objects, beings or conditions continue from instant to instant is irrelevant because they just flavour the present with memories of the past.
P.S. I am kind of playing devil's advocate here. I don't really care whether I'm right or wrong, but if you can explain to me why I'm right/wrong then that would be super.
-
That argument is fallacious. Objects within the universe would still show the effects of time, whether there was anyone there to see them or not.
And anyway, that universe doesn't exist. While it's great "fun" to come up with bullshit what-ifs we live in a universe where life exists, therefore there are witnesses to time passing.
-
That argument is fallacious. Objects within the universe would still show the effects of time, whether there was anyone there to see them or not.
Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
And anyway, that universe doesn't exist. While it's great "fun" to come up with bullshit what-ifs we live in a universe where life exists, therefore there are witnesses to time passing.
The "what-if" was just to set up the concept. The past no longer exists and the future doesn't exist. The only period of time that really exists is, well, Right Now, really.
Which is exactly why time does exist. The passage of time itself, I feel, is less relevant than the fact that we exist right now. Since Right Now is a part of our definition of time, time exists even if the past and future are unreality.
Devil's advocate = over.
-
Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
This really just isn't how time works. It's not really something that you can separate from space at all. It doesn't really happen strictly in a sequence, sort of.
The whole anything being meaningless without an observer isn't an argument that can lead to anything terribly constructive.
-
Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
I disagree. An apple grows on a tree. It becomes ripe and falls off the tree. I don't know what happens to it, maybe it decomposes, maybe it falls into a creek. Point is that no-one's there to observe it or measure its juicy deliciousness by biting into it. Was it any less an apple for not being seen or eaten?
Take it one step further. Humanity is wiped out somehow. Maybe we all go crazy and shoot each other after one too many armchair philosophy debates or something, who knows. Point is we're all dead and gone. A hundred years later an apple grows on a tree. Is it any less an apple due to no-one being around to call it such?
The underlying thing is completely separate to our interpretation/naming of it. A square does not stop having 4 equal sides because there is no-one around to observe it and name it thus.
-
I was about to contribute another thought to this time debate but then it occurred to me, y'know this is waaaay off-topic.
-
Time would be meaningless without an observer or measurement, however. It wouldn't be the concept of time, just altered states of existence in sequence.
Time's Arrow. Entropy.
Aside from that, the physics of the universe do not hold together without the dimension of time. Time is woven into everything.
I suppose it is possible that there is another universe that has no time, but it would not resemble this one in any way.
-
On a scale of
(http://www.statecollegetux.com/images/jeckostripesuit.jpg)
to
(http://www.vat19.com/blog/piercings%20guy.jpg)
I am
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/20070616/450solstice_naked_73686.67.jpg)
-
I was about to contribute another thought to this time debate but then it occurred to me, y'know this is waaaay off-topic.
fatty doesn't seem to mind! I think this is one of those threads that just goes where it goes.
Anywho, getting slightly back on the original topic, there's been a lot of antipathy towards the term "normal", and while that's merited in a larger sense (in that people too often use "abnormal" in a pejorative sense, implying that difference is a vice) it has some meaning to us. "Abnormal" simply ought to mean "not terribly common". For example, it seems like most people (I use "seems" because you never really know) do not suffer from any sort of clinical depression. They'll get sad or grieve, and that in general happens to all of us. But someone, myself for example, who will periodically experience a very strong, debilitating and seemingly causeless sadness can be considered "abnormal" because that's not something that a majority of people experience. Many do, however, so perhaps that is not as good of an example as I could've used.
In many ways I don't think I'm normal. I certainly perceive things differently than others that I meet. Some things I have trouble perceiving at all. But honestly, I don't think that should matter. Again, "abnormal" is often used as a pejorative when it shouldn't be. The thing is when people talk about what's "normal" they mean it in a normative way (fuck, the words even have the same root), meaning that something that is "normal" is the way it ought to be, and you can see how even speaking of normality in terms of people is problematic. When I see someone talk about how "normal" people are I think it speaks to their simple-mindedness, or their inability to handle diversity. Establishing a "normal" in regards to people is an implicit wish for people to adhere to that standard and a denial that people are as complicated as they are. But I don't think anybody's not guilty of this. (which makes it "normal") most people are put on edge when they see a group of youngsters in similar dress out in the street. We like things to be simple and easy to understand. A person who dresses like a gangbanger probably shouldn't be trusted to hold your purse. A person who acts like a dick on the internet is, in fact, a dick. A person who says stupid things on occasion is, in fact, an idiot. It's never really that simple, people are complicated and can't be easily categorized, but it makes us feel safer to assume that we have all the relevant information to make judgment calls on others. Standards are meaningless outside of our use for them in snap judgments. The sin of it isn't in making assumptions about others but holding too closely to those assumptions and not having the will to change the way you think about someone.
If anything, people ought to be evaluated in terms of their functionality. We'd have less problems with eccentrics and more problems with alcoholics and liars, even though alcoholics and liars are decidedly more common than eccentrics.
As for how well-adjusted I am, not very. I don't think I've ever really felt comfortable in my skin. And as for how I compare to my friends, birds of a feather of all that. Being not terribly socially inclined I tend to gravitate towards those who have similar mannerisms and interests to myself. Only recently has this not been the case.
-
none of us are all that special because somewhere out there in the universe there are infinite copies of us all, both identical and in infinite variations.
IT'S SCIENCE.
-
So your concept of time is kinda like how math only works because we assume we're using the correct system of numbers?
actually no, if the human race had been born with six fingers on each hand instead of five, therefor likely having a 12 base number system (ie, 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,X,Y, - repeating rather than just zero to nine repeating) the math would still work the same it's just we'd have different names for numbers, but 10 x 10 would still equal 100, it's just that there version of 100 would translate to our 144.
Also I'm going to add to the "I don't believe in time thing." I when it was explained I remembered that I used to have a very similar theory though I titled it 'there is no such thing as the correct time' which stemmed from very similar thinking - this was when I was about 12, then I realised that yes, yes there is a correct time down to the second, because humanity created time measurement and you can't get too much more correct than if you invented it in the first place. Saying you don't believe in time measurement is similarly flawed, that's like saying you don't believe in tv or indie rock, humanity created them so on some level they exist.
Moving away from semantics onto not liking the world being ruled by the division of time, there's a reason for this, we are a social species and if we didn't have this way of dividing up and putting a name on exact moments then we would spend a whole lot of time waiting or causing people to wait, we would be far less productive.
Yes, maybe our thinking is affected by the way we view time, but the way we think is even more heavily affected by the language we speak and it's only the truly abnormal (hey almost dragging this thing toward the actual point of the original discussion) who don't think in a language, so they can think of things that most of us can't because our mind is limited by the walls set up by our language, people like this are often considered true geniuses - I believe Einstein was one example.
if you can follow my train of thought in this post - well done, cos to be honest, I've forgotten the question.
-
Time is the thing that stops everything from happening all at once. Clearly, things aren't happening all at once, and I kind of like it. So I'm pretty ok with time.
Also, not all measurements of time are arbitrary as someone said. Most living things have an inbuilt time measurement system consisting of various well-regulated biological processes (called circadian rhythms).
-
It's all relative though isn't it?
I am the one who always takes humour to a new low or crosses the line then keeps on running but my friends sometimes do it too and we always have a laugh.
In society however we would most likely have a few restraining orders each if we acted the same as how we do around each other in public.
-
Most people are pretty normative relative to the company they keep. That is just how we evolved. Outliers are usually just monomaniacal.
-
Normality in human personalities is a misnomer. I donīt say this because I donīt like the term normal, only because thereīs really no such thing as a ĻnormalĻ person, only the idea of a normal social personality that people put on for others. Everyone has thoughts and feelings, often frequently, that they wonīt share with other people because they were brought up being taught that certain things are normal and certain things are not, and that if they did those people would view them as odd for breaking with the percieved normality that most people strive to achieve. That being said, there is deviant behavior, things that are so far removed from the regular activities or thoughts of a person that they can be easily considered to be outside the norm, like killing another person in cold blood.
-
This thread should be renamed what is normal and why is it not applicable to humans since we are all a bunch of odd balls. I am definitely off my rocker and enjoy every bit of social terrorism I contribute to, because it is a spectacle and quite entertaining. GO!
-
Is it normal to have a fear of fire hydrants? Just asking, I'm not talking about me here. I mean, I'm not afraid of fire hydrants anymore.
-
I would like to revise my statement - I am just batshit insane.
Or totally normal.
Or somewhere in between, you will all see each other at different levels of normality, now if you will excuse me it is almost 5AM so I must go capture and shave all the bunny rabbits over in the rugby field nearest my house.
-
What is normal? Is it how well adapted you are to your current situation? How much you are similar to people around you? In that case, from whose point of view do you go by, yours or another's? Whose definition? Maybe I'm completely and utterly normal and everyone around me is completely and utterly "weird", or vice-versa?
OK, I'm done with my questioning of terms.
I'm not really "normal". I do a lot more thinking about metaphysics, philosophy, the origin of the universe, and music than most people I know; with the exception of a one of my teachers. I can't avoid that last one, however, because I can't seem to stop thinking about whichever song I listened to last, which brings up something else: would I be "smarter" if I didn't? Who knows. Maybe I could get a lobotomy and see.
To the "time, real or no" question. If you have read Slaughter-house 5, the theory in that book is similar to what I imagine Mr. "I don't believe in time" is thinking: that all moments exist in parallel, but we cannot see them as such, possibly due to our imposed measurement of time, or that we lack the physical capability to do so. The creatures, in the book, that can perceive time in that manner do not fear death, for they are alive in a myriad other moments, and never cease to exist.
People with ADD and ADHD sometimes perceive time as moving faster or slower if they are absorbed in thought, and, as a result, things that have happened by the time they "come to their senses" appear to have passed impossibly fast; it's a pretty odd feeling.
To les: Is the cat in the box alive or dead? How do you know if no one is observing it? An old, and debatably unanswerable question.
Maybe the square changes to a circle from time to time.
I happen to agree with you, les, but am just presenting another side of the argument.
Has anyone here read the whole Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series? Maybe not all of them, I think this is in the second book. Maybe the first.
The man who rules this galaxy, and maybe others, possibly the entire universe, only believes in what he can see. When he locks Zarniwoop out of his house, and hears his knocking, he thinks that it could be just a product of his imagination, the same view he has of the past. He also says that when the 6 men in ships come to visit him, and thinks they are asking him questions, they could actually be singing to the cat, and he just thinks they are asking him questions. When a few characters I don't care to name arrive in a large white ship, he ponders that it could be the 6 black ships the 6 men arrive in, and that 6 small black ships could look like one large white one under certain circumstances.
The point is, how do you know something exists if you are not perceiving it? Even if you are, maybe your mind is fooling itself.
I happen to think that, for all intents and purposes, this is bogus. The universe acts the way it does, consistently, under our observation, and if it acts differently whilst "alone", it makes no difference to humans.
-
Ironically, most people picked "not normal" and therefore are normal. The normal ones are now abnormal.
-
I don't believe in time. No, seriously.
Pardon me, but what the hell do you mean?
-Cropped for readability
You might be interested in the fact there actually exist a logical way to represent time. It's called "Planck's Time". Quoted from wikipedia: "It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length."
As far as science is concerned as of today, this is the most relevant unit of time that exist. Unlike seconds, hours, months, years and such, this unit stays valid throughout all of cosmos. It is also quite valid without any observer, and even valid in a hypothetical high-gravity zone in which time is dilated. Sadly, this unit does not (an actually, nothing that i know of does) give any insight on the quantum phases of reality (IE: Schroedinger's cat).
But i have to agree on how the units we use on Earth to depict time are extremely outdated and should be reviewed. Then again, there are still people who refuse to use the metric system (Here, insert some facepalm.jpg or any other source of abyssal dismay), so it's not gonna happen in my lifetime.
Now on to the topic at hand, i think that the above paragraphs are a sad depiction of my "normality". For reference's sake, i use the behavioral definition of "normal", stolen directly from wikipedia: In behavior, normal refers to a lack of significant deviation from the average.
By this definition, i believe i can achieve a > 90% ratio of abnormality:
-I don't even HAVE a TV, i don't have a car. Not because i can't afford them, but because i do not wish to have either.
-I dislike most social events with the exception of music shows.
-I don't follow the magic trend of having to find a reproduction partner as soon as possible to trigger some hormonal release. Been there, done that, got bored.
-I consider most sports as barbarism.
-I listen to wacky music, and i love it.
-I'm not racist, sexist, homophobic nor show any kind of discriminatory behavior towards other . And say whatever you want, the average joes are.
-I'm actually very interested in science, in fact, i'm more interested in science than pretty much anything else.
But, this being said, i do conform to some norms, mainly on clothing, as a concession to satiate my lust for science. Hence the ~90%
So yeah, i am not "normal". And i am totally proud of it. :evil:
-
Does any unit of measurement of anything relate to the quantum phases of reality?
That would be kind of impossible.
I believe a second is valid throughout the entire cosmos as well. I believe it's 9,192,631,770 (may or may not be the right number, wikipedia) cycles (waves of the radiation given off) of caesium at rest temperature, with 0 magnetic or other interference. That is how atomic clocks work.
I got about half of that from wikipedia, and am wondering if radiation is even given off at rest temperature. Doesn't all motion cease?
-
But seriously, don't try and define normal, because almost everyone else that has responded has either negated the definition of normalcy in relation to humans or created an individual definition of normality/abnormality, so I think this thread should take another direction and that direction is one of everyone expressing how they are just a true odd ball, freak, rebel, nerd, geek, dork, abnormal, obscure, off the wall, or any other wonder adjective that describes those individuals with TRUE personalities. Don't try and slander how NORMAL is not what you are or how it is limiting, embrace your inner FREAK and preach about it!! So what if you love June of 44, Rodan, Shellac, and all other lovely post-punk-noise-rock, you are lovely - EXPRESS IT and share it.
-
i hate Ranch Dressing.
around here, that makes me some kind of weirdo, for some reason.
also, i hate ham. many people refuse to believe this when they hear it.
-
So what if you love Shellac, you are lovely
-
Doesn't all motion cease?
It'd be funny if did
-
i hate Ranch Dressing.
around here, that makes me some kind of weirdo, for some reason.
also, i hate ham. many people refuse to believe this when they hear it.
Hating ham is kind of weird, but hating ranch dressing makes perfect sense to me. I mean, I like it, but I can see why someone might not.
Me, I'm weird because I don't like icing (as in cake frosting) and I don't like ketchup. I also don't like steak even though I love beef prepared in other ways, but that only strikes people as weird in certain areas.
But seriously, hating ham is kind of weird. Even if you're a vegetarian, but then if you're a vegetarian you're already weird.
rest temperature. Doesn't all motion cease?
rest temperature != absolute zero
-
Embrace the chaos that is individuality and praise the fact that you aren't too far off your rocker to gain appreciation from your peers in ridiculousness.
"I never saw a purple cow;
I never hope to see one;
but I can tell you anyhow;
I'd rather see than be one!"
-
(http://www.purple.com/affinity/purple.png) (http://www.purple.com)
-
But seriously, hating ham is kind of weird. Even if you're a vegetarian, but then if you're a vegetarian you're already weird.
i hated ham even when i ate meat. it is just gross!
-
Shut up, applewood smoked ham with glaze is delicious. If you donīt think so, you have something wrong with your taste buds. Or your neurons.
-
I hate when people use cloves in hams, why anyone would put cloves in any foods is beyond me.
You eat one and it ruins your entire meal.
-
I have only read the most recent post in this thread but thought it worth mentioning that I just put a dash of ground cloves in a blackberry pie. It was good.
-
Actually, his statement is not completely accurate.
I was just trying to illustrate how it connects to the apparently arbitrary nature of sounds as well as allowing us to share information. I get what you mean about the analogy not carrying that far, but I think it holds in a cruder sense since it is useful to have some arbitrary point of reference (unghh nurrrggg gruuuuuh hoooommmmmmmnaaan, seconds days years), and that the standardization of time allows me to efficiently communicate things relating to time.
You might be interested in the fact there actually exist a logical way to represent time. It's called "Planck's Time". Quoted from wikipedia: "It is the time it would take a photon traveling at the speed of light in a vacuum to cross a distance equal to the Planck length."
I do not think that addresses her issues in the least. She mentioned how the second is based on the decay of an isotope and then said how that would be fine if people didn't use the seemingly arbitrary numbers of time to rule their lives.
And while basing a metric on Planck and light sounds nice to physicists, that unit is fairly useless most of the time.
-
(http://www.purple.com/affinity/purple.png) (http://www.purple.com)
So goddamned awesome.
-
How does it work?
-
Click
Be quick
If you need to ask more, you fail - sorry.
-
I knew that, I was just making a point. If all motion ceases, then there can be no radioactivity; particles cannot be given off if hey can't move.
But there has to be some way, or else scientists and the like wouldn't have made this definition for a second.
-
I may be misunderstanding you, but no one has ever cooled anything down to absolute zero.
-
I may be misunderstanding you, but no one has ever cooled anything down to absolute zero.
You're right; it would be impossible, I think, to cool something to absolute zero.
The definition of a second, that I got from the almighty internet, was the one I posted; I assume that the difference in temperature (between the one they use and 0) is accounted for by a computer? Who knows. Unless the information I got is wrong, which it very well could be. Before I looked it up I thought it was something along the lines of x half-lives of y isotope of z element (einsteinium? most unstable element, could be).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second
Under "International Second".
I'm no nuclear physicist, so I could be misunderstanding this.
-
I knew that, I was just making a point.
Not sure what you're responding to, since you didn't bother to quote and the previous message had nothing to do with this, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume you're responding to my post, since I'm the last one who addressed you. In which case, I was simply correcting your wording. It doesn't matter if you knew that saying "rest temperature" is not the same as saying "absolute zero," the point is you said it and I was correcting your mistake.
Anyway, as far as your supposition that things cannot give off radiation at absolute zero, you are incorrect. You are correct that at absolute zero there is no radiation in the sense that the environment currently does not have any radiation, and it wouldn't be absolute zero anymore after the caesium atom gave off some radiation, but that has nothing to do with whether or not any radiation can be given off. And as you surmise the difference between the theoretical situation and reality is accounted for when making the calculation:
reference to correcting for ambient radiation of environment (http://www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter2/2-1/second.html)
-
jhocking:
Oh, I think I misunderstood you the first time then. Thanks for correcting.
How can radiation be given off? At absolute 0, there is no energy, so the atom cannot emit radiation because it has no energy to spare.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05142.htm
Sorry if that's not a clickable link, I have no clue how to do those unless the forum has a system that does it for me.
-
jhocking:
Oh, I think I misunderstood you the first time then. Thanks for correcting.
How can radiation be given off? At absolute 0, there is no energy, so the atom cannot emit radiation because it has no energy to spare.
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy05/phy05142.htm
Sorry if that's not a clickable link, I have no clue how to do those unless the forum has a system that does it for me.
Absolute zero isn't an attainable state, but yes if you *were* too cool an a material to 0K, you would see no radiation. However, realize that as long as there is a temperature differential, it's not a stable state.
In any case, the caesium isotope used in atomic clocks isn't radioactive, anyway.
The radiation they're talking about in an atomic clock are microwave frequency oscillations (i.e. electromagnetic, not nuclear) that are a fundamental property of caesium atoms. You can tune a matter circuit to those oscillations and it basically works like a pendulum in a grandfather clock or the quartz crystal in an electric clock. You still have to put energy into the clock itself.
-
SCIENCE!
-
Man, science is for nerds.
-
Get 'em, Ogre!
-
Man, science is for nerds.
(http://thxforthe.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/dontworry-imfromtheinternet.jpg)
-
Thank you for using that one instead of this (http://420.thrashbarg.net/dont_worry_mam_were_from_the_internet_cosplay.jpg) one
-
Zero out of zero normal.
is that some SquidDNA in this thread?
-
something goes here (resized for readability)
Absolute zero isn't an attainable state, but yes if you *were* too cool an a material to 0K, you would see no radiation. However, realize that as long as there is a temperature differential, it's not a stable state.
In any case, the caesium isotope used in atomic clocks isn't radioactive, anyway.
The radiation they're talking about in an atomic clock are microwave frequency oscillations (i.e. electromagnetic, not nuclear) that are a fundamental property of caesium atoms. You can tune a matter circuit to those oscillations and it basically works like a pendulum in a grandfather clock or the quartz crystal in an electric clock. You still have to put energy into the clock itself.
Ah, ok then.
Something slightly off-topic: Do you happen to know how the radiation of this particular isotope of this particular element (caesium) was chosen to represent the second? There are millions, if not billions of other things which could have been chosen; people must have had to go through countless different methods/substances/etc. Was one just picked out of an educated guess and it happened to fit? Is the wavelength of this radiation so universally small that any element could be picked and still work, with an appropriately changed number of cycles?
-
Thank you for using that one instead of this (http://420.thrashbarg.net/dont_worry_mam_were_from_the_internet_cosplay.jpg) one
I was almost sure that was a rickroll. I wonder if I should worry that I could totally see myself dressing like that on a whim.
Also, at the risk of sounding generic and whatnot I'd like to say that normality is a standard that, although very real, is very different from the "normality" that society holds as a standard. The slight social differentiations that people embrace are largely if not entirely arbitrary, regardless of societal reaction, and are not a valid reflection of a person's mental processes. People largely follow the same trains of thought in any given situation, and that they reach different conclusions is the result primarily of chance (such as in the "banality of evil"). I mean, yes I believe that each individual is unique, but I think that it is not because we think markedly differently but because each of our decisions is biased by it's predecessors and we gradually place ourselves in situations unique to ourselves.
-
somewhere between on the fringe and off my rocker.
I'll let you guys figure out where exactly that is.