As a social recluse I have no desire to influence anyone. I am more an observer of society
than a participant and this suits me just fine. As being detached allows for peace of mind
surreptitious57
So because you have no desire to influence anyone your influence becomes unintentional. Do you think anything might be affected by your observation?
Still I see the sense in your detachment - I am just wondering how many different forms of detachment I can come up with.
Arcturus Descending
Now now . . . you know me better than that.
If it was rhetorical then I would have indicated my intention clearly for it to be rhetorical.
Seriously though: why do you think it would be the case? That I lost my desire to talk not the whole rhetorical intentional indication thingy . . .
. . . or even the know me better than that thingy . . . just messing with ya.
Seriously though: why do you think?
The words I write here and else where may influence others but like you say that is purely unintentional. As I have already
said I am not here to change minds and make others think like me. I simply write what I think and leave it up to them how
they want to interpret it. Agree or disagree it makes no difference to me. I have no control over other minds only my own
I hear you.
It reminds me . . . more control over our own minds. The words “he/she made me do it” come to mind.
The plain, theatrical dinner roles or the fancy ones? 
lol Does not compute.
In response to big_endian_16: Buffer overflow, heap spraying or a NOP slide? On the first count, bounds checking can prevent overflows.
In response to BungeeCord: In any case it looks like an information cascade . . .
I can not decide whether I should wear my white hat or my white hat today.
Oops . . . wrong tab . . .
Maybe ~~ maybe not.
O! many a shaft, at random sent, Finds mark the archer little meant! And many a word, at random spoken, May soothe or wound a heart that’s broken!
Walter Scott
I see.
What is it that you are looking at?
An information cascade.
Information, yes, but if “we all seek to influence each other”, as you said, then this can be reduced to Hegel’s “desire to get recognition (appreciation)” or to Nietzsche’s “will to power”.
I think that Hegel’s “desire to get recognition (appreciation)” is the basis, thus also the basis of the following examples:
I suppose also a desire to control might go under social influence.
Aside from that, what you say may be, well, most assuredly, is the case in many instances but not necessarily in all instances, Arminius.
Couldn’t there ALSO be those who seek to ONLY influence for good intentions, pure intentions, as pure as we humans can muster?
In other words, their ONLY intentions are towards others, towards the happiness and betterment of others. As I said, nothing is completely pure but the paramount reason for their desire to influence is toward the other[s].
Fortunately, there are people like that in the universe. Perhaps it will be those who save us from ourselves. We can only hope.
I desire to talk…(about philosophy). However it has been a great challenge in my life to meet other people, or anybody really, remotely interested in philosophy compared to myself. I would consider myself the #1 most interested in philosophy individual on the planet, maybe even historically. Since most people can’t really match my interest, it leads to one-sided conversations where I am leading with questions and answers, most of which I’ve considered hundreds of times already. So it becomes very difficult to find interesting and intelligent conversations and partners, for philosophy.
In general, I don’t like to talk much. And I’ll explain why with the next Q&A.
Most humans use communication, desire to talk, for attention-seeking purposes. Perhaps even all communication can be boiled down to it. Because people first have to gain the attention of who they want to address, talk to, and communicate with. If you cannot grab attention then you have no hope for conversation.
I believe that most people want deeper conversations, about their own particular interests and values. A random person, a guy on the street, may seem abrasive and uninterested to talk to. But that’s because he loves to fish, and you don’t. Or another guy likes NFL and talking about his favorite team. Or some girl likes talking about makeup. Another girl like’s talking about her favorite pop singer. Everybody has different interests, and therefore, priorities in conversations.
If I were to code an AI chatbot, for example, I would base algorithms on finding out such interests in particular people, and then focus on them. That makes for stimulating conversation. There is an “art to conversation” that I’ve discovered, after becoming forced to deal with the public. Conversations can net positive gains, or negative. Extremely extroverted people usually cause net gains on their conversations, “love talking to people”. Some people talk excessively. Some people also focus on themselves, selfish and egotistically, or only talk about themselves, Arrogance.
Ultimately, talking to each-other, as humanity, decreases strangeness. The more you talk to somebody, the more you understand their character, desires, and personality. However there is a vast difference between those who engage and start conversations and dialogue, usually males, versus those who respond and react, passively, usually females. Females usually do not instigate conversations with males, because of sexual differences. And the nature of conversation is different between male-to-male, male-to-female, female-to-male, and female-to-female.
We talk because that is how we work things out, how we learn. Dialogue is disclosure of knowledge. We are always talking, either to others or to ourselves.
And freedom to dialogue as openly as possible is a prerequisite for the greatest possible amount of disclosures to occur. This is why retarded elements on both the left and the right are afraid of dialogue in certain directions and want to shut down free speech and free thought. There are truths they do not want to know or have to confront.
Urwrongx1000
lol That was funny. It must indeed be a really lonely philosophical existence for you when it comes to engaging in philosophical discussion. But you have to realize that there are many in here who are well up to the challenge (not me, of course) of making your dream come true. You just may have to come down a notch or two in your own estimation. 
Sometimes when I have struggled with a poem and finally finished it, I can almost think the same about poetry though of course I certainly know that is not true. But not quite the way you do. It is just the heat and passion of the moment that tells us that.
Then try to squeeze absolutely new ones, fresh ones, original ones, out of your brain/mind. That alone might keep you going and you will not be so lonely for people to communicate with on a philosophical basis. Your mind to your mind - can you imagine the profound experience of that?
Can posting in a philosophy forum be considered to be similar to talking much? I don’t know. I am just asking.
True, even in a philosophy forum. Obviously there has to be that desire for attention; otherwise, who would hear us, feel us?
But, I can’t think that it is solely for attention People have things which they need to say, philosophically speaking, things they believe, think about, need to form within their own minds, if that made sense.
Why does it always have to be about one or the other thing. Humans are complicated creatures. It cannot just be this or that.
Exactly. So one of the most important ingredients for conversation is to find those who are willing to listen, who are interested, who clearly want to listen. … who clearly want to learn and discover.
Perhaps one thing that is important and I do not mean to sound shallow, but perhaps chemistry between two people is important (I don’t mean sexual chemistry). Just that there is something about this or that person which you find attractive,something just draws you to him or her, even if you do not like fishing or football or playing scrabble or talking about fashion, et cetera.
Do you have the ability to do that? hahaha.
I wonder just how far you would be able to go with a person who for instance was interested in hugging trees, for instance or talking to birds or squirrels or walking in the rain when everyone else goes inside? Those things though are normal.
What about someone who likes to look up into the clouds and see the patterns in them?
Well, we don’t have to be forced to deal with the public, now do we?
Do you think that extremely etroverted people are narcisstic in nature, only wanting to discuss their selves?
True and this can become a very enriching thing to one. Enriches both. Human Intimacy (non-sexual) plays such a role in our physical/mental and emotional health - all the same actually rolled into rolled.
People are not always so open and desirous of revealing who they are and they have no idea of what a gift it can be to their selves.
Hmm, is it a male female thing or is it about the individual him/her -self? There is the element of trust, of course, which takes time and needs to be earned although if one is more or less secure when one’s self, that element of trust is always working inside the person. It’s not blind faith how can I put it, I don’t know, it’s like self-affirmation.
The world can really become one’s own oyster where there is trust and a desire to relate. Perhaps the universe sings when the world can come together like this. Okay I’m rambling.
I will instigate a conversation with a male Where is the problem in that. We are both a part of human kind, no?
As for the second part, of course it is. But maybe not entirely.