|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
Who are our confidantes? They are our friends with whom we can discuss anything with. In the way of open discourse, they are in many ways closer than family. We can bring up heretical or controversial subjects with them, without worrying about the consequences. Discussions are discussions inside this group. The subject is driven by thought, not necessarily by belief; this important distinction is implicit within the group. While me may sometimes venture outside this group in our controversial conversations, this is an error. Our group of confidantes is always minuscule. As of this writing, I count six of them for myself, most of them friends for well over a decade. It is often liberating to say your views to those who are pseudo-close to you. You feel as if this is a mark of trust, proof that your relationship has come a long ways. As mentioned earlier, this is an error. A nonjudgemental (oh the irony of using this word here) relationship of is truly rare. The wall to your confidence should be almost insurmountably high; I can't fathom ever having more than ten such allies. While our law stipulates that we are all innocent until proven guilty, in the world of confidence, we are all guilty until proven innocent. The stakes are too high for things to be otherwise. I wish it were not the case, as this idea runs counter to my own beliefs; yet despite the conflict, I give in to its truth. When I wrote about friends in the past, I focused solely on the day to day convenience in spending time with them. However, confidence in friends is something of completely different nature, and must be understood by the individual as such. As so many of my friends commented following this article, there truly is a difference between your friends are your truest friends. Keep your circle of confidence close, and your thoughts even closer to yourself.
Crossposted from my main blog
 
|
I count zero :o I have friends I've known over a decade that I don't think I could talk to about much of my inner world. I would suggest that I am simply too different, too crazy, and I would support this by asking how many of your confidents are not your own gender? Perhaps my assumption is wrong and you happen to have a few of another gender, but I hope my point is clear anyway. Confidents tend to be people you think are very much like yourself.
|
United States37500 Posts
Confidantes are what "friends" should really be. We use the latter so loosely nowadays.
|
I only know three such people, but then again, I'm not even 20 yet D:
|
I'm 23. 0 confidantes. With my friends I talk about a great deal more material than with any acquaintance, but I guess there is still matter higher up the wall.
|
The word "heretical" really stuck out at me here: it seems to define your approach to discursive honesty. I don't find that I have much to hide; nothing can be heretical, or blasphemous even, for I associate little with anyone who would take offence at what I have to say (granted, I believe myself to be a rational, tolerant being). You seem to imply a conversational veil, that you are only comfortable speaking frankly with a very select few people. If so why, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this the case?
|
I'm really happy to say that I've got 3 confidantes. 1 more than the other two because of how bizarrely open he is to everything. It's really nice to have friends like that. When you just want to talk, you can talk, and talk about what's on your mind and they'll listen.
|
My only confidante is TL. The only friend I have met that could hold his own intellectually against me is around 4 years older than me, is himself abnormally intelligent and left to go to college a while ago, leaving me here.
I'm just too smart and too weird to have any close friends irl atm, barring rare individuals like the aforementioned friend.
|
On March 20 2012 02:03 ohsea.toc wrote:
The word "heretical" really stuck out at me here: it seems to define your approach to discursive honesty. I don't find that I have much to hide; nothing can be heretical, or blasphemous even, for I associate little with anyone who would take offence at what I have to say (granted, I believe myself to be a rational, tolerant being). You seem to imply a conversational veil, that you are only comfortable speaking frankly with a very select few people. If so why, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this the case?
If you hold unpopular views (quite easy, since popular views are usually based on reductive or false reasoning), it's a better idea to not bring them up, because people will jump to conclusions about you (once again, due to reductive/faulty reasoning).
|
I feel that's an overly simplistic approach, as well as a major generalisation. What are these "unpopular" views then? What kind of radical (the word is not out of place considering this talk of "popularity") do you consider yourself to be, and why?
|
I have some reactions to this post, but I’m not sure I trust you all enough to air them.
Seriously though, think about the reasons we might be so comfortable sharing with the internet – despite the fact that when we do we’re basically guaranteeing that someone we don’t know will read some very closely held thoughts of ours.
Haji, would you ever read that post of yours aloud to people who were only average acquaintances?
Why is this?
It could be that we’re removed enough that we don’t mind the judgment. Or it could be that TL is something special enough that we feel “safe”. My guess, though, is that the deepest part of our brain which acts and reacts purely as an animal has determined that the internet poses neither the potential for threat nor reward from interaction with others. Is it really the exchange of ideas, the knowledge of nebulous individual “self”-ness that we truly seek from others then? Or is it really just the guarantee of renewed physical closeness that we desire from those around us - a sense of finding or establishing a "tribe" to which we can belong? In that case, then, need anyone know our thoughts? Language did not always exist, y’know.
Just a theory, but it’s something to think about.
|
While I like open-minded atmospheres and the ability to say what you want, I think it's also easy to become "holier than thou" about other people who dislike it. It's the same kind of judgemental attitude that people can often have about radical opinions or playing the devils advocate.
|
On March 20 2012 02:57 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
My only confidante is TL. The only friend I have met that could hold his own intellectually against me is around 4 years older than me, is himself abnormally intelligent and left to go to college a while ago, leaving me here.
I'm just too smart and too weird to have any close friends irl atm, barring rare individuals like the aforementioned friend.
Intelligence does not make one socially awkward. Acting narcisstic and elite does. After your logic Einstein would have never had anyone to talk to. I don't know you, but giving the people around you the feeling of being looked down upon won't make them your friends. They might be not as smart, but that does not mean they can't be good friends to have fun with.
|
Australia8532 Posts
You count six for yourself? That's pretty impressive; 6 people you would trust infinitely? Going through life with that many people you trust is pretty amazing 
There are 4 people I would trust with anything in my life; 3 of them are friends. People are just to selfish otherwise and don't truly consider others when making decisions.
|
I have 3 confidantes, and the only 3 I need.
Me, myself and I.
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 20 2012 01:09 Chef wrote:
I count zero :o I have friends I've known over a decade that I don't think I could talk to about much of my inner world. I would suggest that I am simply too different, too crazy, and I would support this by asking how many of your confidents are not your own gender? Perhaps my assumption is wrong and you happen to have a few of another gender, but I hope my point is clear anyway. Confidents tend to be people you think are very much like yourself.
It's honestly not surprising that someone would have zero true confidantes. I'd venture to say that as I continue to evolve, my own number may fluctuate as well.
As for the composition of this inner circle, you are absolutely correct. Every single person is a male, and most of them are realist, well-read, and in many ways crazy.
On March 20 2012 01:13 NeoIllusions wrote:
Confidantes are what "friends" should really be. We use the latter so loosely nowadays.
I think the nomenclature is fine; at the very least it makes the other side feel good that they're in the group labeled as "friends"
On March 20 2012 02:03 ohsea.toc wrote:
The word "heretical" really stuck out at me here: it seems to define your approach to discursive honesty. I don't find that I have much to hide; nothing can be heretical, or blasphemous even, for I associate little with anyone who would take offence at what I have to say (granted, I believe myself to be a rational, tolerant being). You seem to imply a conversational veil, that you are only comfortable speaking frankly with a very select few people. If so why, and correct me if I'm wrong, is this the case?
I am, as one of my friends puts it, one of the most honest and straight-shooting people he knows. My writing is my attempt at discovering and considering the merits to living otherwise.
On March 20 2012 04:31 Treehead wrote:
I have some reactions to this post, but I’m not sure I trust you all enough to air them.
Seriously though, think about the reasons we might be so comfortable sharing with the internet – despite the fact that when we do we’re basically guaranteeing that someone we don’t know will read some very closely held thoughts of ours.
Haji, would you ever read that post of yours aloud to people who were only average acquaintances?
Why is this?
It could be that we’re removed enough that we don’t mind the judgment. Or it could be that TL is something special enough that we feel “safe”. My guess, though, is that the deepest part of our brain which acts and reacts purely as an animal has determined that the internet poses neither the potential for threat nor reward from interaction with others. Is it really the exchange of ideas, the knowledge of nebulous individual “self”-ness that we truly seek from others then? Or is it really just the guarantee of renewed physical closeness that we desire from those around us - a sense of finding or establishing a "tribe" to which we can belong? In that case, then, need anyone know our thoughts? Language did not always exist, y’know.
Just a theory, but it’s something to think about.
Everything I write online is public. All my blogs are crossposted onto my Facebook and Twitter.
TL is actually one of the most dangerous places online for me, as I have not fully weaned myself of the habit to write nonsense for the sake of writing nonsense.
On March 20 2012 04:50 Sablar wrote:
While I like open-minded atmospheres and the ability to say what you want, I think it's also easy to become "holier than thou" about other people who dislike it. It's the same kind of judgemental attitude that people can often have about radical opinions or playing the devils advocate.
Very true.
|
On March 20 2012 15:09 thedeadhaji wrote:
Everything I write online is public. All my blogs are crossposted onto my Facebook and Twitter.
My point was less about the people you allow to read you posting on the internet and more about the nature of posting on the internet, so this actually doesn't refute anything I was saying. It's one thing for your thoughts to be out there for all to read, and another for you to express them verbally to another person in a social situation.
The reflection is somewhat dated, though, as I don't think about the fact that confidantes, as you put them, probably communicate a good deal through facebook these days...
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
On March 20 2012 22:56 Treehead wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 15:09 thedeadhaji wrote:
Everything I write online is public. All my blogs are crossposted onto my Facebook and Twitter.
My point was less about the people you allow to read you posting on the internet and more about the nature of posting on the internet, so this actually doesn't refute anything I was saying. It's one thing for your thoughts to be out there for all to read, and another for you to express them verbally to another person in a social situation.
Ah sry, misunderstood your comment X_X.
Well, here are my thoughts:
(a) forum posting is basically anonymous if you choose it to be so. There are very little repercussions socially as a result.
(b) the medium is not "face to face" as you say, so the barrier to voicing strong opinions is lower. It's similar to how letters can often help someone say something difficult to a person (whether it be love or hate)
|
On March 20 2012 05:00 Xiron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 20 2012 02:57 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
My only confidante is TL. The only friend I have met that could hold his own intellectually against me is around 4 years older than me, is himself abnormally intelligent and left to go to college a while ago, leaving me here.
I'm just too smart and too weird to have any close friends irl atm, barring rare individuals like the aforementioned friend. Intelligence does not make one socially awkward. Acting narcisstic and elite does. After your logic Einstein would have never had anyone to talk to. I don't know you, but giving the people around you the feeling of being looked down upon won't make them your friends. They might be not as smart, but that does not mean they can't be good friends to have fun with.
The problem with your assumption that I act arrogantly is that, as you yourself said, you do not know me. I am probably one of the least arrogant acting people you could ever meet.
For me, being intelligent is good for making average friends, but true friends are a rarity I have not been able to aquire. I count my true friends as people I can trust and have meaningful discussion with, but my odd thought processes and grasp of advanced concepts surpasses the ability of my peers to follow. Meaningful conversations are difficult to have, to say the least.
To be fair, my peers are not exceptional. My age group is renowned for its poor decision making and other cognitive deficiencies compared to adults.
|
|
|
thedeadhaji
39489 Posts
I do think it's possible that someone will have a higher intellectual aptitude than all his peers, in a limited environment such as high school.
However, that fact and not being close to anyone in said class, while perhaps correlated, shouldn't be a foregone conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
