I can't even see what I'm typing anymore...
"But unlike you, I do not give a shit what they are talking about 87% of the time."
Oh come on...give them a chance...lol.
I give them a reaction to make them finish their sentences already.
Although my prior response may indicate otherwise, I know what you mean. There is a person who literally will not stop talking to me about anything. Subjects change, but his persistence never does.
then I have to make more expressive faces
What kind of expressive faces?
The whole point is, if you are going to "fake" or "lie", you need to believe what you are expressing, otherwise someone else will sense it. So, being stupid works best.
Typically, people don't sense lies, and they don't care about them.
What bothers them is worry, anxiousness, callousness, distance, etc...
People don't sense lies, so much as they sense, change. Only my opinion.
Worse comes to worse and lets say you've got a hawk on you. Tell them the truth, get it over with, and move on...
Honesty works, so long as you aren't wreckless, inconsiderate, the stakes are low, whatever.
What's the most common lies? Relationships? Yeah, I had a buddy confess to me that behind my back he was screwing my girlfriend. That doesn't work. That is very selfish to come clean and alleviate that guilt from yourself. That's what it is, right? Well, that will destroy the friendship in many many cases. If you are a tight knit network of people and they will find out anyways, best to be the one to say something, but if nobody is going to notice, Jerry Springer doesn't mean anything, and you should work to open up the relationship in honest ways, rather than hit someone with a brick hammer to relieve your guilt.
In hindsight, I am glad in a way that he felt he could tell me, but in some circumstances, it doesn't fix anything, and it opens up wounds that stay open sort of thing, for quite a while. would have been better as one of those things you learn about 10 years after you break up with someone, not a month after sort of deal, know what I mean?
So that's the other reason why people lie, or fake emotion. To protect the emotions and feelings of others.
I dated this one girl, she'd come home late, drunk with lipstick smeared all over her face. She never broke a sweat, never told the truth. I think that works better.
Nowadays, I like to think I wouldn't care, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, but it really matters on how the dynamics of the relationship is working. Trusting someone else to handle a situation, is better than not trusting them. Even if they are "lying". Have some faith in people every now and then, and don't take yourself too seriously. Give people some room.
Yeah, I don't know too much about it, but I'm guessing the DIY electronic movement is biggest in France, or French speaking areas, Portugal, Spain, Brazil seems to me, only looking at the stages that they is a centralized government of sorts. Eastern European provinces. Italy seems to have a big reservoir of music, but I don't fully know for sure.
There was burning man, or there still is, in the USA, and that's a testament to how big it was, and it's probably only going to get bigger. Not burning man, as I heard it hit epidemic and unsustainable proportions, but everywhere else, or other events. I just don't know for sure, I don't follow parties that much any more.
Germany is crazy with public festivals. Outsider (me) looking in from a distance. and the netherlands seem to me, to be as ultra commercial as the USA is with filling stadiums. Only my opinion.
I guess some areas have the weather or something, working on their side, I dunno.
They are small in comparison to the larger more busy, slightly more eclectic hippy psy trance scenes. Only my opinion. I'm guessing shambala is a big one out in BC.
Then I've read about the rainbow parties, which I am sure are everywhere, super hush hush, and perpetual. But I am only guessing that one. (and I don't mean the kind of parties that the internet says is associated with that. I probably mean rainbow festivals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Gathering More like the VengaBus I posted earlier, and less like a fear mongering based gang initiation.
The story is with those guys is they got some sort of government grant or something to fund a soundsystem on a farm they owned and voila! They are rolling in the dough now. (I don't know that, they are probably great with reinvesting the money into worthy growth, so to speak)
There was a few in my province, which still continue, but the logistics of managing them, means they've gotten smaller, or they've promoted less. Unsure exactly, but yeah, last one I went too, I volunteered for two weeks to help crew, and yeah, the head organizers sort of gave me the impression there was barely a living to be made, if any living was made all, based on the griping of a few of them. (and tickets were not exactly cheap)
Once something hits a certain size, crowds fill a place, and ultimatly trash it. It is more manageable to keep things smaller, so there is no damage to the area, and no need to employ people to pick up other peoples garbage sort of thing. No need to bring in water for those unprepared, and so on. No city kids bringing in inferior drugs and no need to have paramedics on stand by sort of thing.
Basically, if you ask me, events don't cease to exist because there is no demand, they get killed by politicians, regulations, costs, and so on.
The demand is huge, but as soon as everyone piles in, it becomes something that resembles a line up at space mountain.
A place like burning man, that was the arizona desert right? Free land to use, no complaints from residents, and so on? That's probably why it grew so big.
I think the shambala people, because they are property owners, really have the leg up on other festivals.
https://thump.vice.com/en_ca/article/we-sit-down-with-shambhalas-founder
Expecting to hear "logistics" or "security," when I asked what the greatest challenges they face year after year ÂÂÂJimmy responded immediately, "[people] shit too much [laughs]... a lot of places now would book an arena or sports grounds with washrooms already built, but we've built everything ourselves: a water treatment plant, power systems, washrooms, permanent buildings, roads." Jenna chimes in, "I don't know if you've ever been to the Kootenays, but we are the biggest city there for those five days. There were probably fourteen thousand people last year, including all the staff."
If they didn't own the land, logistics would probably be the biggest nightmare. Only guessing.
I mean the culture in Europe seems to be heavily aligned with anti-police messages, which if you ask me, means they aren't exactly paying for the land they occupy, all the time. But what do you want? Ibiza, where criminal gangsters fund what government refuse to allow? And that leaves Germany as probably the hot spot and the one place I will kick myself in the head for not spending at least a year of my life in.
That might be France, I dunno.
BTW, this is the most awesome thing I've seen in a long time.
Yup, it still is going on too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Man
Burning Man is organized by Black Rock City, LLC and has been running since 1986. In 2010, 51,515 people attended Burning Man.[6] 2011 attendance was capped at 50,000 participants and the event sold out on July 24;[7] the attendance rose to 65,922 in 2014.[1] In April 2011, Larry Harvey announced that the organization had begun the process of transitioning management of Burning Man over to a new non-profit organization called the "Burning Man Project".
I wouldn't be surprised if in the next few years it becomes a permanent establishment and city grows out of it, tbh...
"Why do so many people see people who fake emotions as bad?"
Ed explained this well:
"Any type of fakery and deceit that is seriously frowned upon is so, because it is perceived as threatening. Simple as that. Would you like to be deceived or misled yourself?"
"Of course the person faking the reaction could have bad intentions but that's not always the case. I know from personal experience that sometimes I fake a reaction simply because I know that's the reaction they want out of me. I have no ulterior motive, I just don't want them to think I don't give a fuck about what they're saying, when the opposite is true."
A lot of people do the same thing that you do. The sad part is when a fool who keeps bothering you doesn't realize how boring or annoying he is.
"Is it not better for someone to act emotionally out of respect or caring for the person expecting it; than to be forced by a hormonal or chemical reaction in the brain to react a specific way?"
Whatever response you're going to have is always going to have a chemical origin. But you were asking if it's better to put on a pleasing facade on, rather than break the facade, and act in a way that feels more in tune with what whatever instinctual reaction you are repressing, am I correct?
There is no right or wrong answer to that question, because the answer to it is an opinion; subjective. I will tell you how I handle these situations, and perhaps some of it may be helpful to you.
I find it natural to be pleasant in demeanor and speech with others, almost always. Not only is it sensible (those who like you will usually treat you better), but also it's good to engage in conversation with others...it's very entertaining, I think. Unless the people are outright annoying or bothersome, in which I just ignore them, or figure out my own way to deal with them. Learn to find the joy in conversation, and actually try to get to understand the person you're speaking to. It makes the process enjoyable instead of tiresome.
When I am speaking with people, I do not usually feel like I am putting on a facade. But I have realized I tailor my reactions heavily based upon who I am speaking to. I am more honest with some than I am with others.
If you're big into Christianity, and we're only going to know each other for about 5 minutes, I'm a Christian for you (if the inclination strikes), and I will speak of disgust of what moral depravity the world is coming to...and how it needs God more than ever.
One time while I was running to the train station, some people in a car thought I was a VIP parking attendant. This woman kept shouting at me: "VIP! YO, VIP! IS YOU A VIP ATTENDANT?" Annoyed at her demanding tone, I looked into her eyes for a moment, and then yelled, "shut the fuck up, you stupid fucking cunt!" Oh, how her face changed...
But for people I am around more often I have my own, more honest personality. I slightly modify it or show different aspects of it to people I feel I should ingratiate myself with. There is very little deception involved in this on my part, except in cases such as if I were to realize that if I disagree with someone on some point, there will be a setback in our rapport. I don't have to put up much of a facade or any for those people who have taken the time to get to know me and be generally cool with me. There is no single person I confide everything to, so people know different parts of me.
This is the first day that I have visited this website. I still don't really understand entirely what it is to be a sociopath. I'm pretty sure that I'm not a sociopath, but I'm not neurotypical either. I might be autistic, I'm not sure. Anyway, although I'm not a normal person I think I know how to answer the question in the original post. I read a dozen replies, but I didn't read all of them, so I'm sorry if this is redundant with somebody else's post.
You asked:
"Is it not better for someone to act emotionally out of respect or caring for the person expecting it; than to be forced by a hormonal or chemical reaction in the brain to react a specific way?"
I can see why you think this is a noble thing, but a neurotypical person (I think you guys call them empaths) will not see it this way. Normal people are not very introspective, so that they don't realize that their emotions are arbitrary. By arbitrary I mean that they would feel a different way if they were born with a different set of emotions. On the contrary, they believe that their emotions are inherently valuable. To a normal person, feeling happy is inherently good, and feeling sad is inherently bad, and it doesn't matter if the reasons for their emotional state are logical. For instance, if you smile at a neurotypical and it makes him happy because he saw you smile, then you have done a good thing for him, and it does not matter that your smile did not help him materially in any way. Also, to them a smile is the same thing as happiness, because those things almost always go together, and they aren't introspective enough to realize that the connection between them is arbitrary. So if you don't feel the same emotions that regular people do, and you don't express them in exactly the same way, then that makes you inherently evil. I know it's not fair, but that's how it is.
I have emotions fairly similar to an empath, but I am not very expressive. A few years ago I tried learning how to be more expressive, and I was successful, but I did not like pretending very much and I quit. Now what I try to do is to tell the people that I care about explicitly how I feel about them. Sometimes I explain to them that I am doing this to compensate for my lack of facial expression and my monotonous voice. I get rejected a lot, but some people appreciate this sort of communication, so I am not entirely alone. I find that this technique is more successful with people who I have done kind things for, I guess because my actions show that I have genuinely good intentions, so they are more likely to believe my words, even if I cannot show them my feelings with my face. I realize that as sociopaths your feelings are entirely different than a normal person's so you probably cannot use this tactic as successfully as I have. I don't have to lie to fit in, because my emotions are mostly the same as everybody else's.
