5 ms·

Which completely fails to account for the fact that a boring person with great means may use those means to avoid boredom, while an imaginative person with litt

Which completely fails to account for the fact that a boring person with great means may use those means to avoid boredom, while an imaginative person with little means may be trapped in boredom because they are forced to use their time to meet basic, boring needs. So it's a shallow and naive statement that ignores externalities either way.

antihipocrat 2y ago
Imagine there is a blackout and both the rich and poor are equally affected. One person decides to go for a walk and notices a few interesting things along the way. Another stays at home feeling bored. I know which person I'd rather converse with, wealth doesn't really matter.
- rthrfrd 2y ago
  "People can be boring or not regardless of wealth" is orthogonal to the original assertion of "Only boring people get bored": I raised the incredibly common situation where wealth does matter that dispels the original assertion. I don't disagree with your assertion.
  - antihipocrat 2y ago
    I don't think you've dispelled the original assertion at all. Your assertion that 'wealth does matter' is as orthogonal to the original as 'wealth doesn't matter', and there are plenty of examples in favour of each position.
    - rthrfrd 2y ago
      > I don't think you've dispelled the original assertion at all. I did though. Otherwise what you're saying is that you've never known someone whose imagination and appetite for experiences was not constrained by their wealth. You've never know someone who had to endure boredom doing boring things in order to have a shot at doing the things that did interest them. That would be quite the luxurious and unencumbered circle to inhabit. > Your assertion that 'wealth does matter' is as orthogonal to the original as 'wealth doesn't matter' Re-removing the constraint from my example to make an orthogonal point has nothing to do with why I introduced it in the first place to disprove the original point - that's not really how the logic works. > and there are plenty of examples in favour of each position Yes and I only need one to disprove the original assertion. Thankfully I don't have only one - there are literally millions (billions?) of non-boring people who have been in that situation.
      - antihipocrat 2y ago
        Except I didn't raise the orthogonal point, you did by introducing wealth into the discussion. My example demonstrated the orthogonal nature of your argument and that it doesn't hold true in all circumstances, and according to your criteria of only needing one example to disprove an assertion, then yours has been dispelled as well. I'll add that I also dislike the adage 'only boring people get bored'. However I think there is some truth to it, perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be 'people who are always bored are boring people '
        rthrfrd 2y ago
        Ok, imagine the original assertion was “All square numbers are even”. I only need to introduce a specific example/constraint to disprove the original assertion: 1 My introduction of the example/constraint is directly relevant to disproving the original point. That is the whole point of introducing it, so it is absolutely not orthogonal. If you then remove my constraint (1) and say: “but 4 and 16 can both be square numbers”: Sure you're not wrong, but that also has nothing to do with why I introduced my example in the first place, nor does it invalidate my example, and is thus completely orthogonal to proving/disproving the original point.
        antihipocrat 2y ago
        Yes, I understand the point and agree with the logic (of course). I still don't think the original statement has been dispelled. A person 'doing boring things' isn't necessarily a bored person. The experience of being bored is entirely subjective. One person staring at paint dry could be driven insane but another could be meditating upon the physical experience of the passage of time. The saying 'bored people are boring people' isn't supposed to be taken literally. It is as logically fallible as any other quip in English, I think the difference with this one is that it is used in a more directly negative and judgmental way (and often perceived as such by the recipient).
        rthrfrd 2y ago
        Sure, I think your characterisation of "people who are always bored are boring people" is much more credible! Thanks for the thoughts - I must return to doing the boring things I need to do today that I'm avoiding :)

antihipocrat 2y ago

Imagine there is a blackout and both the rich and poor are equally affected. One person decides to go for a walk and notices a few interesting things along the way. Another stays at home feeling bored. I know which person I'd rather converse with, wealth doesn't really matter.

rthrfrd 2y ago
"People can be boring or not regardless of wealth" is orthogonal to the original assertion of "Only boring people get bored": I raised the incredibly common situation where wealth does matter that dispels the original assertion. I don't disagree with your assertion.
- antihipocrat 2y ago
  I don't think you've dispelled the original assertion at all. Your assertion that 'wealth does matter' is as orthogonal to the original as 'wealth doesn't matter', and there are plenty of examples in favour of each position.
  - rthrfrd 2y ago
    > I don't think you've dispelled the original assertion at all. I did though. Otherwise what you're saying is that you've never known someone whose imagination and appetite for experiences was not constrained by their wealth. You've never know someone who had to endure boredom doing boring things in order to have a shot at doing the things that did interest them. That would be quite the luxurious and unencumbered circle to inhabit. > Your assertion that 'wealth does matter' is as orthogonal to the original as 'wealth doesn't matter' Re-removing the constraint from my example to make an orthogonal point has nothing to do with why I introduced it in the first place to disprove the original point - that's not really how the logic works. > and there are plenty of examples in favour of each position Yes and I only need one to disprove the original assertion. Thankfully I don't have only one - there are literally millions (billions?) of non-boring people who have been in that situation.
    - antihipocrat 2y ago
      Except I didn't raise the orthogonal point, you did by introducing wealth into the discussion. My example demonstrated the orthogonal nature of your argument and that it doesn't hold true in all circumstances, and according to your criteria of only needing one example to disprove an assertion, then yours has been dispelled as well. I'll add that I also dislike the adage 'only boring people get bored'. However I think there is some truth to it, perhaps a more accurate phrasing would be 'people who are always bored are boring people '
      - rthrfrd 2y ago
        Ok, imagine the original assertion was “All square numbers are even”. I only need to introduce a specific example/constraint to disprove the original assertion: 1 My introduction of the example/constraint is directly relevant to disproving the original point. That is the whole point of introducing it, so it is absolutely not orthogonal. If you then remove my constraint (1) and say: “but 4 and 16 can both be square numbers”: Sure you're not wrong, but that also has nothing to do with why I introduced my example in the first place, nor does it invalidate my example, and is thus completely orthogonal to proving/disproving the original point.
        antihipocrat 2y ago
        Yes, I understand the point and agree with the logic (of course). I still don't think the original statement has been dispelled. A person 'doing boring things' isn't necessarily a bored person. The experience of being bored is entirely subjective. One person staring at paint dry could be driven insane but another could be meditating upon the physical experience of the passage of time. The saying 'bored people are boring people' isn't supposed to be taken literally. It is as logically fallible as any other quip in English, I think the difference with this one is that it is used in a more directly negative and judgmental way (and often perceived as such by the recipient).
        rthrfrd 2y ago
        Sure, I think your characterisation of "people who are always bored are boring people" is much more credible! Thanks for the thoughts - I must return to doing the boring things I need to do today that I'm avoiding :)