Turn on thread page Beta

Why are people with intellectual interests looked down on? watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    not really. its actually extremely un weird. because the social sciences look at human bevahiour and why humans act the way they do (or did in the case of history). and if you think thats weird, then i dont know. lol.
    It is quite interesting. Reading academic books about the subjects really isn't.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They see you rollin',

    they hatin'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    I have an innate aversion to shallow things. I'm simply being me, is this so wrong? (I bet it is only wrong since the colloquial norm personality say it is so). :yep:
    What interests are you defining as shallow?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    envy....one of the seven deadly sins
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gardocki)
    It is quite interesting. Reading academic books about the subjects really isn't.
    he did not mention the word academic.

    he could be reading things like freakonomics, or the worldly philosophers, all great reads but nothing academic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iota Null)
    You appear to define what interests you as being abnormal -- that is, you don't just happen to like things that aren't "shallow and common", but you have an interest in them for that reason and that reason alone.

    Mindlessly defying social norms for its own sake is no better than mindlessly following them. Instead of allowing society as a whole to dictate what you do, you let it dictate what you don't do. Am I missing something here?
    Colloquial norms (which to me are different from social norms) in our society don't gel with my personality. I see no wrong at all in being oneself.

    A social norm is not shouting in a library, which has a rational basis behind it. Another social norm is not punching people, again another thing has a rational basis behind it.

    A colloquial norm is liking celebrities, or being airy and chirpy in personality. That I don't personally get.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gardocki)
    What interests are you defining as shallow?
    Stuff such as celebrities, fashion, and the like.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fyodor Bingoffsky)
    Probably because intellectuals are usually associated with poor social skills and do not spend time on hobbies common to most people.
    OK, so because "most people" lack the psychological development to see relativity in all things, and only focus on some kind of colloquial norm, this means people with "weird interests" are bad? lol.. ok then. :eek3:

    I like reading books/magazines and reading websites on economics and marketing, as well as debate political stuff. i couldn't give a rat's arse if people thought it was "weird" or odd. i'm simply being me, since i am intellectually inquistive by nature. i like to understand the big picture. I also do have common interests like watching football, listening to music.

    As far as i am concerned, i am the lesser loser for doing what i enjoy, even if it doesn't fit the colloquial norm. You see, all people are unique. So all persons logically experience things and value things uniquely. IMO, knowing what one likes in life is better than simply doing things since "most people do it". I am 24, and i think by my age most persons should have really outgrown that phase. to me, being a twenty something is about gaining confidence and finding oneself, not lacking any kind of sense of self.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    OK, so because "most people" lack the psychological development to see relativity in all things
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    I am more psychologically balanced/healthy than most here.
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    psychologically healthy.
    Those are a lot of references to psychological health. I thought you believed "Psychology was made up", "Mental health is the belief of Psychologists/Psychiatrists" etc etc..

    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    A social norm is not shouting in a library, which has a rational basis behind it. Another social norm is not punching people, again another thing has a rational basis behind it.
    I thought, according to you, that social norms "do not exist"?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Healthy people manage their emotions, which obviously includes jealousy.
    a. You didn't state any sources - I was asking for actual proof, not just your opinion.

    b. Healthy people can't possibly always manage their emotions - are you telling me you've never had a moment of anger where you've done something rash?

    c. Robots are programmed to manage their emotions. Not humans.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeterno)
    a. You didn't state any sources - I was asking for actual proof, not just your opinion.

    b. Healthy people can't possibly always manage their emotions - are you telling me you've never had a moment of anger where you've done something rash?

    c. Robots are programmed to manage their emotions. Not humans.
    If this is the case, then why is anger management seen as psychologically healthy?

    Why are people who are emotionally unstable not seen as healthy? Any good mental health professional would say that managing emotions is a path to good emotional well-being.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    If this is the case, then why is anger management seen as psychologically healthy?

    Why are people who are emotionally unstable not seen as healthy? Any good mental health professional would say that managing emotions is a path to good emotional well-being.
    I said a moment of anger. Continuous bouts of anger where other people may be at harm require anger management. Not one moment of rage.

    There's a difference between those who are emotionally unstable and those who are able to show their emotions. There's nothing wrong with showing your emotions. Managing them cannot be 'psychologically healthy' because all you'll end up doing is surpressing your emotions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aeterno)
    I said a moment of anger. Continuous bouts of anger where other people may be at harm require anger management. Not one moment of rage.

    There's a difference between those who are emotionally unstable and those who are able to show their emotions. There's nothing wrong with showing your emotions. Managing them cannot be 'psychologically healthy' because all you'll end up doing is surpressing your emotions.
    Of course. when did i say otherwise?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GodspeedGehenna)
    Those are a lot of references to psychological health. I thought you believed "Psychology was made up", "Mental health is the belief of Psychologists/Psychiatrists" etc etc..
    They are. it's common knowledge.
    I thought, according to you, that social norms "do not exist"?


    Social conventions are natural. such a statement is ill-founded.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Stuff such as celebrities, fashion, and the like.
    Well if you are looking down on people with these interests, they have the right to do the same.

    It sounds as though you've got some deeper issues to me.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by desi_jatt)
    Well if you are looking down on people with these interests, they have the right to do the same.
    Why? OK, i understand, since life is reciprocal.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gardocki)
    It is quite interesting. Reading academic books about the subjects really isn't.

    Why not? Interesting is subjective, and cannot be broken down into a colloquial norm. All things, as said earlier, are perceived subjectively.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rajandkwameali)
    Of course. when did i say otherwise?
    You've been implying otherwise through this entire thread!

    And now you're pretty much implying that your opinion is the same as mine by that comment, when clearly it isn't the case given your previous comments.

    Or do you suffer from amnesia when you're losing an argument?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Social norms" don't necessarily need a rational basis. But even so, I'll accept your definition for a second. That doesn't change the fact that you're refusing to do something because it's considered normal.

    If you do things without regard to whether they're normal, that's fine. Each to their own. What people object to, however, is that you seem to think that an activity that is popular is inherently inferior because of this fact alone. Even if that's not the view that you hold, it's the view that you convey.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Iota Null)
    "Social norms" don't necessarily need a rational basis. But even so, I'll accept your definition for a second. That doesn't change the fact that you're refusing to do something because it's considered normal.

    If you do things without regard to whether they're normal, that's fine. Each to their own. What people object to, however, is that you seem to think that an activity that is popular is inherently inferior because of this fact alone. Even if that's not the view that you hold, it's the view that you convey.
    I don't think this. I disapprove of colloquial norms since they make no sense, and people are often too dim to believe them as absolute truth.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.