# There's a thin line to how society sees uniqueness.



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

So hello. I was reading this book (e.g. The Girl Who Played With Fire. It's awesome!!). Its main protagonist, namely Lisbeth Salander, is considered different by society. By different I mean, her qualities or how she act is quite unique to what an average woman would. Despite all of these, she's a skilled hacker and intelligent. She's also introverted. If I'm not giving any clear picture of the character I'm describing, please lend me a hand and search for her details. Hahaha.

Moving on, here's the deal. When I was walking all by myself, I thought "Wouldn't it be better if she acts how the society wants her to?" Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that she has to go with the flow, or totally abide to the society. What I'm trying to say is that wouldn't it be better to make her uniqueness tolerable to others? So her skills and other assets would be put into good use? 

Another question here. I find the concept of uniqueness perplexing. There's a thin line between good uniqueness and bad uniqueness. If someone has above average skills in a certain field(e.g. sports, programming etc), his/her difference would be deemed good by society. Sometimes people would look up to them and even try to imitate what they do. In the other hand, if a person's ideals are contradictory to majority's way of seeing things, it's considered as something bad. Like say, a person promotes Death Penalty but the majority see this as something absurd. That person is considered bad to the society. I'm pretty much sure you're getting my point. *(I WANT ANSWERS FOR THIS SO BAD!)*

Is there any study that discuss these sort of things? Any reactions? If you'll mention theories/concepts, please cite sources. So I could do some reading. I know this is tedious to read. But I'll be grateful, if somebody answers this. Thanks!!! 

Damn this is long. I'm a little proud of myself. Haha. And if by any means Wasp stumbled into this thread, Hi! If you get this reference I like you. Haha.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

It's beauty too. My theory:

Beauty is a very fine balance between the normal and the strange. Girls are hot specifically because they aren't normal, but are normal. They have eccentric features, but grounded in normalcy. Strangeness is necessary for beauty, but taken too far, and it is worse than average. It's a knife's edge. Beauty requires commonality in some areas, and eccentricity in others. Strangeness is like a polish on average. Don't want to overshine though.

And it is what Bruce Lee talked about. Be water. Like some ideologue; Communist or capitalist. What they do is harden themselves, till they can't move. We are water, an ideology or system hardens us into solid form. It paralyzes us. All we can do is break or grow harder. No flexibility. When one has no form, one can be all forms. Why be one form? Is there a single ideology that can solve all things? 

It is also what Weber called the ethics of responsibility, which I insist is Fe. And the ethic of ultimate ends, which I call Fi. 


*We must be clear about the fact that all ethically oriented conduct may be guided by one of two fundamentally differing and irreconcilably opposed maxims: conduct can be oriented to an 'ethic of ultimate ends' or to an 'ethic of responsibility.' This is not to say that an ethic of ultimate ends is identical with irresponsibility, or that an ethic of responsibility is identical with unprincipled opportunism. Naturally nobody says that. However, there is an abysmal contrast between conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of ultimate ends--that is, in religious terms, 'The Christian does rightly and leaves the results with the Lord'--and conduct that follows the maxim of an ethic of responsibility, in which case one has to give an account of the foreseeable results of one's action.

You may demonstrate to a convinced syndicalist, believing in an ethic of ultimate ends, that his action will result in increasing the opportunities of reaction, in increasing the oppression of his class, and obstructing its ascent--and you will not make the slightest impression upon him. If an action of good intent leads to bad results, then, in the actor's eyes, not he but the world, or the stupidity of other men, or God's will who made them thus, is responsible for the evil. However a man who believes in an ethic of responsibility takes account of precisely the average deficiencies of people; as Fichte has correctly said,he does not even have the right to presuppose their goodness and perfection. He does not feel in a position to burden others with the results of his own actions so far as he was able to foresee them; he will say: these results are ascribed to my action. The Believer in an ethic of ultimate ends feels 'responsible' only for seeing to it that the flame of pure intentions is not quelched: for example, the flame of protesting against the injustice of the social order. To rekindle the flame ever anew is the purpose of his quite irrational deeds, judged in view of their possible success. They are acts that can and shall have only exemplary value.*


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It's beauty too. My theory:
> 
> Beauty is a very fine balance between the normal and the strange. Girls are hot specifically because they aren't normal, but are normal. They have eccentric features, but grounded in normalcy. Strangeness is necessary for beauty, but taken too far, and it is worse than average. It's a knife's edge. Beauty requires commonality in some areas, and eccentricity in others. Strangeness is like a polish on average. Don't want to overshine though.


Hear, Hear!

I got to absorb your latter part of your reply first. Brb


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> Hear, Hear!
> 
> I got to absorb your latter part of your reply first. Brb


I love this subject. This is why I like Lee so much. I don't want to "be" anything. I thought I did. I want to be many things. "God is one who wishes to be many." That is Lee, and that is Fe. Lee didn't want to be anybody himself, but the best of everybody else. He became a revolutionary by conforming to the best of things. 

Martial arts. There are many kinds. Judo, Karate, Wrestling, Boxing, etc. a ton of them. Which one is the best at fighting? Lee says, "I'll just cherrypick the best of them all." Everybody does his work for him. He just sorts it out. But people get upset because it is disrespectful. Wrestlers don't punch people, other arts don't choke or break limbs. But those things are necessary to win fights. So, until any single art can defend all those things, they are all frauds. Lee is the ultimate slacker. He had no pride, that is why he could use the useful stuff that pride, and other forms of control, would not allow. He walks up to any art, and just hacks away at everything unuseful. He is like an alien sucking a planet dry of resources, and leaving it in flames. Ultimate hipster. But a hipster for truth. Not style. His style was having no style. His purpose was having no purpose. And that is the greatest philosophy there is.


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling


> When one has no form, one can be all forms. Why be one form? Is there a single ideology that can solve all things?


 Will never ever forget this quote.

It would be lying to myself if I say I understood the essence of you mentioning the ethics of responsibility and ultimate ends. Could you elaborate the point you want to express? I can't bring myself to plainly absorb it. Hope you don't mind. Thanks!


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling I like your admiration for Lee and it does make sense. I think it's our constant need to have an identity that hinders our success. The struggle to be something different from the others. Well, in fact being everything (which also means being average, well in some sense hahaha) is kinda good. Hey you know I was reading this book (I didn't finish it. I just can't bring myself to. Are you interested in the title? If you are, I'll go stand up and check it out). It's all about the power of crowds. At the some part, it says how troublesome it is that we seek help from a certain skilled individual alone, wherein fact we could also get good results with groups.


----------



## EMWUZX (Oct 2, 2014)

> What I'm trying to say is that wouldn't it be better to make her uniqueness tolerable to others? So her skills and other assets would be put into good use?


I agree with this to an extent...

There is a fine line between being tolerable and conforming entirely. No one should simply conform to become tolerable, but adopting certain aspects of conformity can be a very positive thing. One should only adopt virtues of society which they support or are entirely indifferent about. 

For instance, one should not change their religion to get along, that's being fugazi and fraudulent. Changing one's perspective on social interaction, however, can be extremely good for self growth and self discovery. One should not change their inner environment, but adapting one's outer environment to make things easier for the inner is a good idea.

Also, placing importance to certain virtues can be a good thing. If you value the economy more than you support the death penalty, then your views on the death penalty may change to coexist with your economic views.

Simply changing things about yourself is stupid, but going from rebellious to unique can be advantageous to yourself and the world. Think Tesla vs. Edison. Tesla stayed a rebel until the day he died and accomplished little outwardly as a result, despite his genius. Edison, on the other hand, outwardly used what he had, adapted to society and lived a happy life as a result; not to mention he played a large role in inventing and producing one of the most revolutionary inventions in history.

Just my two cents.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ Will never ever forget this quote.
> 
> It would be lying to myself if I say I understood the essence of you mentioning the ethics of responsibility and ultimate ends. Could you elaborate the point you want to express? I can't bring myself to plainly absorb it. Hope you don't mind. Thanks!


Well, people think Fe is fake. Like this issue with Muslim cartoons. This guy wants to exercise his freedom of speech. It is a good idea in principle. But is that man's opinion really worth putting lives at stake? For the flame of pure intentions? It becomes a superstition at that point. I am not condoning violence. But there are people who we know, will probably react violently to these cartoons. So the person who draws them, is involved in the causal chain. Like mechanics. He is part of the mechanism. He cannot detach himself from the violence. He is responsible too. So, I would think that saving lives, is more important than my freedom of expression. I don't need to antagonize others, even if I disagree with them. Especially if it could lead to innocent people being killed. 

Like communism. Communism is supposed to be a long process. Marx knew this. But these other guys just rushed it. Because the idea was too good to fail, they can just make shortcuts. And it caused a huge mess. Marx was a long term guy, these other people were start up revolutionaries. Though one could say Marx overall was just for his cause. At least he saw that he had to work with the world a little, and wait it out.


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

@EMWUZX Couldn't agree more. I think having religion as an example would be brilliant. You could pick any sect that you want to as long as it is inline with your principle. But that doesn't mean you get to bash other people's beliefs just because it's different.

Your Tesla vs Edison example is so good! That's what I'm trying to point out with this thread. There are things we could achieve easier or better if we somehow adapt to the society


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ I like your admiration for Lee and it does make sense. I think it's our constant need to have an identity that hinders our success. The struggle to be something different from the others. Well, in fact being everything (which also means being average, well in some sense hahaha) is kinda good. Hey you know I was reading this book (I didn't finish it. I just can't bring myself to. Are you interested in the title? If you are, I'll go stand up and check it out). It's all about the power of crowds. At the some part, it says how troublesome it is that we seek help from a certain skilled individual alone, wherein fact we could also get good results with groups.


Wisdom of Crowds. I never got around to reading it. I have it actually.

I talk about Lee so much now, it is ridiculous. lol. But I gotta spread the message. Every ideology is a bottle. Everyone wants to eventually find their own bottle. Truth is in a single bottle. Truth is in them all. You get more truth, by going through more bottles. Be true to every bottle, but never stay trapped in one. What is more true than water? It goes with everything. It is clear. It assumes the shape of everything, but remains nothing. It knows it all, but is controlled by nothing. Like Marx. I am not a communist, but Marx is brilliant. I can learn from him.

*“You must be shapeless, formless, like water. When you pour water in a cup, it becomes the cup. When you pour water in a bottle, it becomes the bottle. When you pour water in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Water can flow or it can crash. Become like water my friend.”*


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling Silly me. Haha. I'm starting to get your point. How can you say that people think that Fe is fake? 

And also I think a little of both ethnics of maximum ends and responsibility is good. Though I believe not all the times these two could be both present in a situation.

Let say that I know my friend's partner did something bad. By the concept of eome (ethnics of maximum ends), I have to tell that friend what happened despite knowing the fact that bad things are going to happen. But in a sense, we're actually using eor here. You're responsible enough to carry the burden of being the catalyst of what's going to happen. You're responsible enough to set things straight.

^Did what I just mentioned right in terms of concept or whatsoever?


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

> I talk about Lee so much now, it is ridiculous. lol.


Nah. I actually like the reference. I see good points in what you're trying to justify. Actually us ENTP, as they say we are, are fond of jumping from one idea to another. So not being trapped in a bottle is actually are thing. There are just some close-minded people who can't take other people's perspective and foolishly dismiss it right away.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> @_FearAndTrembling_ Silly me. Haha. I'm starting to get your point. How can you say that people think that Fe is fake?
> 
> And also I think a little of both ethnics of maximum ends and responsibility is good. Though I believe not all the times these two could be both present in a situation.
> 
> ...


People think it is fake, because it has no ideology behind it. Ethics are created in the moment, in a sense. It isn't consistent. The larger picture is though, I guess. 

Both are needed. I agree. 

I have used Abe Lincoln as an analogy for Fe too. People want Lincoln to end slavery quicker. Seems like a reasonable request. The world does not run on magic though. So, we want to go North. Freedom is North. Ultimate ends just wants to go straight North, the truest path. All North. Lincoln says, "You idiots. The map is not the terrain. We go straight north, we will run into a river, fall off a cliff, run into a mountain, etc.. You will get lost." So we have to find the actual path North, not just North. We will get there, but go in slightly different directions along the way. Because that is the only way to get there. That is the ethic of ultimate responsibility.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> Nah. I actually like the reference. I see good points in what you're trying to justify. Actually us ENTP, as they say we are, are fond of jumping from one idea to another. So not being trapped in a bottle is actually are thing. There are just some close-minded people who can't take other people's perspective and foolishly dismiss it right away.


I was talking about this with other ENTP. I use Fe for defense. We let other people make mistakes, and bait them. ENTP do the same. We are slippery as hell. One of them even baited me recently. lol. It's not even trolling, it is just looking for inconsistency. Which is a great thing to look for. I stake people in their posititions, and don't let them move. They hang themselves.


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I was talking about this with other ENTP. I use Fe for defense. We let other people make mistakes, and bait them. ENTP do the same. We are slippery as hell. One of them even baited me recently. lol. It's not even trolling, it is just looking for inconsistency. Which is a great thing to look for. I stake people in their posititions, and don't let them move. They hang themselves.


Isn't that just a cynical way too see people? (If I get what you said right that is xD)


----------



## Zeke (Sep 20, 2014)

> I have used Abe Lincoln as an analogy for Fe too. People want Lincoln to end slavery quicker. Seems like a reasonable request. The world does not run on magic though. So, we want to go North. Freedom is North. Ultimate ends just wants to go straight North, the truest path. All North. Lincoln says, "You idiots. The map is not the terrain. We go straight north, we will run into a river, fall off a cliff, run into a mountain, etc.. You will get lost." So we have to find the actual path North, not just North. We will get there, but go in slightly different directions along the way. Because that is the only way to get there. That is the ethic of ultimate responsibility.



Awesome way to explain it! What I got here is that the difference between those two is how they see the means and ends right? xD


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Zeke said:


> Isn't that just a cynical way too see people? (If I get what you said right that is xD)


It is cynical. But most people have an agenda. Look at politics. I don't even want to be involved with it. Everything is everybody's pet issue. I said that, people think that everyone's tunnel vision, will somehow magically unite with everybody else's tunnel vision, and solve the world. Other pieces matter. Knowing both sides. I know both sides.

That is why Lee says to empty your mind, before every issue. Empty it of that poison. It's basically the scientific method.


----------



## The Chameleon (May 23, 2014)

Zeke said:


> So hello. I was reading this book (e.g. The Girl Who Played With Fire. It's awesome!!). Its main protagonist, namely Lisbeth Salander, is considered different by society. By different I mean, her qualities or how she act is quite unique to what an average woman would. Despite all of these, she's a skilled hacker and intelligent. She's also introverted. If I'm not giving any clear picture of the character I'm describing, please lend me a hand and search for her details. Hahaha.
> 
> Moving on, here's the deal. When I was walking all by myself, I thought "Wouldn't it be better if she acts how the society wants her to?" Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that she has to go with the flow, or totally abide to the society. What I'm trying to say is that wouldn't it be better to make her uniqueness tolerable to others? So her skills and other assets would be put into good use?
> 
> ...


This is really true and I agree fully. 
What I've noticed is that, growing up, you always have adults encouraging you to be unique. But then you're ostracized for being "too unique", for not conforming to societal norms. It's nauseating.


----------



## frenchy21 (Oct 15, 2014)

conformity is both easy and hard. following the herd might appeal more than standing out, but in the end you are not being true to yourself. the more you hide your qualities good and bad, the less tolerant the world will be of different kinds of people. we need the individuals to keep being different, crazy, weird and unique so that doing what everyone else does isn't the easy option.
that being said the onus isn't on you to secure an easy life for those in the future, but surely you dont want to fight yourself


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

@FearAndTrembling I want to say your fanaticism to Lee and flexibility is antithetical to the idea itself, but that is a rabbit hole no one wants to go down.


----------

