Wife and I have a longstanding argument over whether free-will exists.
I say it does and she has no choice but to say otherwise.
In my perspective (a lonely person generally accustomed with my loneliness), small talk doesn’t seem to be the problem. The problem is the lack of people’s interest in deep topics, such as the aforementioned nature of reality: people either don’t have the needed patience, time, or both. People are so busy running through the survival game of the mundane existence that deep topics are left for their afterlives (if there’s one), when human ideologies and need for survival cease to exist. Small talk is like “sorry I got no time to think about the ultimate question of life, universe and everything else, gotta go to my modern slavery where I’m not paid to think but to obey, bye!”. Deep inside, seems like a fear of becoming lonely as those that, just like me, likes to think about the depths of the reality and breaking paradigms (for example, “shouldn’t we discuss how existence is so fleetingly finite in the grand scheme of cosmos and how futile is to accumulate wealth and goods?” is a granted source of loneliness).
I’m able to make smalltalk. I just don’t enjoy it, so I avoid it when I can.
And my wife and I don’t engage in smalltalk. We talk about what we actually care about. Seems to have worked fine for the past 24 years.
I’m not going to be in a relationship with anyone who thinks “freewill” is a word.
I think there’s a misconception regarding what counts as small talk. “Bland conversation that has no real point but to escape silence” is small talk. Asking you how your day went because I care about you is not. “How’s the weather?” is small talk. “How was your trip to the grocery?” is small talk. These are dumb things and, if your relationship can’t bear the silence that would be interrupted because “The vegan sausages were on sale today”, then it prolly doesn’t need to exist.
I’m not entirely sure what counts as small talk. When I think of it, it’s usually conversation between strangers or acquaintances where neither party knows the safe topics, the topics to be avoided, or even the general preferences of the other. It’s all testing water stuff.
I think that’s what people actually mean when they say they hate small talk. They hate the awkwardness of not yet knowing enough about their interlocutor to know they won’t accidentally upset anyone. Or they don’t have the skill to navigate that social space to avoid negative consequences. It can feel downright dangerous in some circumstances.
And that’s tough. Because the socialites think it’s a skill issue, which it often is. And unfortunately if you don’t learn that skill growing up, the social consequences of being bad at small talk only get bigger and more dangerous, which prevents folks from being able to practice freely.
I dunno. Just my $.02 I guess.
It’s funny cause to me it’s always meant a third entirely different thing! To me small talk is just starting from a basic place to feel each other out a bit, bringing up mundane things and simple questions to find topics we could drill further into.
“How was your day” to a partner would be small talk, even though I care about what they’re saying - I’m just asking so they can bring up something to talk about. “Weather’s been shit lately” to a stranger is small talk, but the ensuing story about how they had to rush to work late in the rain would not be.
Given it means three different things to three random people, it’s almost like “small talk” actually covers a broad set of social purposes and people who “aren’t into it” might actually be missing a lot 😝
I think I actually agree with you overall.
My comment above was more trying to express what I think “small talk” means to the people who always complain about small talk, maybe. Unsure. Slightly elevated atm.
deleted by creator
Imagine going through a marriage like “how about that weather”
IIIIT’S LIKE RAAAAIIIIIIIIIN ON YA WEDDING DAYYYY
IT’S A FREE RIIIDE WHEN YOU’VE ALREADY PAID
Have you seen the weather, lately?
Personally I think that small talk is also regional. Some places small talk might be discouraged at a store while other places it might be encouraged. The same might be for the subway, a restaurant, the bathroom, etc, depending on the country or culture it may be totally ok or exceptionally discouraged.
Absofuckinglutely. This is what I do, and what she does, though our methods of exploration vary.
I’d like to have similar interactions with my significant other to the ones I have with my cats. You know, things like siting on the couch together… saying silly things in even sillier voices… staring into each other’s eyes while blinking slowly… yelling at her to get down from the cupboard…
That’s exactly how my wife and I do things.
If you can question free will, you have free will.
I’m a naturalistic determinist, I literally can’t not question free will
Or were you predestined to question it?
why?
Yes, I’m aware of how people like to take science and jump to conclusions that kinda sound like they fit with the science, but they do not actually. This is called pseudoscience
I’m not arguing for either determinism or non-deterministism here, but let me ask you this:
If every action has a cause, and every action has a subsequent reaction, and all these chains of events follow predictable rules, what is the factor of “randomness” that allows for free will to exist?
Genuinely curious to hear your opinion seeing your stance on this is very strong.
Just adding to this: any modern arguments using the probabilistic nature of quantum phenomena to fight determinism are wrong. Einstein made a theory called ‘hidden variable theory’ saying there were causes we couldn’t see (duh). A guy named Bell ‘proved it wrong’ by arguing against something einstein said in it about data being in multiple places simultaneously. Had nothing to do with whether hidden variables exist. But the headlines were ‘hidden variable theory proved wrong’ implying to the public that there are somehow no causes of things below a certain level and that an illogical foundation of ‘probability’ somehow underlies everything. Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber. It clearly is a thing constantly existing.
With the errors of the foundational days of quantum physics out of the way, how can one argue against a thought or action having causes preceding it? Even if we are in woowoo land where everyone is spirits with minds existing separately in different worlds, there are still variables determining what those minds think. Only seeming alternative explanation so far is the faulty quantum probability field… which is wrong.
Bell did prove mathematically that a local hidden variables theory is unable to explain observed quantum mechanics. This doesn’t rule out nonlocal hidden variable theories, but a) that is called superdeterminism, and b) that would mean that there would be faster-than-light interactions, and that is in many ways weirder.
I disagree. “Einstein once said it was silly to think an electron is in an undetermined state until measured when he can see it’s path in a cloud chamber.” I am definitely of the einstein view and not the mainstream quantum scientist view. According to me, things, like einstein’s electron DO have actual states when not ‘observed’ and do not need to ‘be observed and collapse in to a form at that time’. At every point in it’s path thru that cloud chamber the electron has it’s form WHICH IS SUPEROBVIOUS TO SEE even tho the quantum math has no idea what to do about it and is like ‘no does not fit in the math thus cannot exist’. In reality, the electron does not need to be measured to have it’s form. Same with the ‘entangled’ particles Bell uses. Just because it is measured later does not mean it did not have it’s form while not measured ~which is common sense to me and blows up Bell’s Theorem before even having to reach to exotic theories. Weird to me stuff like that is not common sense. But I personally think quantum physics went wrong waaaaaay at the start and is riddled with exotic theories based on good data but faulty definitions and conclusions (such as the doubleslit experiment being touted as ‘a single photon being let thru’ when it’s a guy shining a very dim light for a month and taking a slow exposure pic. Shining light for 1 month = 1 Photon. Does not match common sense. Throws off future work. But is definitionwise accurate as quanta is ‘a level of energy’). So meh. Disagree. Nice you know your stuff tho.
I’m in this picture and my SO doesn’t like it.
It’s not small talk if you love the other person
We will sit in comfortable silence together.
we will make out in comfortable silence together
wet, sloppy make-out sounds
soft barking and meowing
😐 I was promised silence.
Actually this. One of the most meaningful relationships in my life is a woman who will sit in silence with me at the opposite end of the couch, some random nonsense on TV and we’re both just on our phones sharing memes with eachother. You don’t need to fill every moment of silence between people with words
They seem ritualistic social interactions. Like some bird’s courtship dance except there’s no relationships interest. So it’s just a burden that I didn’t want to participate in unless I have a genuine friendship.
