Lady Luck Speaks

Desi dating and desires from the doctor of delight.

Thursday, January 04, 2007

Thoughts/what you will...

Before I kick off, I thought I'd take this opportunity to wish you a belated (hey, what's my ethnicity again???) Happy New Year.

Onto more important things - people. Do not look away, for this ISN'T a moan. I need your opinions, dammnit - A&E is dull today :(

My little Sis & I have been chatting about people - exactly what makes 'em tick & the like, since she considers the bulk of those she's met at university unstimulating. Whilst she appreciates that new terms & indeed, new academic years herald new friends, we've come up with the following classifications to help us figure out what makes 'us' tick.

We've decided people are either generic, specific or inbetween.

Generic types prefer to follow the mainstream, preferring to remain equally apathetic in all areas. Their conversations centre around themselves (feelings), their bodily functions (hunger, sleep, sex), popular culture (sis defines this as 'what's advertised to the yoof on terrestrial TV') and how/when they interact with society (work, social life, domestic life, gossip).

They're more comfortable making 'small talk' than specifics.

Specific types have 'special' interests - a passion for hobbies/opinions with an informed background. Generic functions alone are not 'enough' to keep them stimulated. Whilst specificity isn't an indicator of intellectual function (most medics are 'generic' types), it tends to present more commonly amongst articulate types. Sis & I decided the majority of our favourite friends share this trait. The very same friends aren't huge fans of small talk, despite the politeness & charm they show to strangers they come across.

The third category is rare, since specificity (defined as a passion for less populist interests/pastimes which aren't necessarily conducive to daily functioning in society) tends to lead to a preference to spend time with others who share similar 'special' interests.

A high percentage of those @ work fit the 'generic' category - so stimulating conversation is rare. A chance coffee & conversation with a colleague I knew in passing made me realise the precise rarity of a 'semi-specific' conversation & made me appreciate him more.

What do you think?

6 Comments:

At 5:44 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

An interesting theory! I think that, according to your classifications, most people would class as "in between". However, when I think about how I fit into the categories I think my classification would vary depending on which specific relationship I am analysing.

So, in my relationship with one person I might be very generic, possibly because we don't have any mutual and specific interests, then, my relationship with another person may see me classed as specific, because I usually talk about drums with said person.

 
At 7:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree with your post since ive been thinking abt this lately as well. My concern is that people are losing their individuality. And totally changing themselves and tryign to fit with whats popular. Its hard being totally unique since I think I am one of them and people think you are weird! I am totally against this fitting into society thing since its nto you. You are just being a puppet!

 
At 7:12 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I totally agree with your post since ive been thinking abt this lately as well. My concern is that people are losing their individuality. And totally changing themselves and tryign to fit with whats popular. Its hard being totally unique since I think I am one of them and people think you are weird! I am totally against this fitting into society thing since its nto you. You are just being a puppet!

 
At 7:14 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I'm inbetween. Sadly most people I meet are generic and conversation never gets past the weather. Most of the time I can't be arsed following it up either. I suppose that does make the rare meeting of another inbetween highly refreshing.

 
At 8:44 AM, Blogger S said...

RD - I showed this to a friend of mine, and she reckoned the difference between the two groups is the ability to form opinions based on personal experience & informed judgement as opposed to regurgitation of facts heard elsewhere.

You can't automatically tell if someone is 'specific' if you've not conversed much with them, right?

 
At 1:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

S - No, I don't agree with your theory about people being generic, specific or in between. I think you are onto something but that most people would fluctuate between the 3 categories in different social circumstances. But, if I did agree with your (and your sister's) theory, then I would disagree with your friend's theory. My take on it is that the ability to form an opinion on something based on personal experience will increase as a person's age and experience increases. Therefore I don't think that a person can be judged to be specific, generic or in between from the way that they come to their opinions. An interesting note is that I started writing a post yesterday called "There are 2 types of people", about the many different ways in which people are classified.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home