AmagicalFishy

Karma: 193

AmagicalFishy 17 Jun 2011 13:25 UTC
0 points
in reply to: Vaniver’s comment on: Not for the Sake of Pleasure Alone

Changing your mind based on evidence and experiences are different. I am confident that if I eat a meal, my hunger will decrease. Does that mean I should update my hunger downward now without eating?

One’s hunger isn’t really an idea of the mind that one can change, yeah? I’d say that “changing your mind” (at least regarding particular ideas and beliefs) is different than “changing a body’s immediate reaction to a physical state” (like lacking nourishment: hunger).

AmagicalFishy 17 Jun 2011 16:21 UTC
11 points
in reply to: Hul-Gil’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
I agree fully with Hul-Gil. The main thing hindering the socially awkward is caring. Stop caring about your image and your social awkwardness goes away. When you truly reach a point of total apathy regarding how others see you—then nothing you do will be awkward. The difference between a person who’s random without caring how they’re perceived and the person who tries to be random but ends up being awkward is this: The latter really does care, but acts like he / she doesn’t. It shows.

Here’s my, perhaps slightly sadistic, bit of info: After that, if other people think what you’re doing is awkward (you won’t, because you won’t care), it becomes a means for your own entertainment.

I’ve come to the point where I take a strange, humorous pleasure in making others around me feel awkward. People who I don’t know, of course, feel strange. People who I do know think it’s hilarious.

Although one thing I still kind of struggle with is feelings about the opposite sex. I’m hoping to read more comments regarding it.

“Why is it that when a person of the opposite gender so much as pays attention to you, you think you have a crush on them?”

That’s just something I can’t seem to get over. I think to myself, “I know I don’t have a crush on her,” etc., etc., etc.—but it’s like a perpetual loneliness whispers unwanted daydreams of being with someone, regardless of how little a connection there is.

AmagicalFishy 18 Jun 2011 22:27 UTC
4 points
in reply to: Raw_Power’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Not quite; it’s more blatant (and intentional) than that, I suppose. I’ll give a few examples:

*The other day, when hanging out with some people, I poured myself a glass of water, walked over to one of the females, dipped her hair in it, drank the water and shuddered—as if the remnant taste of her hair was ecstatic. Of course, she was creeped out. Of course, everyone else thought it was hilarious. I acted as if it’s normal.

*At a small get together, I put on someone’s football helmet and narrated a basketball game (I know absolutely nothing about basketball). Afterwards, I unnecessarily asked someone to help me take it off—being as genuine about it as someone who really needed help. He helped me take it off, me making it difficult in a subtle manner. I shook his hand afterwards, and held onto it. I said to him, quietly, but loud enough for everyone to hear, “Wow, you have really soft hands. That’s really nice,” and I rubbed his hand a bit. The few people there who knew me thought it was hilarious. He was, of course, kind of weirded out, and the people around him were a mix between the two.

*Telling the girl at the drive-through she has an astonishingly pleasant neck.

*Whispering, “I want to be with you forever,” while hugging someone.

Stuff like this. It sounds weird (tee hee), but totally getting over caring about what people think helps, and I think doing really, really strange stuff helps getting over it.
What links here?
- [deleted]'s comment on Community roles: teachers and auxiliaries by calcsam (27 Jun 2011 2:53 UTC; -2 points)

AmagicalFishy 18 Jun 2011 23:21 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Someone else feeling uncomfortable for a small moment is, I think, a pretty reasonable side-effect when you’re trying to not always feel uncomfortable. I’m not hurting anyone, physically or emotionally, or any other such thing, but I’d rather be able to make other people feel uncomfortable for a few minutes instead of me feeling uncomfortable every time I interact with someone else.

Maybe there’s just a better way?

AmagicalFishy 18 Jun 2011 23:42 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Alicorn’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Having someone volunteer would defeat the purpose, yeah?

The female whose hair I dipped in my glass was one of my friends—yes, she was creeped out by it for the moment, and yes, the other people we were with thought it was funny, but that was the extent of it. We’ve spent time many times afterwards, and laughed about it. I think either you might be making some faulty assumptions, or I didn’t include enough information.

Though, your crafting a completely arbitrary situation that makes hair-dipping a horrible thing, calling people who feel uncomfortable “victims”, and suggesting I may be a borderline sociopath leads me to believe that you might just be a bit uptight.

I’ll leave this part of the discussion, I don’t think continuing it will be beneficial to anything.

AmagicalFishy 19 Jun 2011 5:09 UTC
1 point
in reply to: Hul-Gil’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
It’s a weird thing; in my various mental, social, and emotional endeavors, I’ve developed a strange standard for what I think is gross—typically, if something doesn’t have a high-chance of detrimentally affecting my health, I’m ok with it. (This has lead me to do things that other people wouldn’t think of doing, ever, haha.)

AmagicalFishy 19 Jun 2011 17:32 UTC
0 points
in reply to: [deleted]’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
Nope. I’m trying to find a way to consolidate both of our mindsets on the matter. Anyone who would “challenge”, physically assault, etc. me because I made them (or someone) feel a bit uncomfortable for a couple of moments, I think, might be blowing things way out of proportion. That seems unreasonable to me, the inability to deal with a little discomfort.

The only thing I can think of is that there’s the idea that the only way I interact with people is by doing these strange things? If that is the case—it’s not true, and I can see where others wouldn’t want someone who always makes them feel uncomfortable around.

AmagicalFishy 21 Jun 2011 23:50 UTC
2 points
in reply to: wedrifid’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
I’m trying to put a finger on the origin of differences in opinion between me and everyone who agrees with you—but I’m having a hard time. I live in Eastern US, so I can’t imagine there’s a huge culture gap.

I can’t think of any situation where someone could make me feel uncomfortable, and I, in turn, would hit them. To me, that seems absolutely absurd. I can not see the sense in the situation. If I were to touch someone’s hair, and, in return he/she kicked me in the testicles—how can a person seriously see that as self defense and not a blatant escalation of an otherwise harmless situation?

Though, wedrifid, it looks like many people agree with you, and it’d be silly to assume everyone but me is violent or unable to handle themselves, so I’m apparently missing something. I’ve been “messing with people” for a while, and never have I come across anything more severe than someone simply being “weirded out”.

There’s a difference between not enjoying something and being unable to handle it. There are many things in life I “don’t enjoy”, but their importance, relevance, or the time I spend thinking about them is infinitesimal.

Is there a generational difference between me and the people commenting? I’m 22. Perhaps socially acceptable actions and reactions were a lot . . . stricter in the past, and that reflects in people’s opinions?

AmagicalFishy 22 Jun 2011 15:33 UTC
2 points
in reply to: shrimp’s comment on: How to Convince Me That 2 + 2 = 3
I think you’ve pointed out an issue of semantics, not falsified 2 + 2 = 4. If you pour one glass of water into another glass of water, you have one glass of water—but ” one glass”, in that case, is qualitative and not quantitative; it’s not math.

AmagicalFishy 27 Jun 2011 15:37 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Kevin’s comment on: The True Rejection Challenge
I agree with you, Kevin.

AmagicalFishy 27 Jun 2011 15:40 UTC
1 point
in reply to: fburnaby’s comment on: Discussion: Socially Awkward Penguin as a tool for unraveling social enigmas
I feel like you guys have this unusually serious idea of what I’m doing. No one’s being “bullied” or harmed, and the majority of people I act towards are people I see and interact with frequently.

I can only assume that, since so many people are taking it that way, that there’s been some horrible fault in my description.

AmagicalFishy 8 Aug 2011 0:47 UTC
4 points
on: Consistently Inconsistent
This may be me trying to justify to myself the concept of “I” (oh how the mighty fall), but something struck me as a bit extreme:

When people ask questions like, “What does the patient think?” or “What do I, [name], think of this?” — I’ve always assumed that, that which is being questioned is the conscious mind. If a patient, for example, says, “I know that I don’t have an arm, but I have a phantom limb. Part of my body still believes I have an arm.” — Then “the patient” refers to that part of his brain that knows he doesn’t have an arm, yeah?

I like the idea of comparing the “self” to a press secretary. Ideally, a press secretary is supposed to be honest. At LessWrong, people make conscious efforts to give the press secretary a few lessons in honesty. I can’t dispute the fact that the mind is modular (I fully advocate it, even) , but I think the idea of one’s self—while it should be open to reconstruction—is an important one.

AmagicalFishy 28 Aug 2011 20:40 UTC
1 point
in reply to: calcsam’s comment on: Polyhacking
I’m not poly., but I’d like to be—it seems by far the most functional outlook on relationships. It takes many potential problems with monogamous relationships and completely eliminates them without introducing new problems in their place.

It just seems better. I hardly have any relationships as a monogamous person, though, so . . . there’s not a lot there for me to be poly, LOL

AmagicalFishy 14 Oct 2011 5:28 UTC
2 points
in reply to: NancyLebovitz’s comment on: Calibrate your self-assessments
I second this!

AmagicalFishy 14 Nov 2011 11:33 UTC
7 points
on: 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey
Just finished the survey. I’m very much an LW lurker, who apparently succumbs to some type of self-confidence bias. Though I know nothing of probability theory (thus why a lot of the questions were left blank), I gave myself a 10% chance for the publishing-question. (Was that a randomized question?) After a bit of consideration, I said [YEAR]—it was first published in [YEAR + 37]. I wasn’t too far off.

Maybe that same bias is what deters me from ever actually posting anything.

AmagicalFishy 14 Nov 2011 15:27 UTC
2 points
in reply to: Anny1’s comment on: 2011 Less Wrong Census / Survey
Ah! Sorry, I hadn’t though of that. All corrections done.

AmagicalFishy 17 Nov 2011 8:47 UTC
1 point
on: Justification Through Pragmatism
The things you’re talking about are purely human designs of language. Nothing is objectively, universally “better” or “worse” because the terms themselves are relative and very subjective in their relativity. This is the case with many, many, many words. “Better” and “worse” aren’t concrete empirical existences, they’re terms used to gauge something’s worth in some particular context, whether it be explicit or implicit:

Apple #1 tastes better than Apple #2. — Gauging apples on their taste. [explicit]

Dull knives are worse than sharp knives. — Gauging knives on their ability to cut thing. [implicit]

No more do better and worse “exist” than meaning “exists”. I think you may be mixing up two different perspectives—trying to justify the nominal with the phenomenal, if one can put it in those terms. The fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for better/worse doesn’t make something meaningless anymore than the fact that there’s no universal, objective standard for meaning, or for what matters. I guess I’m not sure where the pragmatism comes in.

(On another note, would it be sound, according to your logic, to say that—since our belief in God, fundamentally, doesn’t matter, we might as well believe in God just in case we get to go to heaven?)

Might I ask for some advice?

AmagicalFishy18 Nov 2011 7:37 UTC

13 points

23 comments4 min readLW link

AmagicalFishy 19 Nov 2011 4:37 UTC
0 points
in reply to: shminux’s comment on: Might I ask for some advice?
I had thought the pattern is the explanation of the problem—in the first paragraph after the bold letters. It’s less the specific reasons for various decisions (though these have to be [and are in the process of being] analyzed in full, I agree), and more so the general path my mind takes when confronted with said reasons.

Or, are you saying that I should re-examine the specifics because the pattern is too general, and isn’t much a solvable problem as-is?

AmagicalFishy 19 Nov 2011 4:39 UTC
0 points
in reply to: XFrequentist’s comment on: Might I ask for some advice?
Something that struck me was the idea of humans working less efficiently when presented with a reward. I think this very much relates to a (relatively new) part of me which puts a bit too much value in grades.

AmagicalFishy

Might I ask for some ad­vice?

Might I ask for some advice?