Musings of a Poor College Student

Let me just start this off by saying, I get that IQ is the best measurement we have for overall intelligence right now. I get that. But that doesn't make it good. IQ tests do not measure intelligence very well. I've known a few people that went and took IQ tests and did well. But that certainly didn't make them smart. I knew a guy that claimed to be a certified genuis according to IQ. He was not a genuis. This guy wasn't stupid per se, but he wasn't the brightest either. He was pretty book smart, I guess. Although he was an incredibly slow learner. The teacher could literally say 2+2=4 and this dude would STILL ask why. If he was TRULY smart, he would already know the answer through deductive and inductive reasoning. Sometimes, he'd have the teacher spend a good deal of class time explaining something pretty obvious to him. That doesn't really indicate a large intelligence. He was also extremely arrogant about his intelligence. Ever heard of the dunning Krug

People only really want to believe what comforts them. Think religion. Personally, I believe that everything is materialistic. That comforts me. Others think that God exists, that comforts them. Im not saying I'm better, just pointing out the reality of it.

Slut shaming is the act of mocking somebody, usually female, for being overly promiscuous or sexual. In other words, it's shaming girls for having a lot of sex. It's fucked up for sure. Although it should be noted that women do it just as much, if not more, than men do. Which makes the sexism claim about it a little suspicious. That claim becomes more understandable when you compare slut shaming to how men are treated for the same sexual behavior. Unlike girls, guys are praised for having a lot of sex. That double standard is how most people explain how slut shaming is sexist. Im here to tell you that it's not. It is natural behavior that has its roots in ancestral behavior. Basically, think of girls as locks. Think of guys as keys. A good lock doesn't get opened by many keys, but a good key opens many locks. This is why slut shaming is natural. Females' biological role is to choose the best mate. Best mate being the one with the genetics that make up a higher survi

You can practically say whatever you want so long as it is under the guise of joking.

Jokes are often seen as acceptable lies. If I were to say "you are a filthy whore" to a female friend, she might take offense. But I wasn't serious, just joking. My friends know that I'm rarely serious, all things considered. It's just not that fun to be, unless I'm thinking like this. But see, some jokes have truth mixed in. Just because I am joking doesn't mean that's not what I actually think of you. Jokes are the best way to tell people how you REALLY feel about them. I could go up to Hitler and laugh about how stupid he is, but as long as I'm joking, he will probably laugh too. In other words, I can get away with pretty much anything so long as it's a joke. I'm just joking yo. One of my favorite types of jokes are good insults. I like to come up with the best burn in a given situation. So long as I do that to everyone, it will be indistinguishable when my jokes have some truth in them. That way, I can freely express my real opinion of

Who is my worst enemy you ask? Well that would be me. There is nobody on this planet more critical of me than me. This is just a fact of life for me. I can't help it. Whenever I do something wrong, I'm the one who obsesses. Others might even say it doesn't matter, but my inner monologue will still go the way I expect. Me berating myself. Inner me is rarely constructive with critisicm. It's usually a barrage of insults. Sure, sometimes inner me is very constructive, but normally, I already know what I must do in order to improve. Inner me doesn't need to tell me, so he doesn't. He just insults. Funny how that works huh? Self-deprication is one of the best ways for me to deal with my failures. Agreeing with inner me brings me inner peace. Sure, we argue on occasion. But mostly I just agree. Voicing this to others as well. I think self-depricating humor is the way to go. I love it. So just like with my arrogance, there are layers. It's a joke too.

Sometimes, I think I suck. I know, shocking. The magnificent king of jackasses has insecurities. But you know, I only ACT like an arrogant jackass. I'm not ACTUALLY that arrogant. Remember social law #1? The more somebody acts arrogant, the less likely they are to be arrogant. Generally speaking, this is true. Ask any first year psychology student, overwhelming arrogance is usually a mask for insecurities. The same definitely applies to me. I don't like to appear as if I'm constantly anxious about the things I say and do. I mean, social anxiety basically comes with the territory of being autistic, but that doesn't mean I have to advertise the fact. Its not like I am unconfident in my intelligence or my abilities. Or anything like that. Mostly it's just my social skills I am uncertain about. I do tend to see through people, but being able to do that and socializing are two separate things. Of course, I also think it's funny when I'm super arrogant. So its als

Score 4-3 Next, we have logical. The first definition basically applies to argument. It is as follows, o f or according to the rules of logic or formal argument. Obviously, this definition makes no......ehem...logical sense(hehe) when applied to a person; ergo, we shall use the second one. Logic is defined as  Characterized by or capable of clear, sound reasoning. Nice, the word "characterized" is pretty useful here. Anyways, I think it is accurate. Although that may be a little arrogant to say, it's not like i'm  the only one who has. I'm  the logic guy, anybody that needs such expertise comes to me. It is basically my best characteristic. As such, it cannot be negative. To me or others. Ha.......! I've  caught up. Score 4-4 Next up is realistic. Realistic is defined as h aving or showing a sensible and practical idea of what can be achieved or expected. I believe this fits me. Realism and logic basically go hand in hand with each other. Same as be

Am I a negative person? If I were to describe my world view, some may say so. I will go through some of my main philosophies in life. I will start by describing my life philosophies. I am a cynical, nihilistic, misanthropic, pessimistic, logical, realistic, and nonchalant person. You might say that most of these things are negative in nature. I will be tallying up what I consider to be negative and comparing that to what most people would consider negative. The score will go in this order them-me. I will be using the oxford dictionary for definition. Normally, I would use my own definitions; however, I feel that it would be best if I were not allowed to call the shots here. It stops me from being disingenuous without realizing that I am. Most words have multiple definitions, so I will choose the first one that makes sense no matter what it says. Now, let's dissect them. To start, we have cynicism. It is defined as a n inclination to believe that people are motivated purely by se

I have touched upon this in the past with my post on labeling yourself, but I have my own little set of social laws. Things I believe to be true most of, i f not all of the time. I usually conclude these laws through my own experience. But sometimes I have some evidence. I have my own internal list, but it is cumbersome to remember them all. It's like names. You DO know all the names of your coworkers(hopefully) but naming them all can be difficult. As a result of this, I will explain my laws as they become relevent to me. This one is my first one on this blog, so I shall dub it "social law #1". Cool huh? Makes me sound smart or something. Anyways. Here it is. I derive this from the dunning Kruger effect and my own personal experience. The more somebody claims to be X, the less likely they are to be X. Here are some examples. The more somebody claims to be nice, the less likely they are to be nice. The more somebody claims to be smart, the less likely they are to be smart

I am going to take it and relay the results here. It is interesting, I think. I have taken it before but it has been a while. I was an INTJ last time I checked. I will go on after I take it. Seeya then. I got INTP. It has been a long time since I took this test, so it will be interesting to see the differences. So first, the introduction section. The INTP is apparently known as "the logician". Don't flatter me too much now, I will get a big head.  They say that spotting discrepancies and contradictions can be considered a hobby of sorts, which makes us bad to lie to. True, I do tend to pick up on lies pretty fast. As creepy as it may sound, I observe people. Especially those that I have to interact with. This makes it really easy to tell if they lie. They say that we tend to use others as a sounding board of ideas in an argument of sorts against themselves. This is too true. I will almost always discuss ideas with others in an effort to form a complete opinion on any gi

I have mentioned this novel before. It is the same one where I stole the name for my genuine thing. Ever wonder why I use this character as an excuse to talk about things? It's because we are basically the same person. Hell, our experiences in life are the same. For example. One thing that stays mostly constant is his view of nice girls. Now, I am not talking about nice girls in a sarcastic sense. I just mean genuinely nice girls. Those that will treat you no differently than any other just because they are truly nice. It is not a fake kindness like the kind I have talked about before. The niceness that has its roots in pity. These girls are not like that. They are few and far between, but they certainly do exist. I have encountered them myself. In his case, it was a girl in his middle school that was like that. He was a loner and made most people uncomfortable as a result of that and social incompetence. She talked to him anyways and was nice to him. He took that wrong. He saw all

Are our brains anything more than an organic computer? Is there something more there? Well, at this point, I usually take my time with posts and draw out my thoughts. That said, the answer here is pretty simple. All known evidence points to a materialistic universe. This is just a fact. Believing anything else is contrary to the evidence. There is no evidence that anything outside of the natural world exists. There is no such thing as a god or a soul. Nothing like that exists. If it did, there would surely be some evidence of that by now. Understanding that means admitting that we are the same. We are nothing but self-aggrandising organic computers. We think that we are more when we are less. Humanity is selfish.

This is a sister piece to my last post titled "the search continues". Please go read that for context. Anyways, as implied by the title, I still don't know what to do. I've started focusing more on school and me time. I feel that playing a good game or watching a good anime does wonders for my mental health. I also started improving in school as a result of more intense study. These blog posts actually help me quite a bit. It basically allows me to put my thoughts in order. Despite all the good things going on right now, I feel no different from my last post on this topic. I feel more desperate to find whatever I'm missing, my genuine thing. I don't really know where to go from here. This is nothing more than what I've already done in the past. How am I to accomplish anything here? I think. I need some sort of push. Somebody or something to push me towards my goal. It's kinda silly really. I feel like I'm missing something in life, yet almost noth

So, I'm about to complain about dating. Im talking online because I don't have many other ways to meet people. To be blunt, it sucks. It's not that I am unfunny, or even bad at conversation. If either of those were true, I'm sure I wouldn't get along with people so well in my day to day life. The problem is this. Everything is a bloody test. There are probably at least 5 guys talking to any girl at any given time. This means the girl is constantly testing you. From your introduction to your conversation skills. Everything is a bloody test. Even if you manage to get a date, it is still a test. Nothing ever feels genuine. It doesn't ever feel like the girl I'm talking to wants to get to know me at all. She just wants the guy with the best specs. Obviously, this isn't every single girl in the dating game, but it IS most of them and it gets frustrating. I feel less like I am talking to a human being and more like I'm taking an exam at college. "What

Which is stronger? Im on a roll today. Lots of thoughts in my head today. Anyways, I was watching some piano/organ music and came across a song called hate. In the comments, I saw somebody note that hate is stronger than love. That got me thinking. Which is truly stronger? I err on the side of hate here. I'm sure most would not want to admit this fact, but love is quite fragile. The smallest of actions can make or break love. All it takes to end a relationship is to have sex with somebody other than you partner. Hell, it doesn't even take that. Sometimes it just disappears out of boredom. Sometimes when a better person comes along, it changes. Hate is not so fickle and weak. There is little one can do to change the hate whithin somebody. It's depicted in fiction all the time. Once you fall into hate, it's remarkebly hard to get out. It's incredibly easy for those on the side of love to make the switch though. It takes a lot for somebody to truly hate something, but

My relationship with empathy is complicated. I have asberger's syndrome. This means that I have an empathy problem by definition. I HAVE gotten better over time, but I still lack the empathy others seem to have in some departments. Like when there are shootings. I don't really care. It sucks sure. Loss of life is always unfortunate. But I don't really care all that much. I didn't know them so why should I? You know what I mean? Other people are more empathetic. Some even cry. I just go "oh another one 😒". "Time for another two weeks of gun control talks wherein nothing changes 😒😒". I know it's my lack of empathy. Similar things happen when I think about issues like climate change and world hunger. It's like. What do I care? It will never effect me anyways. I have empathy problems on the minor scale too. Specifically when it comes to emotion. I try to understand in the only way I know how. Rationality and logic. Problem is we are talking e

What do I mean by the title? It's basically when one takes offense on behalf of another. The question is this, should one do that? I say that it depends. Getting offended is a choice, but it is  irrelevant unless acted upon. One should only practice this empathetic offense when it concerns somebody that is known 100% for hating what was said. Like if a kid in class was raped by his father and someone else starts talking to him about how stupid male rape victins are and he snaps. Stuff like that is ok, I guess. The problem is where the line should be drawn. There is no measure for these things. It is hard to know if the person you are practicing empathetic offense for even cares. At that point, you are just being self-righteous. And we've been over that. For this reason, I think it is best not to act on the empathetic offense even if it is taken unless the person in question does. Then you can jump in. What about empathetic offense as it refers to a group of people? Well, I thi

I saw a story on YouTube today about an autistic kid that was bullied by his teacher. As an autistic kid, I remember all kinds of bullying. Not so much from the teachers. I mean. They did nothing to stop it, but it's not like they really ever were the perpetrators of said bullying. Feels bad man. As so as someone who has gone through similar things, I really do feel for the kid. But it got me thinking about another story I remember that really made me mad. It's got nothing to do with bullying though. The story is quite simple. Dude with asberger's syndrome was approached by the football team in highschool and they talked to him. They then tried to be his friend. That's it. It was their good deed for the year, I guess. But here's the thing. I hate that kind of fake kindness. Allow me to explain. So I have asberger's syndrome and ADHD. I've dealt with my fair share of bullying. I had 1 friend from 6th grade on. Lierally 1 friend. Before that I was totally

Talk about too many buzz words man. The title of this game is like a bloody bee hive. Anyways, I've been playing kingdom hearts 1 for the first time. I'm about 20 hours in and I just beat the Neverland "level". To be blunt, I was really disappointed with the Neverland level. It's literally a friggin ship and a clock tower. That's it. Atlanticus was WAY better. Hell, all the levels were. Like. What were they thinking? Anyways, I thought I'd post my thoughts so far. Well to start, it's easy as hell. I did normal mode cus I'm not a pansy nor a masochist. So yeah. But I honestly have no idea how people get off saying this game is hard. Just be like 2-5 levels over the Disney character in any given level and you should destroy the bosses and enemies with little difficulty. The combat is essentially press x to win with an occasional Dodge or sidestep and an occasional heal. That's it. I am not really impressed. Not with the combat nor the difficulty

It is a truth of this world that nothing matters. If all life on Earth we're to disappear, the universe at large would not be remotely effected. Your life doesn't matter. My life doesn't matter. Nothing matters. This is just true. That fact fills most people with a sort of existential dread. It comforts me. You could say that I am a sort of optimistic nihilist. If my actions don't matter in the long term, I am comforted when I make a mistake. I live in the moment and take more risks because nothing matters. I step outside of my comfort zone and do what I like because nothing matters. I study because nothing matter. I do this blog because nothing matters. I look for my genuine thing because nothing matters. I live because nothing matters. If it did, I'd die.

Is it worth it? There is a stark difference between merely getting better at something and changing. Is change necessarily good? The way I do things is messed up to most people. I don't know why, but it is. They say that I don't sleep enough. I shouldn't stay up until 3 in the morning. They say I procrastinate too much. I should get my work done early. Stuff like that. To that I say, I'm happy. I get my work done. My way of doing things has made me successful. So why change? Why change what isn't broken? Could I be even better? Sure. But would I be happy? No. I need to enjoy life. How can I expect to ever find my genuine thing If I don't? In my case, the question is whether the ends justify the means. I'm happy with the way I live. I also get done what is necessary, to a point. I have trouble remembering to brush my teeth, eat, excercise, etc. Mostly things that effect my health. It's not like I don't do those things, I'm just not consistent eno

Where do I get my personal set of values from? This is a layered question for me. My personal values come from a mix of what I call honor and morality. I see honor as something separate from morality. Honor is more about adhering to a set of principles rather than a set of values. What I mean is this. Morality is about being right or wrong. If an action you take is moral, then it is good. If it is immoral, then it is bad. An action I take could be both honorable and immoral. It could also be both dishonorable and moral. It is all about which I prefer to adhere to. Personally, I view morality as the superior authority. The reason that I have for the need of my little code of honor is this. There are not many things that I see as expressly wrong. We live in a world of greys, and my morality represents that. There ARE things that I consider wrong, but to me, "wrong" is a very strong word. I may not like something, but that does not make it wrong. That is where my little code of

In my previous post, I addressed the concepts of good and evil. I concluded that good and evil are nebulous concepts that mean nothing on their own. I used that to prove that morality is subjective by definition. Go back to my previous post if my reasoning matters to you. Imagine for a second. We have a guy named Jerry. Jerry really likes the color blue. Jerry thinks that the color blue is the best color and everybody that thinks otherwise is wrong. Jerry believes that blue being the best color is objective. To him, blue being the best color is like how 1+1=2; it is just undeniable reality. Jerry tells everybody that thinks other colors are better that they are reprehensible people. Blue is the best color, and if you think otherwise, then you are undeserving of Jerry's time. He thinks you are stupid and wrong. Just think about how obnoxious Jerry is. Who is he to push his subjective opinion on what color is the best unto everybody else? Furthermore, he has no right to be so condes

Good and evil. Such nebulous terms. They really don't mean anything on their own. Almost everybody has a different idea as to what good and evil are. Coming up with solid definitions is quite hard. Good is that which is opposite of evil. Simple right? If something is evil, than the opposite of that thing is good. My definition of evil matters as a result of my definition for good. Evil is defined as that which is opposite of good...........wait a minute. They are still nebulous terms that mean nothing!!!! Well yeah. That's because they are essentially placeholders for the individual's values. Something is good or evil depending on one's own point of view, ethically speaking. People can argue whether certain actions are good or evil. People can even convince others of their own ideas. But there is no such thing as good or evil. There is no objective truth here. These are man made concepts to represent our morality. There is nothing for objective fact. It is all subjectiv

In order to properly answer this question, we should examine the definitions of a few words. To start, an action is defined by google as the fact or process of doing something, typically to achieve an aim. Not performing an action would be the refusal to participate in the fact or process of doing something. Typically, one refuses to act because he or she disagrees with the aim that the action would help to achieve. So by that definition, would choosing not to act be an action in of itself? The answer is no. Choosing not to act is by definition, the absence of action. Saying that not acting is an action is like saying 0=1. Simply put, it does not compute. It makes no logical sense. In the same way that someone who claimed 0=1 would be told that he or she does not understand mathematics, somebody that says inaction is an action will be told that he or she do not understand language.

This is sort of a continuiation of my last post. For context, please read my last post "I want something genuine". For the remainder of this blog's existence, I shall refer to whatever I am looking for as my genuine thing. It is a covenient term for me to use and it at least gives the concept a name. That way I don't have to repeatedly say "the thing that I want". My thoughts continue to be on this subject. The more I think about it, the more obvious it becomes that I have made little progress in my search. My problem is this. Where do I go from here? I always had a clear answer to that question in the past. Studying, then socializing, then love, so on and so forth. It occurred to me that this time is different. My longing for that genuine thing gets stronger by the day. And yet, I no longer have any idea how to look for it. The only way to look for something when you have no idea what that something is would be broad Strokes. In normal research, you can

I recently talked about a novel series I am currently reading. I mentioned it in my post about pessimism, realism, and optimism. Recently, the protagonist had a moment inside the novel that spoke to me. He had this to say "Expecting others to read your mind is delusional. But... But... I... I...It's not empty words I'm after. There was something else I desired all along. Not mutual understanding, friendship, companionship, or anything of the sort. I don't care about being understood. I simply wish to understand. Understand, know, and rest easy in that knowledge-- gain some peace of mind. Wanting to know people inside-out because being in the dark terrifies me is an awfully self-indulgent, egoistic, and arrogant wish. It's downright despicable and disgusting. Having a desire like that makes me sick to the stomach! But if it's at all possible to share that desire-- if it's possible to have a relationship where you're free to burden one another with that r

This is something I have been thinking about because of an essay I recently wrote on Frank Luntz, the self-proclaimed "Johnny appleseed of language". The question I had is this, is it okay to give yourself labels like that? Thinking on it, we give ourselves labels all the time. Just in my last post, I referred to myself as a pessimist and a realist. Is that really for me to say? Sure, it may be my philosophies we are talking about, but does that necessarily give me the right to label myself? People say "im a nice person" or "im smart" and plenty of other things. Is it really for the person themselves to say whether or not they are indeed smart or nice? Is that not just self-aggrandisement? Sure, there is plenty of room for delusions as well. Plenty of objectively stupid people believe themselves to be smart. That is a well documented psychological phenomena, the dunning kruger effect. I think a similar thing exists for topics outside of intelligence. Like