ive never really been a team player. ive been part of a team and usually, i can co-exist and cooperate but not operate and coordinate. i have the tendency to do things alone. sometimes because i think things can be done more effectively and efficiently when done alone. or i underestimate my teammates and i assume they wont be able to do what i expect them to do so i do it myself without even bothering of asking them to do it first as a team. even if things can be done better through a team, if i do it alone, at least im the only one to blame for it and i can handle the blame. so my rule is always do it first alone then team effort comes second if the first one fails. thats why i dont panic easily in group works because if i can do it alone, i wont worry if the team isnt doing well (or not doing anything at all, which rarely happens) because i would be able to manage it on my own. thats where my idea of being the back-up or reserve person probably came from. if all things fail, im there to do something. i may not do it as well as a team can but i think i can provide the minimum requirements to do whatever needs to be done.
i just have to be that masochistic member who intentionally burdens himself of unnecessary baggage. well, its a learning experience and i gain a lot from doing teamwork alone. unfortunately, it also increases arrogance and raises my expectations of others because if i can do it alone, theres no reason why others cant. but that reasoning is flawed. and its not because people arent created equal. its because people are not similarly situated. its like an experiment thats difficult to duplicate due to various intervening factors that cant be easily controlled or removed. and theres also the luck factor.
since im not a team player, the only way i can function well in a team is with a good leader who knows where and when to put me exactly. im not a good leader either because i have the tendency to be a dictator (and i have to remind myself that we're in a democracy and dictatorship is bad even if i will share the work because people in a democracy dont like being told to follow strict and rigid rules with no questions asked and no room for dissent) and have high standards because i expect people to do what i expect they are capable of doing. of course capability does not mean willingness and availability (which i think is a common problem for any team especially those of temporary nature or of a short duration). so i also end up doing things alone so i wont be frustrated.
just another one of those things i need to fix about myself. maybe this is why i wanted to be scientist when i was a kid. scientist have this image of doing stuff alone. stuck in some laboratory or engaged in experiments. scientists collaborate but i think collaboration is a level lower than teamwork. in collaboration, its just joint effort or to work together but teamwork is organized effort or to function as one. im not even convinced with what i said. anyway, point is, i will be part of a team from time to time and i have to learn how to be part of it
Monday, September 29, 2008
Sunday, September 28, 2008
promises are hard to keep...sometimes. is that why the word promissory sounds apologetic?
respect is something that is earned. you dont demand it. and i certainly dont give it that easily. and its harder it earn it once it is lost.
i have lots of reasons for not giving respect to a person. one reason is if a person does not know how to commit or constantly breaks promises to the point of being inconsiderate. i dont give respect to those kind of people.
i exert a lot of effort not to break promises or stick to what ive committed to (thats why i dont easily commit to something until im really sure that i can fulfill it). thats why i easily get pissed with people who cant keep promises or live up to the expectations they themselves created or initiated. its like a lawyer who keeps scheduling meetings and appointments with clients and changing the plans in the last minute. clients, usually, try their best to accomodate their lawyers, to adjust their schedules for them. and its just inconsiderate for a lawyer to constantly change what has been agreed upon because it disrupts not only the schedule of his or her client, but possibly his or her life.
the same goes for ordinary personal relationships. one shouldnt just throw statements saying that he or she means it but in reality, its merely words to him or her. meaningless words. and to have those words said to me, is really a waste of my time and thats why i dont respect people who do that. and demanding respect will certainly make it more impossible for me to give it. it just means he or she is really not worth having around because i dont have time for people who waste my time and clueless that they are wasting my time. thats why im more of an "action speak louder than words" type of person. i give more attention and importance to what the person is doing (or have done) than what the person is saying (or said). so a person can say all he or she wants, argue all day long and explain himself or herself to me and it will not mean anything if his or her actions show otherwise. actions persuade me, not words. but im a listener and thats why im still affected by promises or statements of similar nature that i know will not be kept and i hate to hear such useless words. just to listen to meaningless words is already a waste of brain cells.
i have lots of reasons for not giving respect to a person. one reason is if a person does not know how to commit or constantly breaks promises to the point of being inconsiderate. i dont give respect to those kind of people.
i exert a lot of effort not to break promises or stick to what ive committed to (thats why i dont easily commit to something until im really sure that i can fulfill it). thats why i easily get pissed with people who cant keep promises or live up to the expectations they themselves created or initiated. its like a lawyer who keeps scheduling meetings and appointments with clients and changing the plans in the last minute. clients, usually, try their best to accomodate their lawyers, to adjust their schedules for them. and its just inconsiderate for a lawyer to constantly change what has been agreed upon because it disrupts not only the schedule of his or her client, but possibly his or her life.
the same goes for ordinary personal relationships. one shouldnt just throw statements saying that he or she means it but in reality, its merely words to him or her. meaningless words. and to have those words said to me, is really a waste of my time and thats why i dont respect people who do that. and demanding respect will certainly make it more impossible for me to give it. it just means he or she is really not worth having around because i dont have time for people who waste my time and clueless that they are wasting my time. thats why im more of an "action speak louder than words" type of person. i give more attention and importance to what the person is doing (or have done) than what the person is saying (or said). so a person can say all he or she wants, argue all day long and explain himself or herself to me and it will not mean anything if his or her actions show otherwise. actions persuade me, not words. but im a listener and thats why im still affected by promises or statements of similar nature that i know will not be kept and i hate to hear such useless words. just to listen to meaningless words is already a waste of brain cells.
im in serious mode and im sucking the fun out of life
i hate compliments. i think its for kids. its something you say to encourage kids or give them an incentive to do it again or improve themselves. if one appreciates something ive done, a simple "thank you" is enough. i dont want to hear anything more. compliments annoy me. i dont know why. sometimes i feel im being made fun of when someone gives a compliment to me (maybe its paranoia for me to think a compliment is being said in a sarcastic manner. sarcasm is a distinct human trait and its really a peculiar human creation). most of the time i dont think a compliment is due to me. thats why i hate it. and thats why i think the person is being sarcastic.
sure its nice to hear a compliment but i prefer to hear it on times which i think really matters. like, i did something really big or legendary (Barney Stinson just makes the word sound interesting). to have a compliment thrown around so easily makes the person giving it appear insincere to me. its like engaging in small talk, i hate it and its a waste of time for me. id rather have the person shut up and not say anything than be told compliments which sound like big fat lies. or even if its true, to hear it after doing something insignificant, the compliment has really no value. now i understand why some people reply "its nothing really" because its really nothing and not worthy of compliments. criticism is much more useful. so a "thank you" or something as simple would suffice.
sure its nice to hear a compliment but i prefer to hear it on times which i think really matters. like, i did something really big or legendary (Barney Stinson just makes the word sound interesting). to have a compliment thrown around so easily makes the person giving it appear insincere to me. its like engaging in small talk, i hate it and its a waste of time for me. id rather have the person shut up and not say anything than be told compliments which sound like big fat lies. or even if its true, to hear it after doing something insignificant, the compliment has really no value. now i understand why some people reply "its nothing really" because its really nothing and not worthy of compliments. criticism is much more useful. so a "thank you" or something as simple would suffice.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Breakfast at Tiffany's on a wonderful rainy night
"You know what's wrong with you, Miss Whoever-you-are? You're chicken, you've got no guts. You're afraid to stick out your chin and say, "Okay, life's a fact, people do fall in love, people do belong to each other, because that's the only chance anybody's got for real happiness." You call yourself a free spirit, a "wild thing," and you're terrified somebody's gonna stick you in a cage. Well baby, you're already in that cage. You built it yourself. And it's not bounded in the west by Tulip, Texas, or in the east by Somali-land. It's wherever you go. Because no matter where you run, you just end up running into yourself....Here. I've been carrying this thing around for months. I don't want it anymore." - Paul "Fred" Varjak
Thursday, September 18, 2008
chemistry makes it look good
why do some people assume that if two people have good chemistry they are a good match? i think it doesnt necessarily follow and its a hit and miss thing if turned into a serious romantic relationship. and when i say chemistry, i mean the external type (rapport and not mutual attraction). and when i say external type, i mean the ones perceived by third persons. and i dont know if its appropriate to call it external chemistry (and internal chemistry). maybe theres a better term but im going to stick to my terms anyway since this is not some serious stuff.
chemistry is pretty much (yes, i used pretty much), just chemistry. it can exist without intimacy or affection. its like watching a good sitcom or tv show hosts or listening to radio DJs. they can have good chemistry or an incredibly smooth and entertaining partnership. they can make themselves appear as one cohesive unit but the moment the show ends, so does the relationship. they go their separate ways until they meet again for the show. they really dont care about each other's lives or at least each other's affairs. they dont even have to be friends in real life. they can be enemies yet they can still put on a good show (if they are professional enough not to allow personal feelings affect their work)
in real life its not an act but something similar. sometimes the chemistry is what appears to those who see it, those who watch it. the good chemistry is how other people perceive it. but how do the individuals who have good chemistry perceive each other? do they think the same way as other people do? does he or she see the other as having a good chemistry with him or her to the point that he or she might think theres more than chemistry? or is it simply good chemistry? chemistry can lead to attraction but it doesnt necessarily follow. or it doesnt have to follow. one can have a good and meaningful relationship with someone even without the external chemistry. because i think chemistry as most people understand it is something that is perceived by the senses of third persons (rapport) and not something that is felt between the interested parties (mutual attraction or internal chemistry). so its possible that a couple may not appear to have a good chemistry as other people see it, like they cant even finish each other's sentences or interact without looking like strangers to each other (rapport) but to the two of them theres some unspoken bond that cant be expressed but only felt which of course cant be sensed by third persons but by only interested parties (mutual attraction).
so whats my point? actually i started with only the external chemistry in mind. while writing the entry, i realized that theres such a thing as internal chemistry. and since im more than halfway done, i just tried to cover the "holes" in what i was writing because im too lazy to re-write the entry. my point is simply the answer to the first sentence. chemistry, as understood to be the one that third persons perceive, is not attraction and its not good to assume that its indicative of a possibly good or successful romantic relationship because it would still boil down on how the two people perceive each other and not how they are perceived by third persons. chemistry makes it look good but not because it looks good means it also feels good.
chemistry is pretty much (yes, i used pretty much), just chemistry. it can exist without intimacy or affection. its like watching a good sitcom or tv show hosts or listening to radio DJs. they can have good chemistry or an incredibly smooth and entertaining partnership. they can make themselves appear as one cohesive unit but the moment the show ends, so does the relationship. they go their separate ways until they meet again for the show. they really dont care about each other's lives or at least each other's affairs. they dont even have to be friends in real life. they can be enemies yet they can still put on a good show (if they are professional enough not to allow personal feelings affect their work)
in real life its not an act but something similar. sometimes the chemistry is what appears to those who see it, those who watch it. the good chemistry is how other people perceive it. but how do the individuals who have good chemistry perceive each other? do they think the same way as other people do? does he or she see the other as having a good chemistry with him or her to the point that he or she might think theres more than chemistry? or is it simply good chemistry? chemistry can lead to attraction but it doesnt necessarily follow. or it doesnt have to follow. one can have a good and meaningful relationship with someone even without the external chemistry. because i think chemistry as most people understand it is something that is perceived by the senses of third persons (rapport) and not something that is felt between the interested parties (mutual attraction or internal chemistry). so its possible that a couple may not appear to have a good chemistry as other people see it, like they cant even finish each other's sentences or interact without looking like strangers to each other (rapport) but to the two of them theres some unspoken bond that cant be expressed but only felt which of course cant be sensed by third persons but by only interested parties (mutual attraction).
so whats my point? actually i started with only the external chemistry in mind. while writing the entry, i realized that theres such a thing as internal chemistry. and since im more than halfway done, i just tried to cover the "holes" in what i was writing because im too lazy to re-write the entry. my point is simply the answer to the first sentence. chemistry, as understood to be the one that third persons perceive, is not attraction and its not good to assume that its indicative of a possibly good or successful romantic relationship because it would still boil down on how the two people perceive each other and not how they are perceived by third persons. chemistry makes it look good but not because it looks good means it also feels good.
and then there was none
10-12 years ago, the four of "us" were composed of 3 college students and a highschool student (and eventually 3 UP students and an Atenean). we were much like friends only that we were, or we are, related (cousins by birth). its the age group that really brought us together and of course the residential set-up (because as i recently explained to one them, we have different "crowds" and most likely we wont end up hanging out together if we werent related). things were ok back then. life appeared to be good. we seemed happy with each others company. well, to a certain extent.
one of us was a brilliant and deep thinker that gives sense, relevance and meaning to the stuff around us and she also has an intellectual sense of humor. the other one was loud and annoying yet she brings life to conversations and despite the irritating stuff she does, the kind of company she brings eventually grows on you. the third member was the innocent (or maybe naive) and incorruptible one. a man of strong moral fibre, honest and thoughtful. as for me, ive always been the disagreeable and arrogant one. i was the rational, reliable and pessimistic know-it-all wannabe. well, they were college students and i was only in highschool. i wanted to be seen as an equal. anyway, it kind of worked out between them and me (because im the "apparent" black sheep). i dont know how the four of us got along. we disagreed and argued from time to time but somehow we usually patch things up in the end (and they bribe me with food i like whenever i get pissed so i will forgive them even if they know its my fault because they probably knew i will never apologize even if i admit its my fault. i was an immature hot-head and they were mature enough to understand that im rational yet unreasonable childish prick).
then one by one we "graduated" and our lives changed. one of us got married. the other one started working. the other one remained in college. and i graduated from college and then went to law school. the older we got, the distance between the four of us increased. its something i knew will happen. i knew it since highschool since i was exposed to this kind of change at an early age. relationships that last a lifetime is something that you have to expressly commit to and you cant do it alone.
for a good relationship to work or last, chemistry alone is insufficient (even chemistry fades). the ones in the relationship should exert an effort to make it work. it cant be done by one person alone. its a burden that should be shared by all who wants to stay in the relationship. well, for the four us, only one wanted to keep the relationship alive. the rest of us just wanted to move on. our lives have changed. not necessarily for the better but its still undeniable that things have changed. for all of us. and keeping the relationship wasnt that appealing to some of us since we werent really brought together out of similar interest or something like that. it just happens that we were young (meaning we werent saddled with the problems of reality and adult life), we didnt want to get bored, we wanted some company and we can tolerate each other's differences. so right from the beginning, it was either we grow together or we grow apart. the former lasted for years before the latter started to kick in.
even if i try to help revive the old life we had (so there would be two of us trying to make the old relationship work), it wont be as good as it was. for the simple reason that the rest of us doesnt want it as much. the fact that we eventually let go is a sign that we had a good run but some good things just have to end. its hard to accept sometimes but some things are just bound to happen and it all boils down on how one deals with it.
so what's up with us now? one of us, happily married, is in the US. just left last month. the other one is working and in a relationship. the other one is at home. just simply at home and still in college. and im a struggling 4th year law student. i said to my cousin that the next time we hang out together, it wont be a bonding session. its a reunion. and a reunion most of the time is temporary in nature. i dont think it can get any better than that.
one of us was a brilliant and deep thinker that gives sense, relevance and meaning to the stuff around us and she also has an intellectual sense of humor. the other one was loud and annoying yet she brings life to conversations and despite the irritating stuff she does, the kind of company she brings eventually grows on you. the third member was the innocent (or maybe naive) and incorruptible one. a man of strong moral fibre, honest and thoughtful. as for me, ive always been the disagreeable and arrogant one. i was the rational, reliable and pessimistic know-it-all wannabe. well, they were college students and i was only in highschool. i wanted to be seen as an equal. anyway, it kind of worked out between them and me (because im the "apparent" black sheep). i dont know how the four of us got along. we disagreed and argued from time to time but somehow we usually patch things up in the end (and they bribe me with food i like whenever i get pissed so i will forgive them even if they know its my fault because they probably knew i will never apologize even if i admit its my fault. i was an immature hot-head and they were mature enough to understand that im rational yet unreasonable childish prick).
then one by one we "graduated" and our lives changed. one of us got married. the other one started working. the other one remained in college. and i graduated from college and then went to law school. the older we got, the distance between the four of us increased. its something i knew will happen. i knew it since highschool since i was exposed to this kind of change at an early age. relationships that last a lifetime is something that you have to expressly commit to and you cant do it alone.
for a good relationship to work or last, chemistry alone is insufficient (even chemistry fades). the ones in the relationship should exert an effort to make it work. it cant be done by one person alone. its a burden that should be shared by all who wants to stay in the relationship. well, for the four us, only one wanted to keep the relationship alive. the rest of us just wanted to move on. our lives have changed. not necessarily for the better but its still undeniable that things have changed. for all of us. and keeping the relationship wasnt that appealing to some of us since we werent really brought together out of similar interest or something like that. it just happens that we were young (meaning we werent saddled with the problems of reality and adult life), we didnt want to get bored, we wanted some company and we can tolerate each other's differences. so right from the beginning, it was either we grow together or we grow apart. the former lasted for years before the latter started to kick in.
even if i try to help revive the old life we had (so there would be two of us trying to make the old relationship work), it wont be as good as it was. for the simple reason that the rest of us doesnt want it as much. the fact that we eventually let go is a sign that we had a good run but some good things just have to end. its hard to accept sometimes but some things are just bound to happen and it all boils down on how one deals with it.
so what's up with us now? one of us, happily married, is in the US. just left last month. the other one is working and in a relationship. the other one is at home. just simply at home and still in college. and im a struggling 4th year law student. i said to my cousin that the next time we hang out together, it wont be a bonding session. its a reunion. and a reunion most of the time is temporary in nature. i dont think it can get any better than that.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
is it a pang?
i thought i was immune to regret. well, i was. not anymore. somehow regret figured a way how to get to me.
regret made me realize, just now, that ive been quick to judge people. well, a person.
its not the same feeling i had when i was eating at mcdonalds a few weeks ago. this one is much worse. this time, the feeling is like seeing her right in front of me after being hit by a brick in the face and she's just staring at me with a look as if saying i had my chance and i blew it and i acted like its not an opportunity worth taking.
well, its a loss i thought i could easily accept. and regret just made me realize that my life has been partly about me making decisions which i think is risky when in fact its not because i know or i feel that im the one at the losing end. so before i even take the risk, im already convincing myself i can afford to lose. its not a risk when i know the likely outcome and im also ok with the fact that i will lose. what i was doing was not betting to win but hoping to be surprised, for the unexpected to happen. well, life was never nice enough to let me have the unexpected im expecting. its like ive always been betting on the improbable, hoping for the improbable to happen. thats the reason why i lost recently on a P100 bet i made a few days ago. it was possible but not very probable. its like im aiming for a big win (i gained something and i also proved that the improbable can happen). and i thought i was risk averse because i always weigh and study stuff like options or decisions. or so i think. so what else will i allow myself to lose?
regret made me realize, just now, that ive been quick to judge people. well, a person.
its not the same feeling i had when i was eating at mcdonalds a few weeks ago. this one is much worse. this time, the feeling is like seeing her right in front of me after being hit by a brick in the face and she's just staring at me with a look as if saying i had my chance and i blew it and i acted like its not an opportunity worth taking.
well, its a loss i thought i could easily accept. and regret just made me realize that my life has been partly about me making decisions which i think is risky when in fact its not because i know or i feel that im the one at the losing end. so before i even take the risk, im already convincing myself i can afford to lose. its not a risk when i know the likely outcome and im also ok with the fact that i will lose. what i was doing was not betting to win but hoping to be surprised, for the unexpected to happen. well, life was never nice enough to let me have the unexpected im expecting. its like ive always been betting on the improbable, hoping for the improbable to happen. thats the reason why i lost recently on a P100 bet i made a few days ago. it was possible but not very probable. its like im aiming for a big win (i gained something and i also proved that the improbable can happen). and i thought i was risk averse because i always weigh and study stuff like options or decisions. or so i think. so what else will i allow myself to lose?
Monday, September 15, 2008
im a time-wasting bastard
its monday already! damn it!
i spent hours answering online quizzes instead of studying. and its because im downloading Gianna Jun's (Jeon Ji Hyun) movie. i would have bought a copy but ive been looking for it for more than a year, maybe two years, and i cant find one obviously. it wasnt even available for downloading more than a year ago.
the reason i decided to search for it again is because i recently saw the american version of the movie on HBO (starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock) and i didnt like what they did to the movie. i think the original korean version is much better (and i assume the same goes for My Sassy Girl movie. havent seen the american version). the american version isnt bad, if i was unaware of how it was made in its korean version. or had i seen the korean version later, i would say the korean version greatly improved the american version of the movie. point is, the korean version will never be surpassed by the american version in any aspect.
ok, i dont even know if what im saying still makes sense or coherent or worth reading. im so sleepy and i think i recently told myself not to write and post when im under such a state of mind. speaking of movies, i recently rented The Hitman and The Heartbreak Kid at the same time, not realizing that the movie titles are both nicknames of WWE wrestlers. well, i realized when i looked at the receipt while watching Hitman. im back to renting movies.
i spent hours answering online quizzes instead of studying. and its because im downloading Gianna Jun's (Jeon Ji Hyun) movie. i would have bought a copy but ive been looking for it for more than a year, maybe two years, and i cant find one obviously. it wasnt even available for downloading more than a year ago.
the reason i decided to search for it again is because i recently saw the american version of the movie on HBO (starring Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock) and i didnt like what they did to the movie. i think the original korean version is much better (and i assume the same goes for My Sassy Girl movie. havent seen the american version). the american version isnt bad, if i was unaware of how it was made in its korean version. or had i seen the korean version later, i would say the korean version greatly improved the american version of the movie. point is, the korean version will never be surpassed by the american version in any aspect.
ok, i dont even know if what im saying still makes sense or coherent or worth reading. im so sleepy and i think i recently told myself not to write and post when im under such a state of mind. speaking of movies, i recently rented The Hitman and The Heartbreak Kid at the same time, not realizing that the movie titles are both nicknames of WWE wrestlers. well, i realized when i looked at the receipt while watching Hitman. im back to renting movies.
does this even matter?
Your result for The Beautiful Faces Test...
Charlize Theron
43% Eyes, 14% Nose, 35% Mouth, 40% SexyCute
You seem to prefer that your women be hot rather than cute. Can't blame you for that. You also seem to find smaller or less prominent facial features appealing. Might you be a fan of Charlize Theron? If so, you're certainly not alone.
Similar: Nicole Kidman, Elisha Cuthbertshould be sleeping
Your result for The Tits, Ass, and Cuteness Test...
Curvy and Naughty
Raw score: 59% Big Breasts, 55% Big Ass, and 48% Cute!
Thanks for taking the T and A and C test! Based on your selections, the results are clear: you show an attraction to larger breasts, larger asses, and sexier composures than others who've taken the test.
Note that you like women overall curvier than average.
My third variable, "cuteness" is a mostly objective measure of how innocent a given model looked. It's determined by a combination of a lot of factors: lack of dark eye makeup, facial expression, posture, etc. If you scored high on that variable, you are either really nice OR you're into deflowering teens. If you scored low, you are attracted to raunchier, sexier, women. In your case, your lower than average score suggests you appreciate a sexier, naughtier look. Kudos!
Recommended Celebrities: Supermodel Laetitia Casta and Actress Angelina Jolie.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
still answering online quizzes
Your result for The Personality Defect Test...
Sociopath
You are 86% Rational, 14% Extroverted, 86% Brutal, and 57% Arrogant.
You are the Sociopath! As a result of your cold, calculating rationality, your introversion (and ability to keep quiet), your brutality, and your arrogance, you would make a very cunning serial killer. You are confident and capable of social interaction, but you prefer the silence of dead bodies to the loud, twittering nitwits you normally encounter in your daily life. You care very little for the feelings of others, possibly because you are not a very emotional person. You are also very calculating and intelligent, making you a perfect criminal mastermind. Also, you are a very arrogant person, tending to see yourself as better than others, providing you with a strong ability to perceive others as weak little animals, so tiny and small. You take great pleasure in the misery of others, and there is nothing sweeter to you than the sweet glory of using someone else's shattered failure to project yourself to success. Except sugar. That just may be sweeter. In short, your personality defect is the fact that you could easily be a sociopath, because you are calculating, unemotional, brutal, and arrogant. Please don't kill me for writing mean things about you! I have a 101 mile-long knife! Don't make me use it!
To put it less negatively:
1. You are more RATIONAL than intuitive.
2. You are more INTROVERTED than extroverted.
3. You are more BRUTAL than gentle.
4. You are more ARROGANT than humble.
Compatibility:
Your exact opposite is the Hippie.
Other personalities you would probably get along with are the Spiteful Loner, the Smartass, and the Capitalist Pig.
*
*
If you scored near fifty percent for a certain trait (42%-58%), you could very well go either way. For example, someone with 42% Extroversion is slightly leaning towards being an introvert, but is close enough to being an extrovert to be classified that way as well. Below is a list of the other personality types so that you can determine which other possible categories you may fill if you scored near fifty percent for certain traits.
The other personality types:
The Emo Kid: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Starving Artist: Intuitive, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Bitch-Slap: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Brute: Intuitive, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hippie: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Televangelist: Intuitive, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Schoolyard Bully: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Class Clown: Intuitive, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Robot: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Haughty Intellectual: Rational, Introverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Spiteful Loner: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Sociopath: Rational, Introverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
The Hand-Raiser: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Humble.
The Braggart: Rational, Extroverted, Gentle, Arrogant.
The Capitalist Pig: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Humble.
The Smartass: Rational, Extroverted, Brutal, Arrogant.
Be sure to take my Sublime Philosophical Crap Test if you are interested in taking a slightly more intellectual test that has just as many insane ramblings as this one does!
About Saint_Gasoline
I am a self-proclaimed pseudo-intellectual who loves dashes. I enjoy science, philosophy, and fart jokes and water balloons, not necessarily in that order. I spend 95% of my time online, and the other 5% of my time in the bathroom, longing to get back on the computer. If, God forbid, you somehow find me amusing instead of crass and annoying, be sure to check out my blog and my webcomic at SaintGasoline.com.
i didnt know there was such a creature
Your result for How geeky are you?...
Cool Introvert
40% Geeky, 74% Cranial and 58% Introverted!
You scored 40% Geeky, 74% Cranial and 58% Introverted! Brilliant! This is so very exciting because you have managed to maintain your intelligence yet steer clear of the path to geekiness. You are the rarest of the rare, not many people score in this category. I don't know if you realize the delicate balance between smarts and geekiness, yet you have overcome!!
You most likely have a strong passion for reading or some other hobby you can cultivate on your own, and this can be a wonderful creative outlet. Make sure you take the time to develop strong interpersonal relationships as they may not come as easily to you, though they are vital for a fulfilling life. It takes much effort to mantain them at times, but their benefits far outweight their draw backs.Take How geeky are you? at HelloQuizzy95! not good enough
Your result for The How Well Do You Know Douglas Adams, and Hitch Hiker's Guide Test...
Douglas Adams
You scored 95 % Knowledge!
You always know where your towel is, you have clearly re-read Hitch Hiker a hundred times and seen it in all its incarnations - you are a true lover of all things Adams and I salute you! Very well done, you are the hoopiest frood of all, the great man himself.
Take The How Well Do You Know Douglas Adams, and Hitch Hiker's Guide Test at HelloQuizzyim an artist
Your result for Thief Quiz...
Heist Artist
71% Patience, 41% Athletics and 61% Compassion!
While other thieves consider themselves employees, or professionals, consider yourself an artist. While you don't always spend time planning before a job, it helps. The rest of your brilliance is in your improvisation during the job. Complicated plans seem to come to you on a whim and always work out. You see routes and possibilities instantly that would take most years to plan. Best of all, you can pull them off. You wouldn't trust many to follow your plans, and besides, you need to adapt and make new plans when things go wrong. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Bloodshed usually isn't necessary, and you feel thieves that leave a trail of bodies are unprofessional. It takes so little effort to spare lives, for you anyways."Ah, you don't see it? Pity. Well, have fun chasing shadows, I'm off to the castle treasury. I'll bring you back a trinket, amateur."
ive been singing their songs since i was six
Your result for The Beatles Lyrics Test...
You are 100% a Beatles Lyrics Master!
No categories here. Your percentage is simply how many you got right. Each question was worth the same amount.
So, if your score is low, then I recommend listening to some more Beatles music. And classic rock in general!
If your score is high, then great! Keep up the appareciation of good music.
So, if your score is low, then I recommend listening to some more Beatles music. And classic rock in general!
If your score is high, then great! Keep up the appareciation of good music.
nothing new, just bored
Your result for The Ultra Ultimate Personality Test...
The Thinker
You scored 14 Extroversion, 74 Intuition, 38 Emotional, and 53 Spontaneity!
INTP
Private, intellectual, impersonal, analytical and reflective, the INTP appears to value ideas, principles and abstract thinking above all else. This logical type seeks to understand and explain the universe--not to control it! Higher education often holds a particular appeal to this type who tends to acquire degrees and amass knowledge over the entire course of life. Abstract or theoretical subjects are usually the INTP's cup of tea, and academic or research careers may seem attractive to this type. From science and math to economics and philosophy: just name the discipline, and you'll find INTPs perched on the loftiest rungs of theory and analysis. In whatever field they choose, INTPs take on the role of visionary, scientist or architect, and they usually prefer to make their contributions in relative solitude. The mundane details of life may be the INTP's undoing, since this type lives in a world guided by intuitive thinking. Often perceived to be arrogant and aloof, the quiet and sometimes reclusive INTP may have to struggle in the personal realm, as well, for feelings are not this type's natural forte.
Relationships
INTPs live rich worlds inside their minds, which are full of imagination and excitement. Consequently, they sometimes find the external world pales in comparison. This may result in a lack of motivation to form and maintain relationships. INTPs are not likely to have a very large circle of significant relationships in their lives. They're much more likely to have a few very close relationships, which they hold in great esteem and with great affection. Since the INTP's primary focus and attention is turned inwards, aimed towards seeking clarity from abstract ideas, they are not naturally tuned into others' emotional feelings and needs. They tend to be difficult to get to know well, and hold back parts of themselves until the other person has proven themselves "worthy" of hearing the INTP's thoughts. Holding Knowledge and Brain Power above all else in importance, the INTP will choose to be around people who they consider to be intelligent. Once the INTP has committed themself to a relationship, they tend to be very faithful and loyal, and form affectionate attachments which are pure and straight-forward. The INTP has no interest or understanding of game-playing with regards to relationships. However, if something happens which the INTP considers irreconciliable, they will leave the relationship and not look back.
Strengths
They feel love and affection for those close to them which is almost childlike in its purity
Generally laid-back and easy-going, willing to defer to their mates
Approach things which interest them very enthusiastically
Richly imaginative and creative
Do not feel personally threatened by conflict or criticism
Usually are not demanding, with simple daily needs
Sunday, September 07, 2008
sunday mornings
went to church this morning. now i havent been to church in about 10 years (and one time i had to pull my little sister's ears? but im not really violent and it shows, i go for flower power as the stupid song goes. sometimes i tell a lie...). ok, more accurately, i havent been going to church on a regular basis for about 10 years. i think i havent attended mass for more than 20 times in a span of 10 years. and thats including the baccalaureate mass when i graduated back in 2004, the mass i attended with college blockmates (which i remember was a mass that said it was the start of the advent season) and the mass i attended in the UP chapel just because i felt like attending one. im not even sure if i attended mass more than 15 times since 1998.
before 1998, i attended mass every sunday. what happened? i just learned to think on a more analytical level. sometimes, thats enough to destroy one's faith (i should have a customized button that says "i was born intelligent but philosophy changed me"). back then i started to question whats with this God entity anyway and the whole religion crap. even if God exists, its not like He is actively participating in our human affairs. in the mortal world, only man matters. the mortal world is our playground and this is our realm, not Gods, even if He created it. in effect, i never really denied God's existence. i just refused to ask for help, guidance or assistance. i refused to acknowledge that i need Him despite the fact that i respect Him as God by acknowledging that He exists and that He is the Almighty. other than that, i wont do anything else, like worship Him.
back then, i was thinking that i was born in this world and im going to get by in this world on my own. im not going to pray and ask for anything. thats one reason why i stopped going to church. i felt that people go to church to ask for help. they keep going to God to give them what they think they need or what they want. i found that repulsive. if they want or need help, they should help themselves or ask for help from another person. then i started thinking if this is the idea of religion then i want none of it. it breeds dependence and worthlessness. it makes man weak yet religion makes them think he is strong. thats why it made sense to me when Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people. religion destroys or weakens the idea of self-improvement by mere reliance on divine help. that having faith can overcome any of man's problems. but how can that be when it doesnt empower man? religion doesnt really empower people, it just asks them to endure and continue to have faith.
i was imagining that all the people i see in church, praying, kneeling and worshipping, were all asking for help and not one of them would be thanking God for anything, even the simple breeze that comforts them while they sit on their pews. i thought that humans have the tendency to remember God only when they are in an unfortunate situation and forget God during good times. well, i was a highschool student. i was arrogant (well i still am) and quick to jump into conclusions when i think that my arguments are sound and logical. so its not really the church at first that made me stop attending mass. its the people who attend mass. they always have this sad look on their faces. or they look obligated. i dont think i saw someone who goes to church to say thank you or just attend mass to truly worship God without expecting anything in return. but then again, i was relying on mere observation and i only see the people from the outside. i have no idea what they were thinking. so i might be mistaken to make the assumption.
then i started thinking about the church itself, the catholic church. i didnt like the way it was being run. i said to myself back then, the way things were going, the church wasnt really reaching the catholics or making a "holy" impact compared to the days when the catholic church was a very powerful entity that commands respect. i see churches that are vandalized and dirty. some churches have signs warning against littering and even the presence of criminals within the church grounds. i felt that the church should have a more imposing presence. it should create a sense of discipline among its followers. i wanted the church to restore its former glory. thats when i started theorizing that the church should be more politicized. i dont want the church putting up signs against littering and the presence of criminal elements. if people can do this to the church, it only means, for me, that they dont see it as a holy ground or at least a place that should be respected. i felt that the church has been too nice and lenient.
at first, life without God was ok. i felt i was efficient, effective and "fully functional" as a human being. i saw myself as a man of science ever since i was in grade school and at that time, i felt that science and philosophy are the only things that should be considered to improve one's self. years later, i realized that a life without God is a very mechanical existence. life seems to have no purpose at all. its just like i was just fulfilling a biological process. evolution really doest mean anything but survival of the fittest. but whats the purpose of surviving? thats when i realized that God and religion gives meaning to a person' s life. it gives people a reason to live, to survive. God breathes life into man's mechanical existence. thats when i conceded that i needed God in my life. but being the arrogant person that i am, prone to the sin of pride, i had to figure out a way to restore my faith. i mean, i had to do some rationalization and reasoning why i had to restore my faith. i had to convince myself why im reverting. it took years actually to get to where i am now. i started with stopping rejecting God in my life. then eventually (which took years), i had to bring back the worship part since having faith in God is not enough because although i acknowledged i needed help, i didnt really pray to God. then i obligated to make it a habit to go to chapel every week. then eventually i obligated myself to pray every night (i completed one full year, almost. i missed 2 nights because i forgot to pray because i was drunk or i didnt sleep at all). thats the farthest i have achieved until now. now, because of parent's insistence, im thinking of making it a habit to go to church and attend mass again on a regular basis. not sure if i can accomplish this. i still have problems with the church. the mass i attended earlier sounded like the priest was an advocate of augustine's teachings. im more of the aquinas follower. the good thing about augustine's teachings is that it can be used for building a christian army. well, maybe i dont remember my theology that well, but thats my impression back then. the orientation of augustine's teachings can be used to make soldiers out of christians if one teaches it in a certain manner and direct it to certain followers. anyway, im digressing yet again. point is, im thinking of taking the worship part on another level. i guess i wont be spending my sunday mornings sleeping until 10am.
before 1998, i attended mass every sunday. what happened? i just learned to think on a more analytical level. sometimes, thats enough to destroy one's faith (i should have a customized button that says "i was born intelligent but philosophy changed me"). back then i started to question whats with this God entity anyway and the whole religion crap. even if God exists, its not like He is actively participating in our human affairs. in the mortal world, only man matters. the mortal world is our playground and this is our realm, not Gods, even if He created it. in effect, i never really denied God's existence. i just refused to ask for help, guidance or assistance. i refused to acknowledge that i need Him despite the fact that i respect Him as God by acknowledging that He exists and that He is the Almighty. other than that, i wont do anything else, like worship Him.
back then, i was thinking that i was born in this world and im going to get by in this world on my own. im not going to pray and ask for anything. thats one reason why i stopped going to church. i felt that people go to church to ask for help. they keep going to God to give them what they think they need or what they want. i found that repulsive. if they want or need help, they should help themselves or ask for help from another person. then i started thinking if this is the idea of religion then i want none of it. it breeds dependence and worthlessness. it makes man weak yet religion makes them think he is strong. thats why it made sense to me when Marx said that religion is the opiate of the people. religion destroys or weakens the idea of self-improvement by mere reliance on divine help. that having faith can overcome any of man's problems. but how can that be when it doesnt empower man? religion doesnt really empower people, it just asks them to endure and continue to have faith.
i was imagining that all the people i see in church, praying, kneeling and worshipping, were all asking for help and not one of them would be thanking God for anything, even the simple breeze that comforts them while they sit on their pews. i thought that humans have the tendency to remember God only when they are in an unfortunate situation and forget God during good times. well, i was a highschool student. i was arrogant (well i still am) and quick to jump into conclusions when i think that my arguments are sound and logical. so its not really the church at first that made me stop attending mass. its the people who attend mass. they always have this sad look on their faces. or they look obligated. i dont think i saw someone who goes to church to say thank you or just attend mass to truly worship God without expecting anything in return. but then again, i was relying on mere observation and i only see the people from the outside. i have no idea what they were thinking. so i might be mistaken to make the assumption.
then i started thinking about the church itself, the catholic church. i didnt like the way it was being run. i said to myself back then, the way things were going, the church wasnt really reaching the catholics or making a "holy" impact compared to the days when the catholic church was a very powerful entity that commands respect. i see churches that are vandalized and dirty. some churches have signs warning against littering and even the presence of criminals within the church grounds. i felt that the church should have a more imposing presence. it should create a sense of discipline among its followers. i wanted the church to restore its former glory. thats when i started theorizing that the church should be more politicized. i dont want the church putting up signs against littering and the presence of criminal elements. if people can do this to the church, it only means, for me, that they dont see it as a holy ground or at least a place that should be respected. i felt that the church has been too nice and lenient.
at first, life without God was ok. i felt i was efficient, effective and "fully functional" as a human being. i saw myself as a man of science ever since i was in grade school and at that time, i felt that science and philosophy are the only things that should be considered to improve one's self. years later, i realized that a life without God is a very mechanical existence. life seems to have no purpose at all. its just like i was just fulfilling a biological process. evolution really doest mean anything but survival of the fittest. but whats the purpose of surviving? thats when i realized that God and religion gives meaning to a person' s life. it gives people a reason to live, to survive. God breathes life into man's mechanical existence. thats when i conceded that i needed God in my life. but being the arrogant person that i am, prone to the sin of pride, i had to figure out a way to restore my faith. i mean, i had to do some rationalization and reasoning why i had to restore my faith. i had to convince myself why im reverting. it took years actually to get to where i am now. i started with stopping rejecting God in my life. then eventually (which took years), i had to bring back the worship part since having faith in God is not enough because although i acknowledged i needed help, i didnt really pray to God. then i obligated to make it a habit to go to chapel every week. then eventually i obligated myself to pray every night (i completed one full year, almost. i missed 2 nights because i forgot to pray because i was drunk or i didnt sleep at all). thats the farthest i have achieved until now. now, because of parent's insistence, im thinking of making it a habit to go to church and attend mass again on a regular basis. not sure if i can accomplish this. i still have problems with the church. the mass i attended earlier sounded like the priest was an advocate of augustine's teachings. im more of the aquinas follower. the good thing about augustine's teachings is that it can be used for building a christian army. well, maybe i dont remember my theology that well, but thats my impression back then. the orientation of augustine's teachings can be used to make soldiers out of christians if one teaches it in a certain manner and direct it to certain followers. anyway, im digressing yet again. point is, im thinking of taking the worship part on another level. i guess i wont be spending my sunday mornings sleeping until 10am.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Walking Around
this poem captures what i felt a few days ago. or maybe it captures more than that. the poem describes the state of mind im in at the moment. well, if i define moment as something that i feel from time to time within the span of more or less a decade, then i guess its accurate to say that its the state of mind im in at the moment. i shouldnt be posting blog entries tonight. im sleepy, was pissed, tired and im just writing away without thinking. i should be posting entries on my other blog, not here. damn it. i just remembered i was supposed to do something. crap. im really messed up. and i wish im drunk or at least intoxicated to have a good reason to be messed up.
Walking Around
by
Pablo Neruda
It happens that I am tired of being a man.
It happens that I go into the tailor's shops and the movies
all shrivelled up, impenetrable, like a felt swan
navigating on a water of origin and ash.
The smell of barber shops makes me sob out loud.
I want nothing but the repose either of stone or of wool.
I want to see no more establishments, no more gardens,
nor merchandise, nor glasses, nor elevators.
It happens that I am tired of my feet and my nails
and my hair and my shadow.
It happens that I am tired of being a man.
Just the same it would be delicious
to scare a notary with a cut lily
or knock a nun stone dead with one blow of an ear.
It would be beautiful
to go through the streets with a green knife
shouting until I died of cold.
I do not want to go on being a root in the dark,
hesitating, stretched out, shivering with dreams,
downwards, in the wet tripe of the earth,
soaking it up and thinking, eating every day.
I do not want to be the inheritor of so many misfortunes.
I do not want to continue as a root and as a tomb,
as a solitary tunnel, as a cellar full of corpses,
stiff with cold, dying with pain.
For this reason Monday burns like oil
at the sight of me arriving with my jail-face,
and it howls in passing like a wounded wheel,
and its footsteps towards nightfall are filled with hot blood.
And it shoves me along to certain corners, to certain damp houses,
to hospitals where the bones come out of the windows,
to certain cobbler's shops smelling of vinegar,
to streets horrendous as crevices.
There are birds the colour of sulphur, and horrible intestines
hanging from the doors of the houses which I hate,
there are forgotten sets of teeth in a coffee-pot,
there are mirrors
which should have wept with shame and horror,
there are umbrellas all over the place, and poisons, and navels.
I stride along with calm, with eyes, with shoes,
with fury, with forgetfuless,
I pass, I cross offices and stores full of orthopedic appliances,
and courtyards hung with clothes on wires,
underpants, towels and shirts which weep
slow dirty tears.
by
Pablo Neruda
It happens that I am tired of being a man.
It happens that I go into the tailor's shops and the movies
all shrivelled up, impenetrable, like a felt swan
navigating on a water of origin and ash.
The smell of barber shops makes me sob out loud.
I want nothing but the repose either of stone or of wool.
I want to see no more establishments, no more gardens,
nor merchandise, nor glasses, nor elevators.
It happens that I am tired of my feet and my nails
and my hair and my shadow.
It happens that I am tired of being a man.
Just the same it would be delicious
to scare a notary with a cut lily
or knock a nun stone dead with one blow of an ear.
It would be beautiful
to go through the streets with a green knife
shouting until I died of cold.
I do not want to go on being a root in the dark,
hesitating, stretched out, shivering with dreams,
downwards, in the wet tripe of the earth,
soaking it up and thinking, eating every day.
I do not want to be the inheritor of so many misfortunes.
I do not want to continue as a root and as a tomb,
as a solitary tunnel, as a cellar full of corpses,
stiff with cold, dying with pain.
For this reason Monday burns like oil
at the sight of me arriving with my jail-face,
and it howls in passing like a wounded wheel,
and its footsteps towards nightfall are filled with hot blood.
And it shoves me along to certain corners, to certain damp houses,
to hospitals where the bones come out of the windows,
to certain cobbler's shops smelling of vinegar,
to streets horrendous as crevices.
There are birds the colour of sulphur, and horrible intestines
hanging from the doors of the houses which I hate,
there are forgotten sets of teeth in a coffee-pot,
there are mirrors
which should have wept with shame and horror,
there are umbrellas all over the place, and poisons, and navels.
I stride along with calm, with eyes, with shoes,
with fury, with forgetfuless,
I pass, I cross offices and stores full of orthopedic appliances,
and courtyards hung with clothes on wires,
underpants, towels and shirts which weep
slow dirty tears.
some people find it hard...
to not talk to someone when doing nothing. i mean, ive noticed some people just have to talk to someone. maybe its boredom or something else which forces them to start a conversation. probably with anyone. the reason for the probability is because even if i make myself appear as the non-conversational type (or not the type who talks to anyone or not talk to people im not close to), some people ignore it when they really have no choice. they try to start a conversation anyway. to no avail of course. they could throw all the opening statements they want and im just going to close it. i dont like small talk and i only engage in it when necessary. or when im in the mood. but its hard to catch me to be in the mood to talk. anyway, i just noticed that some people just have to talk to someone. its like getting stuck in a room with another person. im the one who can last for hours without talking and the other one cant last 30 seconds and will feel compelled to talk about anything just for the sake of having a conversation no matter how useless it is and very much a waste of brain cells. i think its more useful to make use of the brain cells to think of non-sensical stuff thats amusing than use it to talk to someone about stuff no one cares about.
again, maybe im just tired and worn out. or im just expressing some form of arrogance because people think im this very nice guy. ive always believed that man is born evil and he spends his life trying to be nice. then my blockmate told me that i should speak for myself. well, i am speaking for myself. its a life long struggle to be nice actually, and its really frustrating that some people arent even trying. again, im digressing. its like digression night.
again, maybe im just tired and worn out. or im just expressing some form of arrogance because people think im this very nice guy. ive always believed that man is born evil and he spends his life trying to be nice. then my blockmate told me that i should speak for myself. well, i am speaking for myself. its a life long struggle to be nice actually, and its really frustrating that some people arent even trying. again, im digressing. its like digression night.
am i like a walking information desk?
ok, maybe not a walking information desk but an information desk person. lately (when i say lately, i mean past few months), people have been asking me very simple and basic questions. just stuff people ask. things they ought to know to get by with their daily activities. but the thing is, why ask me about it? do i look like a reliable source of information? well, looks like it because people ask me (no matter how much i try to discredit myself by showing an image of a stoner type of person who easily gets confused and very forgetful). i mean, why not ask their friends? im the guy who is not a member of any circle of friends, so why go to me for information when their friends ought to know the answer to their question? is it because they dont mind bothering me? or they have no idea that a lot of people are also doing the "let's ask tristan" thing. if theres anyone that should be asking questions to any one, it should be me, because i really dont have a friend that cares about my current affairs who would be knowledgeable of the stuff i ought to know and also, im the stupid guy! im at the bottom of the barrel so why ask me for information or even academic questions (well i answer anyway because whether i give a correct answer or not is favorable to me. i get it right, good for me. i get it wrong, good for me again because it makes me less reliable and i will receive less questions). maybe im just pissed tonight. and im really tired of being the go to guy of almost anyone i know (both at home and in school). sure, its just simple and basic questions but if theres a lot of people asking it, in an almost daily basis or every other day, it really gets tiring and annoying. especially for a person who wanted to be invisible months ago. people asking me stuff was fine at first but its been months. sometimes i wonder, why me? the person or people that they should be asking are their friends. and last time i checked, im not a really a "friend" in a sense that...well, i dont want myself to be called as a friend in the "intimate" sense, because im not that kind of friend, especially lately (lately, again, means past few months). im a friend because im not an enemy. thats it. im the type of friend who is only there when needed and not when wanted. i operate on the basis of need. if i feel im not needed, im gone the moment i get an opportunity. i will be back when im needed again. and right now, the people who are asking me stuff dont need me because they have other people to go to. they just find it more convenient to bother me i guess. maybe they consider me as afriend, and thats why they ask me. i dont think so. i compared my relationship with their relationship with their friends and it really appears to me that im not on the same level as their friends, so im not a "friend" in the intimate sense. i dont think i qualify as a friend actually when i look closely at the comparison of my relationship to their relationship with their friends. people use the term loosely so maybe im just a friend by way of desgination. im digressing. point is, im puzzled why people rely on me to answer their questions? i mean, isnt it risky? im one of the delinquent guys in town so what credibility do i have or at least a guarantee that i know the answer. maybe im just pissed and sleepy and stressed out.
temper, temper
maybe i do look like someone who easily gets angry. or look pissed. lately, people have been reacting that i have a temper when i answer back (even to simple non-debatable questions).
i admit i raise my voice and i get agitated but its not that im angry. a little pissed but what i want to happen is a little heated discussion. thats it. well, most people dont like it but i do. theres nothing like a heated discussion to jumpstart your day or before going to sleep. it ruins the atmosphere but then again, im miserable 24/7 and thats the only excitement i get in my very boring and monotonous life (well, there's the occasional distraction of getting myself absorbed in whatever captivating thoughts i have but its hard to think of one lately). or a heated discussion is the only way i can think of to make a conversation interesting. im not a fan of small talks. either i try to end it quickly or force something useful out of it.
i guess my "i dont fucking care" attitude is back in the frontlines.
i admit i raise my voice and i get agitated but its not that im angry. a little pissed but what i want to happen is a little heated discussion. thats it. well, most people dont like it but i do. theres nothing like a heated discussion to jumpstart your day or before going to sleep. it ruins the atmosphere but then again, im miserable 24/7 and thats the only excitement i get in my very boring and monotonous life (well, there's the occasional distraction of getting myself absorbed in whatever captivating thoughts i have but its hard to think of one lately). or a heated discussion is the only way i can think of to make a conversation interesting. im not a fan of small talks. either i try to end it quickly or force something useful out of it.
i guess my "i dont fucking care" attitude is back in the frontlines.
Monday, September 01, 2008
walking contradiction version2
i admit that i contradict people just for the sake of contradicting them. its my idea of having fun sometimes. but sometimes, i play the devil's advocate and contradict people so they can polish their ideas or the logic of their statements or arguments. unfortunately, some people get offended when i do this. they think im just picking on them or harassing them or that i just refuse to listen thats why im muddling up the discussion.
when i contradict people so as to improve their arguments or statements, im not saying i know better. i may be completely clueless with the particular topic. the reason im contradicting them is because im not convinced. as simple as that. im not even saying that they are wrong or the arguments are flawed and should be discarded. im implying that the statements or arguments need improvement or need to be substantiated either by hard facts or good evidence. the more scientific the better. unless its not grounded on science, then pure logic thats hard to refute will suffice. that's simply what i mean when i contradict people. and again, some get offended because im implying that what they are saying is insufficient. well, what can i do, thats what appears to me. and if they happen to improve the statements or arguments, and contradict me, who benefits? besides, im the type who believes people shoul learn through experience. so even if i know a better argument, i will not disclose it. i will encourage the person to figure it out on his or her own. the most i can do is lead him or her to the right direction that would lead him or her to what i think is a better argument or statement. unfortunately, people easily get offended so i dont get the opportunity to point them to the right direction.
when i contradict people so as to improve their arguments or statements, im not saying i know better. i may be completely clueless with the particular topic. the reason im contradicting them is because im not convinced. as simple as that. im not even saying that they are wrong or the arguments are flawed and should be discarded. im implying that the statements or arguments need improvement or need to be substantiated either by hard facts or good evidence. the more scientific the better. unless its not grounded on science, then pure logic thats hard to refute will suffice. that's simply what i mean when i contradict people. and again, some get offended because im implying that what they are saying is insufficient. well, what can i do, thats what appears to me. and if they happen to improve the statements or arguments, and contradict me, who benefits? besides, im the type who believes people shoul learn through experience. so even if i know a better argument, i will not disclose it. i will encourage the person to figure it out on his or her own. the most i can do is lead him or her to the right direction that would lead him or her to what i think is a better argument or statement. unfortunately, people easily get offended so i dont get the opportunity to point them to the right direction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)