There's an interesting line from Nightcrawler that I'd really like to quote here, What if my problem isn't that I don't understand people but that I don't like them? I really have no problem having zero social skills. It's a part of me. A part of being different. Everything i say is deeply studied and deeply thought out, I just think that everyone sees the connections i see while i talk so therefore, Sometimes, I don't make sense to you. I know people's preference and i know how to interact with others, I just don't find it something essential or charming for me.
And since when does "not liking people" equates "not understanding them"?
Because let me tell you that the worst people out there, from criminals, to serial killers, or even super Hitler, I am capable of empathizing with them, and understanding them. At no point does it mean I like them.
You seem to mistake those two notions as if they're inherently intertwined. They're not.
I am a person that can empathize a lot, even against my will. And it's draining, but it gives me a lot of insight about who people are, where they come from, and why they are the way they are, and make the choices they do. And then, I get to understand their moral systems, beliefs systems, and I get to understand how the world works, because if you understand how society works on the tiniest levels, you understand on it works on the bigger levels as well, and how systemic powers are in place the way they are, and interact with each other.
Again, Stereotypical thinking. You wanted to know my qualifications, That if i have worked with professionals before, So, I've told you. You're just looking for a way to label me as a jerk or a "Loser". Your stereotypical vocabulary and definitions don't interest me. Neither does your contradictions. You know why I don't need people, Because I'm self-critical and self-educational, I push myself far beyond my own limits. You just don't know the stories. So, Short answer, I have nothing to learn. And since, Again, This conversation is really going nowhere, End it.
The way I see it, he's being stereotypical, only to answer your own stereotypicality.
You judge "normal people" and claim they won't "achieve anything worthwhile" in their existence, but what is "achieving something worthwhile", and would the notion of "achieving something worthwhile" be just as much of a label as "You need qualifications to prove your worth"? except his label is inspired by society, and yours is inspired by yourself (but even that, the sole thought of thinking society doesn't influence you as well in making that label, is so delusional I can't even deal).
What makes your label better than his, and why should it be?
(And I'm only here saying his label is directly influenced by society, but it's being stereotypical again, I'm pretty sure there are other factors influencing him, but for the sake of this demonstration, we'll pretend it's not)
Retour en haut
