Rules for Life

[Richter]

Call them once = they own your ass = time to make serious about finding the better job.

[Reginald Ret]

2) Never start having regular sexual relations with anyone who has more problems than you.

Troof! I know from personal experience. It'll only end in tears and frustration!

Yeah but the catch is that the one's with the problems are usually the freakiest.   

I disagree. The more hangups someone has, the less likely the chance that they'll put them aside to explore new terrain. Unless you have some one really screwed up, like with a daddy complex or an alcoholic, which in that case, you're a predator. Maybe a satisfied predator, but...

what are you talking about?

He is trying to make a distinction between abusing the trivial problems of your partner to keep the relationship together and abusing the big problems of your partner to keep the relationship together.
His point is that the more fucked up someone is, the more likely they are to be loyal.
Not always true, and always bad if that is what you need to keep a relationship together.

[Jenne]

Cain--this is publishable stuff--and so fucking true, dammit!

[Baron Von Stevenstein]

nothing about making the world a little better than how you found it?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

nothing about making the world a little better than how you found it?

I think you have us confused with the Buddhists.

Fucking Buddhists...here today, and here tomorrow.

[Cain]

Also thats an aspiration, not a rule.

[Baron Von Stevenstein]

Also thats an aspiration, not a rule.

valid

[Dimocritus]

Knowing And Explaining Are Synonymous

If you can't explain something, you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it, then you don't know it.

I've been thinking about this lately, and the more I do, the more I think that it can't be fully accurate. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Like a talented artist, for example. They know how to paint, but they might not know how to explain the subtleties of their technique. Does that mean they really don't know how to paint after all? Or, any situation where someone has a working knowledge of one particular subject or feild, but they so happen to lack skills in verbal communication, due to a language barrier or maybe they just don't know how to communicate well. Maybe I'm taking this rule the wrong way?

[Cainad (dec.)]

How in gibbering heck did I miss this the first time around? It's good stuff.

[Jasper]

Knowing And Explaining Are Synonymous

If you can't explain something, you don't understand it, and if you don't understand it, then you don't know it.

I've been thinking about this lately, and the more I do, the more I think that it can't be fully accurate. But then again, maybe I'm wrong. Like a talented artist, for example. They know how to paint, but they might not know how to explain the subtleties of their technique. Does that mean they really don't know how to paint after all? Or, any situation where someone has a working knowledge of one particular subject or field, but they so happen to lack skills in verbal communication, due to a language barrier or maybe they just don't know how to communicate well. Maybe I'm taking this rule the wrong way?

You raise a point I hadn't before taken that seriously.  I hadn't taken it seriously because so many of the skillsets I'm interested in are conceptual in nature, not visceral or "intuitive", whatever that may be.  Maybe one could reinterpret "explain" to "demonstrate and explicate".

Ooorr, or or... Maybe there is a divide in what we think of as "mastering" an ability, and "knowing" it.  A master painter may paint magnificent artwork, but do they "know" how to paint in the epistemological sense of the word to "know"?

[Triple Zero]

I stumbled over that bit as well myself, when I read it, but I didn't want to be pedantic about it, then.

But I'm in fact really not sure what it means. Explaining also implies the ability to communicate something. What if you know something, but are simply unable to find the words to explain it?

Personally, I usually have no trouble at all converting any conscious thought I have into words and explain them to another. But I know a few people that do. I can deduce from their actions that they "know" something, but if you press them to put it to words, they get stressed out, or start rambling.

So, some people are just not very good at explaining, or verbal skills. Does that mean they are also not very good at knowing?

It seems like a really reasonable logical conclusion for those who are good at explaining stuff. And I believe that most of the people on this board are pretty good at explaining and verbal skills.

But when I look at people, and believe me it annoys me to no end sometimes, some people just cannot speak their thoughts in a clear manner. But I can't just conclude they're not good at "knowing", right?

[P3nT4gR4m]

Strikes me you might be trying to overanalyse this. It's a rule, so there are exceptions. Generally speaking, tho, if someone knows something, they will be able to explain it to you. If they don't but they want you to think they do then the tells are usually pretty obvious. Again this is a generalisation there are some pretty fucking good bullshitters out there too. I know - I'm one of them 

[Triple Zero]

Figured as much. That's why I didnt reply right away

I was kind of hoping for a different answer because it does bug the fuck out of me when people cannot form their thoughts into coherent sentences, while I do know it's in their head, just not in a shape that's made of words. And I get that a lot lately, so they just barf a few words at me, and expect me to do the deciphering and thinking ...

[P3nT4gR4m]

By the way I only just noticed the tiny spider in your sig. It's a horrific pun and I think I hate you for it 

[Epimetheus]

 

Don't know why I didn't see this yet.