Two Posts
When you said "Would I get involved or just watch the world go up in smoke?" To me, "Get Involved" means going to the base, talking to people. To you, it means warning them of the attack. To me, "Not Get Involved" means leaving of my own free will with no resistance whatsoever. Getting stopped by an MP after 10 seconds (To Me) completely negates the "Will he get involved" question, because (in my mind) I was never given the choice to NOT get involved. To me, "not getting involved" would be walking away and pretending like I was never there in the first place. Can't exactly do that if an MP pulls up, now can you? In my mind, it seemed like that MP totally negated the entire test, because I was never allowed to do the one thing that (in my mind) constitutes "Not getting involved". Leaving and pretending like I was never there. I have a better understanding of it now.
I still say that you picked the single worst world you could have possibly sent me to at that stage in my verser career, and I know for a fact that's one you can't argue with me on.
Three Posts
Tell me though MJ, do you at least understand why I define "Not Getting Involved" as walking away and pretending like I was never there? Since I was never given the opportunity to do that, (in my mind) I was forced to get involved. Do you at least understand my logic there?
To me, "Get Involved" means going to the base, talking to people. To you, it means warning them of the attack. To me, "Not Get Involved" means leaving of my own free will with no resistance whatsoever.
So we have a semantic problem.
But seriously, if "not getting involved" means that there's no risk or cost to not getting involved, then it's just PLR (Path of Least Resistance). PLR proves nothing but that you will do whatever is easiest.
So I might have dropped you on some tropical island in the South Pacific where there was a five-man listening post with really low security, and let you discover in your wanderings that it was late November with the Pearl Harbor attack looming mere weeks away. I might then have learned whether you would have stolen a boat and tried to find your way to Hawaii, fought the seas and reached Pearl Harbor, blustered your way inside, and warned command of the impending attack--whether you would have paid a price to get involved.
Non-involvement as PLR means that you will do whatever comes easiest, and that means you will make no effort to get involved. Non-involvement as a commitment, non-involvement as a philosophy of the verse, requires that you are willing to pay a price and make an effort to avoid being involved. If we do not put you in a position in which you will have to do something, "fight" at least in a figurative sense, to keep from being sucked into the story; if there is no pressure on you to become involved, no cost to you to not being involved, then we have not learned whether you are serious about not being involved. We have only learned that you will follow PLR, and that if that means it would require effort to be involved you will not be involved, and if it requires risk or effort to avoid being involved you will be involved.
So indeed we learned exactly what we wanted to learn: if there would be a price to pay to keep from being involved, you will not pay the price. You will follow PLR and get involved if that's the easier way.
--M. J. Young
That's what I finally understand. If I HAD been allowed to leave, what would you have learned? I still say that I should have been made aware of where I was BEFORE the MP pulled up. It would have been the single shortest verse in history, as I engaged the security team and got cut into Swiss Cheese.
Like I told you over email though. There are any number of historical events into which I would dive head first.
The American Revolution? I'd probably engage an entire regiment of British single-handed.
Titanic? You're damn right I would warn them.
The Battle of Little Big Horn? I'd join forces with the Indians. (Assuming they didn't kill me for being white, that is.)
Any number of historical events I would dive into. Pearl Harbor on the other hand.... Not one I would want to be anywhere close to.
Two Posts
The other thing is that it isn't a non-involvement philosophy, it's a "Why should I get involved" philosophy?"
Helping people in a polluted planet kill giant, mutant insects? Why should I get involved?
Princesses with a sleeping problem? Why should I get involved?
Pearl Harbor, the catalyst for the US joining WW2, and defeating Germany? That's something I don't want to touch. That specific event was one I would not want to get involved in, but as I said in the previous post, there are any number of events into which I would dive headfirst.
In My Mind I was NEVER given the opportunity to NOT get involved, because In My Mind the ONLY thing that would constitute "Not Getting Involved" would be walking away and pretending like I was never there. Since I was never given the choice to just walk away and pretend like I was never there, In My Mind I was forced to get involved. That's what I mean when I say that "Talking to the MP is more involved than I would have wanted to get." In My Mind since I was never allowed to just leave, scram, vamoose, make tracks, head for the hills, etc. I was NEVER given the choice to NOT get involved. Since I was never given the choice to NOT get involved In My Mind I was forced to get involved. Does that make sense?
And don't even think about giving me that "You could have left if you hadn't crashed the jeep" bullshit either. "Not Getting Involved" would be never seeing the MP, just getting back in my van and driving away. "Pearl Harbor? I was never there." THAT would be "Not Getting Involved."
(Not yelling, just trying to make myself completely clear)
Three Posts
You never answered me on this.
Tell me though MJ, do you at least understand why I define "Not Getting Involved" as walking away and pretending like I was never there? Since I was never given the opportunity to do that, (in my mind) I was forced to get involved. Do you at least understand my logic there?
Oh, I understand. You think that the world ought to have been so constituted that PLR would be non-involvement. We thought the world should be so constituted that non-involvement should be difficult.
We understand you better. "Why should I get involved" means PLR: it means you are not going to make any effort to get involved, but if you're thrust into the middle of it of course you will. You will do whatever is easiest, whatever brings the most benefit to you with the least amount of risk or effort, as you perceive it.
I certainly do understand why you might think that "not get involved" means nothing will happen to you that would try to get you involved--but then you're not really making the choice that answers the question we were asking. I could put you on the Titanic and you could go down with the ship; you could probably even figure out where to go for the quickest and least painful death. Or you could get involved by trying to warn the crew. You say in that case you would certainly get involved. Why? It's better for John if the ship does not sink. It's PLR. You will take the easy path.
To me, "not getting involved" will always mean paying a price and making an effort to stay out of events. That's the question that was being raised.
In B Monster Movie World, you did not want to get involved. Then Godzilla appeared, and you got involved. I think that in that world it was probably inevitable that more mutant creatures would do more damage in that world, and that my versers would be impacted by that. You could not really avoid being involved forever, because even the preying mantis banging on the shop window should have alerted you to the fact that you won't be safe her unless the world changes drastically. Graeme saw it, and went after it like a bulldog. You just figured it was too much work to try to make a difference, and so you tried to stay out of it until it came after you.
--M. J. Young
We understand you better. "Why should I get involved" means PLR: it means you are not going to make any effort to get involved, but if you're thrust into the middle of it of course you will. You will do whatever is easiest, whatever brings the most benefit to you with the least amount of risk or effort, as you perceive it.
Yeah, that's about right. My mom said that my father was the same way. He was always looking for "The Angle" The way to make the most amount of money by doing the least amount of work. She said that the fact that I am on disability would be something he would actually be proud of. I "Beat The System". No work, and enough money to live fairly comfortably.
To me, "not getting involved" will always mean paying a price and making an effort to stay out of events. That's the question that was being raised.
Yeah see, that's the thing I couldn't wrap my head around. I still say though that Adam should have made me aware of where and when I was BEFORE he pulled the MP out though. What could be more "making an effort to stay out of events" than gunfighting the entire Pearl Harbor police force? I'm almost positive that's what would have happened, had I been made aware of where I was and been given a minute or two to think about it. Would have been a helluva lot more fun, too. I still say that the best opener for that world would be an announcement over the PA system. "This is Corporeal Cross with the Pearl Harbor daily news report. The date is December 5th 1941...." All pertinent information given, and the player can't accuse you of trying to force them into the story. If they try to leave THEN send the MP after them, and see what they do with that. If you wanted to see if I would make an effort to stay out of things, that REALLY would have been the best way to go about it.
I reflected on that post for a moment, and was about to close the thread, when a thought struck me:
If you're intent on not being involved, why do you have to know what it is in which you are not going to be involved? If it's Pearl Harbor, December 5, 1941, or if it's Fort McHenry, July 4th, 1986, non-involvement is the same thing.
--M. J. Young
If you're intent on not being involved, why do you have to know what it is in which you are not going to be involved? If it's Pearl Harbor, December 5, 1941, or if it's Fort McHenry, July 4th, 1986, non-involvement is the same thing.
Because, I'm NOT intent on not being involved, as evidenced by engaging the Dancing Princess demons. I could have much more easily let them take over the world and verse out. My problem solved. It's just that Pearl Harbor December 7, 1941 is an event I would actively resist involvement in. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT is one that I would want to get as far away from as I possibly could. You don't understand MJ. That was the catalyst for the US involvement in WW2. World War 2 is what pulled the United States out of The Great Depression. Pearl Harbor was arguably the SINGLE most important historical event of the 20th century. If not for Pearl Harbor, we would be typing in German right now. GERMAN!!!!! Our flag would be a Swastika. I probably would have grown up a member of the Junior Nazis League. Germany would have invented the hydrogen bomb first, and probably taken over the entire world. Take a wild guess where they would have tested the hydrogen bomb. HERE!!!!! All of that, and you think for one second that I would WANT to get involved??? A few hundred naval personnel dying as heroes was a small price to pay to avoid the alternative. I don't even want to imagine the damage that I did to the US in that world. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT was one I would NOT want to get involved in. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT I would have liked to have known where in the hell I was before the damn MP pulled up. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT changed the course of history for the entire world. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT is not one that I want to go anywhere near. THAT PARTICULAR EVENT was the single worst place you could possibly have sent me.
(Not yelling, just trying to be completely clear)
It seems to me that in that case, you had a very high motivation not to get involved.
You note that the lives of a few hundred naval personnel was a small price to pay. Yet you would not have added your life to the price, even knowing that you would survive, alive in another world.
You were not willing to pay the price of being uninvolved.
Yes, I know that you didn't know what the price would be--you did not know whether you would come through healed or in traction. The price would have been less than you estimated; but even had you been right, it still tells us that you would not have paid the price of non-involvement even when you thought it was the most important thing that you not be involved.
--M. J. Young
Yes, I know that you didn't know what the price would be--you did not know whether you would come through healed or in traction. The price would have been less than you estimated; but even had you been right, it still tells us that you would not have paid the price of non-involvement even when you thought it was the most important thing that you not be involved.
Well, I'd like to think that had I known I would come through healed, I would not have warned them. Escaping there and healing all of my injuries would have been even more motivation not to warn them.
Also, I kind of see the damage that I did as my revenge for their treatment of me.
Two Posts
The price would have been less than you estimated; but even had you been right, it still tells us that you would not have paid the price of non-involvement even when you thought it was the most important thing that you not be involved.
Well, coming through with 40 broken bones and no painkillers is a pretty damn high price to pay. Also, there's no guarantee that I would have been killed. On a bad roll, I wouldn't have been killed. On a REALLY bad roll, I would have been injured even more and survived. Ending up in that condition in a decimated hospital with a crippled medical staff would have been a pretty high price to pay as well. I think that had I been 100% certain I would die AND known that I would heal upon versing, I would not have warned them. As I stated above, escaping and healing injuries would have been even more motivation not to warn them.
So I guess all of this comes back to me being a million dollar player. I still say that I should have been made aware of where in the hell I was before the damn MP pulled up. Nothing you say could possibly change my mind on that point, that's for certain.
Three Posts
It seems to me that in that case, you had a very high motivation not to get involved.
And maybe now you understand why I was so adamant that I would have just wanted to leave. I mean I could get involved accidentally, like I did.
Four Posts
MJ, I kind of wanted your thoughts on the above postings. Really, this is starting to come together. I know I've said that several times before, but really it is now. It's also helped me get my other psychotic episodes under better control.
- One of the advantages I have not only as a moderator but as a person is that I get to decide to which posts I will respond. I am obliged as a spokesman for Valdron Inc and Multiverser and their representative on this form to answer questions that are about the game, but I also get to use my own judgment as to when those questions have been answered.
- I realize that it is part of your specific problem that you don't realize that you are repeating yourself, or that everything you are saying has been answered already; but you are repeating yourself, and everything you are saying has been answered already.
- My time is more limited some days than others. Sometimes I will invest time in a topic that is off topic, and some days I won't. When there are multiple off-topic threads, it is incumbent on me to make sensible judgments as to where I can contribute something new and useful, versus where I am expending time with little value returned.
- I mentioned in an e-mail recently that people who do cost/benefit analyses of friendships are not good friends, and I am sincere about that. However, people who do cost/benefit analyses of conversations are not thereby disdaining a friendship--they are only determining that the conversation is not profitable or edifying or necessary.
- It may seem to you as if I could just have answered your posts instead of explaining why I am not answering your posts. However, in response to that,
- I would have to put a lot more thought time into whether there might actually be anything I have not said a dozen times already that would be a fresh response to your posts, and I would probably still be sitting here staring at the screen an hour from now without having come up with anything, and
- Maybe if I explain to you why I am not responding next time you will realize that I would have responded if I had anything I thought was worth saying, and you won't post these "why are you ignoring me" posts. I am not ignoring you. I am letting you have the last word.
--M. J. Young
My time is more limited some days than others. Sometimes I will invest time in a topic that is off topic, and some days I won't. When there are multiple off-topic threads, it is incumbent on me to make sensible judgments as to where I can contribute something new and useful, versus where I am expending time with little value returned.
I mentioned in an e-mail recently that people who do cost/benefit analyses of friendships are not good friends, and I am sincere about that. However, people who do cost/benefit analyses of conversations are not thereby disdaining a friendship--they are only determining that the conversation is not profitable or edifying or necessary.
Well see that's the thing. To you, this has little to no value. To me, it is of extreme value. I have a plastic toy cookie in my desk drawer. Probably not worth more than a dime as far as monetary value. To me, it's priceless. That plastic toy cookie was a gift from a 4 year old girl that my mom used to babysit over 20 years ago. It would have no value to anyone besides me. I'm sure you have items like that in your own life. Worthless to everyone EXCEPT you. That's pretty much what this discussion is. What price can you put on someone's mental health? This has been of a great benefit to my mental health.
So, I guess you could call this whole thing my plastic toy cookie. Worthless to you, but priceless to me.
Two Posts
Ya know MJ, I just realized. I've told you the way to make me get involved several times, and I didn't even know I did it.
In my first world, and in Dancing Princess, I kept saying three little words. Those three little words were:
"Not My Problem"
Pearl Harbor became My Problem.....
Right. PLR.
--M. J. Young
Cool, so it bore fruit after all....
(Doing Therapy)
Ya know though, I was just thinking. You say that Kyler would have killed the MP. I don't doubt that the Kyler you know NOW would do that, but would the Kyler on his second verse have killed the guard? Probably not. I tell you right now, that is the LAST time my character is going to submit to being arrested. I'm immortal, the cop isn't. If they get the drop on me, that's different.
On my second verse I submitted. Don't anticipate that happening again.
You say that Kyler would have killed the MP. I don't doubt that the Kyler you know NOW would do that, but would the Kyler on his second verse have killed the guard?
Probably not, but I can't be certain. He'd just botched himself out of NagaWorld trying to create fire magically (immolated himself), and he was a bit ticked off and was using his psionics to attack sheep in the field, but he did not attack the shepherd.
But then, I wasn't talking about Kyler then; I was talking about Kyler now.
On my second verse I submitted. Don't anticipate that happening again.
And that constitutes character development.
Kyler didn't hate authority figures when he first hit the verse. One of the members of his team in his second verse was a samurai, which is as close to a local cop as you can get. It was Why Spy that got him so distressed, and he's promised to verse out "C" if he ever meets him again. He had a number of bad encounters after that, and now his attitude is don't trust adults and don't trust authority figures. That was one of the undercurrent problems that existed in his character relationship with John 1, that John 1 thought Kyler was the kid and he was the adult, and Kyler thought that John 1 was the nosey busybody trying to run his life and he was the proven hero, superspy, party leader, wizard, martial arts expert--not the kid. Thus they were in constant tension, because Kyler was wild and reckless and John was trying to settle down and keep a low profile for a long-term training stay.
So, your character has grown. He has made a decision about what to do next time. It's "I won't make that mistake again." So we'll see what other mistakes you make, and what you learn from them.
--M. J. Young
Ya know though MJ, seriously, it never occurred to me that what I said was dangerous until after I did it. Let me tell you a story.
A guy I know was in the Army. His job was to set up explosive charges for simulated battle attack. He was supposed to dig holes, and put a 1/4 pound of C-4 into each hole, to simulate mortar impacts.
After a while, that got boring, so he started putting in a 1/2 pound, then a pound, then 2 pounds into each hole. How nobody noticed is anybody's guess, but he never went above that amount, (Thank God!!) Anyway, on one of the simulations, a soldier fell down right in between 2 of the charges. He had 4 pounds of C-4 buried within 5 feet on either side of him. My friend set off the charges, and the guy got thrown a few feet into the air. The soldier didn't get hurt (Thank God Again!!!) Only real damage was to his pride. My friend never got into any trouble over it, but he started going back to 1/4 pound after that.
When asked about it, he said "It never occurred to me that that was dangerous until then."
I guess it's a common problem.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, you were letting me get the last word. I appreciate that. This was just driving me nuts. I kind of laugh about it now. I could so see myself doing that though. Things fell into place exactly right to get me into a heap of trouble in a big hurry. Well, weigh that against what's been learned on all sides, and it was a pretty good world.
I understand it a lot better now. I really do. I hope you understand me a little better now too. This has helped me to get a handle on other psychotic episodes in my life too, so it's really been good for me. I hope that's at least a small consolation for all of the headaches it caused you.
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple Posts
Don't argue the semantics of this, because taking out semantics, it makes perfect sense to me.
I see the formula you were using.
First world, involvement not required, or really expected.
Second world, other end, involvement of some fashion next to impossible to avoid.
Third world, dangle something out and see what the player does.
Fourth world, where I am at now, a multiple choice world to see where the player's interests lie.
Interesting formula.
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple posts
I just had a thought. If you've ever seen The Pursuit of Happyness (Not a misspelling) Will Smith plays a character, and his real-life son, Jayden plays the character's son.
On the DVD extras, the producers, directors, and even Will Smith himself, were all adamant that Jayden be put through exactly the same testing and training as every other applicant, and if Jayden wasn't legitimately the best choice, they weren't going to use him. Playing a character who is the son of your real-life father's character couldn't be too difficult, but can the kid really act?
Walking away I could do easily. But how far in do I have to get before I'll do something? Can I really act? I get it now. I still think an announcement over the PA system would be the best opener though. See how the player reacts to that knowledge, THEN send the MP after them. Gives them a minute to think about things. Perhaps they would want to stop the bombing. Perhaps they would start running straight towards the main base. Others (Like Me) Would probably not get arrested at all. What could you learn about the player then? I really think that is the opener that I would use.
Yeah, I know, I've said most of this before. I've always been a slow learner, and this was more confusing than anything I've ever tried to wrap my head around.
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple Postings
TK pulse worked, so I figured everything did. I was thinking "It's OK that I surrendered, I've still got my psionics heeheehee" (demented laughter) Helluva way to find out what a flatline world was......
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple Posting, more than 24 hours later.
When I say that talking to the MP is more involved than I would want to be, I mean exactly that. The more involvement I have with the people there, whether I'm "Involved" by your definition or not, increases the chance of getting involved accidentally, like I did. That's an event I would not want to be anywhere near. I don't want to see it happen, I don't want to be there, I would have ran like a dog with my tail between my legs if I had known where I was. That is a TERRIBLE opener for that world!!!!! Maybe I was the 1 in 1,000 who would get into a crash, but I GUARANTEE you I'm NOT the only person who would run away from there if given a chance.
I just can't get this out of my head.......
(Doing Therapy)
Multiple postings, and it's the last
It really makes a lot more sense now. Really, I'm going to try to let it go. It was just a few things that this conversation pretty much cleared up. Allow me the occasional moment of pique, and we will probably be OK now.
Compare it to finally having all of the pieces to the puzzle, now I just have to put the damn thing together. Just something I have to get straight.
If it's any consolation, this has been of great help to my psychosis in other areas as well. So, it's been really good for me on a lot of levels.
(Doing Therapy)
MJ, did you ever see the Roots miniseries? Kunta Kinte is sold at a Maryland slave auction. His masters name him Toby. He refuses to answer to Toby. Long story short, his masters tie him up and start whipping him, all the while asking "What's your name?" If he says anything other than "Toby" he gets hit with a bull whip. Of course, he finally relents and says "My name is Toby."
I'm certain that most people would agree that Kunta Kinte was forced to change his name. However, by the logic you seem to be using, he wasn't forced to change his name, because he had the option of being whipped to death. No one took control of his central nervous system and made him say the words "My name is Toby". Tell me, does that make one iota of sense, or was Kunta Kinte forced to change his name?
Seriously, reply to this. I'd like your thoughts on it.
That's a good idea, John. We'll have to drop you in a world where they try to force you to change your name by beating you, and see whether you do it or not. After all, you're a verser--you could decide to allow them to beat you to death.
I guess I have to ask myself whether I would require will power checks; but then, you have to ask yourself whether you would use your considerable psionic skills to attempt to block the pain.
--M. J. Young
That's not even close to the response I was hoping for, and I think you knew that before you started typing it....
I think I just caught you in a Catch 22. You believe that Kunta Kinte was forced to change his name, but by admitting that, you would be admitting that I was forced into the story.
In the scenario you describe though, I'd use my considerable firepower to stop them from doing it at all. However, if they got the drop on me, I think I'd probably change my name after about 1 or 2 lashes. What's in a name, after all?
Which I think proves that Kunta Kinte made a cost/benefit analysis: he thought his name was worth so much pain and no more. He was not "forced" to accept the new name, because he could have chosen to die painfully instead.
Let's look at Daniel in the Lion's Den. He was not forced to stop praying; he was forced to accept that the choice was between continuing to pray and being thrown in the den with the lions overnight. He chose the latter. Sure, he was protected; but he did not know he would be protected before the fact. We have the same detail with Shadrack, Meshach, and Abednego, who refused to bow to the idol when the call sounded. They knew that they would be thrown into the fiery furnace for disobedience, but they thought it better to be killed painfully than to worship the idol. Note that they said that their God was able to rescue them, but even if He chose not to do so they would not worship the idol.
No one can force you to do anything except choose. You are forced to choose all the time. Kunta Kinte could choose to die painfully with his name, or live with another one. He chose to live. That was probably the wiser choice, since as you say, what's in a name? On the other hand, his slavers apparently thought it mattered; they thought there was something in the name, and that their control over him depended on breaking his determination to keep his name. So maybe he chose poorly: maybe it would have been better to die with his name. It would at least have defied their power over him.
--M. J. Young
Actually, I probably wouldn't have to be whipped at all. I haven't really liked my name since the first time I heard it used in reference to a toilet. Unless the name they wanted to give me was "Asshead" or something, I'd probably change it willingly. Also, I cannot count the number of times I've been walking around a mall or something, and hear someone yell "Hey John" and I turn around and they are talking to somebody else. It's the single most common male name in the world.
Multiple Posts
MJ, I realize that this whole thing is frustrating to you. Look at it from my point of view. I wouldn't be lying if I said that this kept me awake at night. I was literally having nightmares about it. Even now, 3 years later, I spend hours sometimes fixating on it. It just WILL NOT get out of my head!!!! I see it as I was never given the choice to do the only thing that would mean I wasn't involved. The only thing that would mean that I wasn't involved would be walking away and pretending like I was never there. Since I was never allowed to do that, in my mind, I was forced to get involved. To me, it seems like everyone else involved in this discussion is an idiot who can't see how obvious that is. To you, it probably seems like I am the idiot who can't see how obvious it is.
In a different discussion, you said something like "You didn't like where it put you, and it was probably not what Adam intended, but it drew you into the story." The thing is, where it put me was at Pearl Harbor Naval Base the day before the bombing. It wouldn't matter if it put me in the general's cabin being serviced by 72 dark-eyed virgins. I'm STILL at Pearl Harbor the day before the bombing!!!! You're damn right I don't like that!!!
And I know you think I talk about this a lot. If you could spend one hour inside my head, you would be amazed that I talk about it this LITTLE.
Ya know MJ, I just realized something. You could say that my run through Pearl Harbor took an otherwise sane psychotic and drove him (literally) insane. According to my former doctor, the difference between a person who is mentally ill and a person who is truly insane is that the mentally ill person knows the world is fine, and they are messed up. The truly insane person thinks they are fine, and the rest of the world is messed up.
My belief that everyone else here was an idiot who couldn't see how obvious a point I was making, when I'm the one who can't see how obvious a point you are making means that for that period of time, I was truly insane.
I still say that since I was never given the choice to just walk away I was forced to get involved, but that's an argument I don't want to make anymore. Two possibilities exist there. Either I am (literally) insane, or you really are an idiot who can't see how obvious that is. Since I now know I'm not insane, then the latter must be true..... (said with a wink and a wry smile)
I don't know, John.
I read an interview with Freeman Dyson a few decades back. The interviewer asked him if growing up he ever wondered why he was so smart. He said no, what he wondered was why everyone else was so stupid.
I did not have that same experience, but that's because I'm not all that socially adept: I didn't realize that no one else understood, so I didn't see how stupid they all were. I figured they were as smart as I.
In any case, it's possible to be the one person who understands that everyone else is wrong, and not be insane. It's just not terribly likely.
--M. J. Young
In any case, it's possible to be the one person who understands that everyone else is wrong, and not be insane. It's just not terribly likely.
Absolutely true. If not for people like that, progress would never be made.
Two Posts
Mistake, sorry.
MJ, now I have to ask. If you HAD known that I had an aversion to law enforcement officers, and that I would react that way to an MP, do you think you still would have sent me to that world?