Uncurious monkeys

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Here is a question I will pose to you: Are you really curious? Or are you seeking validation for your conclusions?

I ask because the questions you ask, in themselves, beg the question. What assumptions are you making with these questions, and are you curious about whether they're sound assumptions?

...don't you agree that this is strange?

Why are (adult) humans so very not curious?

Show them something they don't know or understand, and they shy away or get offended and rationalize it as unimportant. Why??

What happens during a human's growing up process to kill that curiosity?

What happened to our species to make us blind?

What happened to some of us to have avoided it?

[Doktor Howl]

You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think,

Not always a fallacy.

That consensus shit, though, I don't like that.

[Vanadium Gryllz]

I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?

You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think.

This is something I have been wrestling with for a while too. It's hard to express (for me - reading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted) but I am torn between hoping that there are more layers to people than they express externally and in public and worrying that there aren't and their actions perfectly mirror their inner worlds.

Now, when I think about it in my more optimistic moments I guess that everyone has a lot more going on in there than they make out. I certainly know that I don't express even 1/10th of my thoughts to the outside world so people would be excused for thinking that I am boring. Maybe everyone else is like that too.

But then maybe they aren't.

Thank you for bringing up those two fallacies, Nigel. I will definitely have to do some more reading on those topics. I do wonder how both can apply at once though - would they not be mutually exclusive?

[Karapac]

What is the rate at which trees cross your path?
How many times have you noticed that a tree was empty?

If you don't notice empty trees then your sampling method is biased and therefore suspect.

You've made me think about climbing trees.
This makes me like you, trees are some of my favourite things.

Perhaps I don't consciously acknowledge every tree I pass with a "yep, that's an empty tree alright", but if there was something unusual about it my attention would be drawn to it. I can claim this because I've noticed unusual things up in trees, even ones I've passed by a million times, before. I just pay attention because trees are nice in themselves and there could be birds in them. I like birds. But then the sample is biased anyway, because I could have missed any number of armed yetis sitting up there and I would never know.

And yeah, aren't trees wonderful?

You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think. These are nearly universal phenomena, and the latter is often experienced to an extreme degree by people with autism, who may have some differences in their brain circuitry that makes Theory of Mind a particularly challenging concept to fully grasp.

False uniqueness tends to peak in the teen years, something about developing self-consciousness being exaggerated during a developmental period blah blah blah.

Huh, nice to put a name to a face, I fall for the latter often. Maybe because I don't get out enough. Luckily I manage to catch myself doing it, sometimes.
And while I see what you mean, I have to agree with the Doktor: at any given time there's a high possibility that I'm the only person (or one of two) in a room that can name at least two species of lemur. Hell, that knows that lemurs have different species at all. And this on some level is perplexing to me, because animals are fascinating -- there must be something wrong with people who don't care about them. I suppose others may feel this way about any subject they're passionate about. Being a Discordian with all that comes with it in itself makes one pretty odd, if not on a global scale then in any gathering of not-selected-for people.

To your second post -- oh, no, I'll freely admit these questions were fishing for agreement, mostly because I was whining and it feels nice to have your "woes" affirmed. Doesn't mean I'm not willing to examine them, and dig to the bottom of them, and acknowledge that I was wrong or misguided; at least intelectually, emotions can be slow on the uptake. Hell, that's what I'm here for. Delicious food for thought.

reading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted

I know that feeling well.
The other one, too. It's so hard to tell if there's more to a person than it shows. I've been disappointed by finding out how shallow and illogical people I've thought to be smart can be -- but then I'm painfully aware of how I can be either too quiet or run my mouth dumbly. So it may be safer to assume there's always more to a person that they're either unwilling or unable to express... and hope it's not something like a fondness for the KKK.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think I'm still trying to reconcile the fact that my ways of operating are different with the fact that I'm still a human being, working off the same human base as everybody else. By this I don't mean hurr durr I'm special welcome to my twisted world -- hell no -- I'm aware that the mass called they aren't uniform at all and all have their own differences and quirks, as well. Perhaps others are struggling to understand this too -- how can somebody not be interested in what I'm interested in, not think the way I do, and still be human?

You are describing a tension between two different psychological phenomena; one is a fallacy of thinking called false uniqueness; the idea that what you perceive and think is different from what others perceive and think, and the other is a fallacy of thinking called false consensus; the assumption that what you perceive and think is what others perceive and think.

This is something I have been wrestling with for a while too. It's hard to express (for me - reading so many eloquently written thoughts on this forum make my own seem woefully jumbled and stunted) but I am torn between hoping that there are more layers to people than they express externally and in public and worrying that there aren't and their actions perfectly mirror their inner worlds.

Now, when I think about it in my more optimistic moments I guess that everyone has a lot more going on in there than they make out. I certainly know that I don't express even 1/10th of my thoughts to the outside world so people would be excused for thinking that I am boring. Maybe everyone else is like that too.

But then maybe they aren't.

Thank you for bringing up those two fallacies, Nigel. I will definitely have to do some more reading on those topics. I do wonder how both can apply at once though - would they not be mutually exclusive?

That's where cognitive dissonance comes in.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

There will always be things about everyone that is different and unique. Yes, you are a special snowflake, just like everybody else.

But being able to name more than two species of lemur is trivia. Some asshole at any given bar in the United States has an equivalent talent, whether it's being able to rattle off golf scores or knowing the favorite food of every player for the Bruins. That's not a sign of thinking or perceiving differently from the vast majority of human beings.

Dok Howl, he probably actually DOES think and perceive a bit differently, on account of his default network being a little borked. He's got a great workaround hack going, though.

I would say that I think and perceive "differently", but that's just because I'm epileptic and probably have temporal lobe damage. It's well-known that limbic system seizure activity has a strong effect on perception and personality. But here's the thing; it's the single most common form of epilepsy, which itself is not that rare. No fewer than THREE of my special snowflake friends also have TLE, and it's not like we met through a support group or any shit like that.

One thing that I see a lot of smart people doing is playing the "Woe is me, I'm so alone in the world, it's hard being so smart and different from the stupid blank-eyed masses". Don't fool yourself, Buttercup. By dismissing the people around you as stupid you are likely to ignore people among them who could be your friends.

Another possibility, and you probably shouldn't discount this, is that you are profoundly boring to them. Each of them likely has their own particular interests, and don't understand why you don't care as much as they do about nail decals or whatever it is. Nerds have a tendency  to sincerely believe that they are smart and that their interests are superior, but to be frank, nope.

[axod]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

[Vanadium Gryllz]

Another possibility, and you probably shouldn't discount this, is that you are profoundly boring to them.

If anything, I am all-too aware of this.

[Doktor Howl]

Dok Howl, he probably actually DOES think and perceive a bit differently, on account of his default network being a little borked. He's got a great workaround hack going, though.

I don't know that I don't think normally, on a serious note.  It's the perception issue:  I operate normally on the data I have, but the data is sometimes corrupted.  This can give the impression that I think differently.

And the hack is largely a matter of luck.  I am not able to look past what I am seeing, but I know it's crap and can make a good guess as to what's actually going on.  Then I act like it's what it ought to be.

Fortunately, the perception thing happens infrequently, and I have the standard warning (high blood pressure headache).

[Karapac]

Oh I'm not even getting started on bigger stuff like what you describe, Nigel, trivial differences are precisely the level I get stumped on.

I understand that everybody is just interested in different things, that's Elementary kind of biz. And sure, when it comes to things like preference in video games or clothes, it's simple enough. But when I get suspicious looks and questions for saying I went for a three-hour solitary walk in the woods, implying that I must have been doing something beside just enjoying nature, I don't understand that. It's the most normal thing for me. I don't look askew at anybody for their hobbies, however unusual I may find them, rather, I wanna know more about it. And it's that reaction people have that I find odd.

Even if I understand now they just have a lower drive to find and try new things, I don't understand it. Just like I understand that somebody may like calamari but don't understand it, for instance.   
I think I'm lacking the vocabulary to express this properly.

Now tell me, was I/am I coming across as a self-pitying, up-their-own-ass nerd, or were you saying that just in case I was? 

[Karapac]

axod - Suppose we must on some level assume we know and notice enough to consider our judgment sound. Open to reconsideration and adjustments upon receiving new data, but still stable enough as to not be crippled with

Then the question regards the importance of what we care about noticing, recognizing and carying-on.  Is there something then perhaps, not itself percieved, that goes about ordering their relevance according to an a priori unifying principle?  Otherwise my capacity for "sound judgement" may result arbitrary and incomplete.  Funny business.

I think so. People who reject science in favor of their gut instinct have a different "judging thing" than those who do the opposite. I think you can even alter that thing, start consciously valuing some kind of stimuli higher than others, and eventually it'll come instinctively.

[LMNO]

I hear songs and notice different qualities of reverb on the snare drums, and whether the vocals are doubled or not.  I spent three hours hunting down the perfect dB level on a kick drum in relation to the number of miliseconds on the threshold of its compressor.

Why the hell doesn't everyone do that?

[Karapac]

Why the hell indeed? To me, the intricacies of music are like magic. I even have a similar sort of awe, respect, puzzlement and a pinch of fear for music people as if they'd really spawned a rabbit in their hat. How the hell do you do that, and why can't I? Why don't I hear it, why don't I comprehend it? I was in music school for a year so it's not like I haven't tried, but I seem to be deaf to a whole world of stuff.

Why?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh I'm not even getting started on bigger stuff like what you describe, Nigel, trivial differences are precisely the level I get stumped on.

I understand that everybody is just interested in different things, that's Elementary kind of biz. And sure, when it comes to things like preference in video games or clothes, it's simple enough. But when I get suspicious looks and questions for saying I went for a three-hour solitary walk in the woods, implying that I must have been doing something beside just enjoying nature, I don't understand that. It's the most normal thing for me. I don't look askew at anybody for their hobbies, however unusual I may find them, rather, I wanna know more about it. And it's that reaction people have that I find odd.

Even if I understand now they just have a lower drive to find and try new things, I don't understand it. Just like I understand that somebody may like calamari but don't understand it, for instance.   
I think I'm lacking the vocabulary to express this properly.

Now tell me, was I/am I coming across as a self-pitying, up-their-own-ass nerd, or were you saying that just in case I was? 

You kind of were.

Around here, we call a three-hour walk in the woods "hiking". Where do you live, that people don't understand hiking?

[Karapac]

I can be sometimes, I won't deny it. But I don't really think myself superior or special. Just a bit different, apparently. And it's not a source of misery or loneliness as much as confusion.

And, hm, a big city? But then the people I heard this from were born out in the country. Maybe they grew up so used to nature and forests they don't consider them interesting anymore? I wish I knew.