Why do people have the desire to talk?

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.

:techie-hiding:

Oops . . . wrong tab . . .

:blush:

Satans koolaid

That is better.

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

:character-tweety:

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. :stuck_out_tongue:

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? :evilfun:
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.

:evilfun:

The internet is indeed like a million swirling galaxies in deep space which we will never ever ever be that prepared for.

Perhaps the real desire, reason for wanting/needing to talk to share is because at the time of the Big Bang, we were all together, swirling star stuff, surrounded by one another as we made our way through a primordial universe, ours anyway, and became the primordial soup and then eventually evolved and are still evolving…hopefully.

Perhaps we remember this on some level and so without one another, we are loneliness personified although at the same time, we absolutely more often crave our aloneness and solitude. Ah, to have the best of both worlds.

Just my musings.
:stuck_out_tongue:

Profound insights should not be shared openly, do not cast pearls before swine. If there are people truly and enthusiastically interested in philosophy, then they will rise to the top of the hierarchy, over time. Philosophy is a very constrained social endeavor and rare ability. The few people in the world who are philosophical, or philosophers, will appear over time. This is not to be confused with Academics and college professors, who “study philosophy” but themselves are not philosophers. To be a philosopher, is unique and rare. It is a genuine interest, therefore a genuine nature and state of spirituality, that this or that individual is a philosopher. Wise men, of the ages.

Wisdom is shared between philosophers through the ages in texts, more classically and popularly known. Philosophers don’t necessarily “connect” with contemporaries of their own time, because of how far removed and advanced a philosopher can be, compared to the modern people. It’s like an NFL quarterback winning the superbowl. He then cannot have a very fulfilling time playing with amateurs or even the lesser of professionals. When you get closer to the top, fewer and fewer (dialogues) will be interesting or inspiring.

For example, can you link me a few threads of your own that are deep, profound, or interesting? Your own philosophies?

It can be a sexual chemistry. Philosophy, among males, is more often competitive instead, increasing male fitness and appeal.

It would be easy.

Most extroverts are egotistical and selfish. Narcissism can be expressed by extroverts or introverts.

Philosophy tends toward intimacy because a philosopher, who wants to explore the world, and therefore people within it, will reveal the secrets, thoughts, desires, and depth that most people want to lock away and keep private. Philosophy is very much against privacy insofar as examining the ‘truth’ of people. All is revealed and exposed to a proficient and honed philosopher. There would be nothing you can hide. Intimacy is then implied.

You are naked to the eyes of a philosopher, every thought, feeling, dream, inspiration, value, laid out on a table in full. Completely deconstructed. All your parts are known.

This thread was, almost certainly, started by a male. You, a female, are responding, and therefore confirming my thesis. You did not start this thread. And could you even? Can you even begin and create similar threads that provoke interesting thoughts and dialogues? Can you, as a woman, become a leader? The odds are against you. How many threads on this forum are started by males? The stats speak for themselves.

No. Talking is the involuntary movement of the lips which usually involves spontaneous thought so is the least intellectually demanding form of communication
Posting on a philosophy forum [ or indeed any forum for that matter ] requires logical thinking and correct grammar. So it is therefore a more demanding form
of communication. One is usually posting alone from ones computer so there is no social aspect to it either. I have no problem with this form for I am a recluse
who keeps himself to himself. So I like reading and writing words much more than I like speaking them. I cannot avoid not speaking at all but I try to keep it to
an absolute minimum. I also much prefer listening to talking but prefer being alone most of all

#-o Males outnumber females on philosophy sites, so of course there are going to be more threads started by males.

Why state the obvious, males post more threads, as if it answers a secret unknown?

Most philosophers on the loco sites state a great deal of the obvious, redundancy, but in their minds they are uncovering something hidden, why is that?

You’re not digging deep enough, as per usual.

Why is philosophy, or hard sciences, 100 males to 1 female ratio?

Why are soldiers in war 10,000 males to 1 female ratio?

Isn’t it obvious that gender, sex, accounts for these discrepancies? Because it is beneficial, natural, or even necessary for such males to do so, or be so interested? And with females, why so little, relatively, interest? If existence applies to all organisms, male and female alike, then why are females so uninterested in examining and exploring existence? Could it be, that all the ‘negative’, ‘bad’, and ‘evil’ aspects of existence, are shielded and protected, away from females, by males? And that it may serve no great interest, or purpose, for females to engage as such?

Or that there ought to be a female NFL quarterback. Nobody thinks this. Nobody considers it. The possibility strikes no one. Yet we dance around these observations as if they’re nothing. But they’re everything. And you’re ignoring the fact.

And isn’t it also obvious, for females, to have different priorities in life, namely, to mate, bear children, give birth, and nurture them? Isn’t that also the natural and necessary component of a woman’s life? So where would that leave priorities, such as war or philosophy, on the list of most women?

I’m not saying it cannot be done. Don’t misconstrue or misinterpret me. What I’m saying, is that any great exception doesn’t prove what you want it to.

Thought Experiment for Wendy:

Let’s imagine for a moment, that it were necessary for all women on earth, to have at least one child. What would that then mean for earth, humanity, and nature? Would things become problematic? Would they change a lot? Or isn’t it most obvious, that things would remain relatively the same, since that’s what women do anyway? Is it a choice? Should it be a choice? Don’t instincts already determine these answers, and that when the time comes, you obey instincts, and cling to whomever attracts you most?

Modern humanity wants to deny instinct and nature, so much, to prove political points. To be relevant in a ‘liberal’ environment. “Look at me, deny my nature, and die for social justice, am I not righteous and saintly? Shan’t I be remembered and heralded forever? Am I not a martyr?”

It’s unimpressive. There’s a vast difference between denying nature, and embracing nature. There’s nothing wrong with women having children. In fact there may even be something right with it.