this post was submitted on 16 Mar 2025
44 points (94.0% liked)

Casual Conversation

2776 readers
201 users here now

Share a story, ask a question, or start a conversation about (almost) anything you desire. Maybe you'll make some friends in the process.


RULES (updated 01/22/25)

  1. Be respectful: no harassment, hate speech, bigotry, and/or trolling. To be concise, disrespect is defined by escalation.
  2. Encourage conversation in your OP. This means including heavily implicative subject matter when you can and also engaging in your thread when possible. You won't be punished for trying.
  3. Avoid controversial topics (politics or societal debates come to mind, though we are not saying not to talk about anything that resembles these). There's a guide in the protocol book offered as a mod model that can be used for that; it's vague until you realize it was made for things like the rule in question. At least four purple answers must apply to a "controversial" message for it to be allowed.
  4. Keep it clean and SFW: No illegal content or anything gross and inappropriate. A rule of thumb is if a recording of a conversation put on another platform would get someone a COPPA violation response, that exact exchange should be avoided when possible.
  5. No solicitation such as ads, promotional content, spam, surveys etc. The chart redirected to above applies to spam material as well, which is one of the reasons its wording is vague, as it applies to a few things. Again, a "spammy" message must be applicable to four purple answers before it's allowed.
  6. Respect privacy as well as truth: Don’t ask for or share any personal information or slander anyone. A rule of thumb is if something is enough info to go by that it "would be a copyright violation if the info was art" as another group put it, or that it alone can be used to narrow someone down to 150 physical humans (Dunbar's Number) or less, it's considered an excess breach of privacy. Slander is defined by intentional utilitarian misguidance at the expense (positive or negative) of a sentient entity. This often links back to or mixes with rule one, which implies, for example, that even something that is true can still amount to what slander is trying to achieve, and that will be looked down upon.

Casual conversation communities:

Related discussion-focused communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I always assume that my brain is structured in a way that at least 5% of people could relate to my general thought processes, but it turns out that some of my experiences of being a human are really just a "me" thing. I've often told myself that I'm just like everyone else, and that all of my personality traits are explainable by a mishmash of stereotypes and systemic influences. But I guess there's more to it than that, and I've been selling myself a bit short.

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

When I was a kid, I had this weird though process of the idea of "souls", but then like if my "soul" is made of similar "essense" as other people's "souls", then whats the diffence between "me" and other people who also have this concept of "me". Like, are we all part of this one giant entity from which all "souls" derive from? Or do our souls just spontsneously exist without any origin/source. And why am I this souls, but not the other souls?

Okay I probably make zero sense, right? Yea, I never really talked to anyone about this. Existence makes no fucking sense. Why am I experiencing existence through this body, but not another body?

Maybe The Egg is the secret to the universe that ~~we~~ I haven't realized yet.

[–] koncertejo@lemmy.ml 8 points 7 hours ago

For me it's the opposite: I'm always shocked when broadly different people end up aligning on certain similar traits along multiple axes. Like conlanging and Linux or trans girls and communism.

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

I can't get over the fact that due to how thoughts work in our brain, we can't even be certain that when we are looking at something that is red, we are seeing the same color. How our mind interprets the shared data we get from external stimuli isn't necessarily shared itself. And we can't really describe color in any way other than with feelings, or the hard data of physics and wavelengths and how light interacts with the eyes (again, tho, not how the mind interprets that data). There isn't even a word for what I am talking about other than "color."

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 2 points 6 hours ago

There is a word in philosophy of mind—the qualia of redness.

[–] shinigamiookamiryuu@lemm.ee 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago)

The opposite extreme is also true and something I have faced, where people can even be mistaken between one another because people forget that no mindset is at 0%. It's not like DNA where nature makes sure we all have a unique said (heck handwriting and signatures aren't even like DNA, which has always been a bombshell whenever I bring it up), and there is no hard rule about how often two people coincidentally operate the same way, something that has made its way into the world of scientists.

[–] peaches@lemm.ee 7 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Imagine the following: you see a room with a table and a chair in the middle. On top of the table there is a ball. A kid comes into the room, climbs the chair and tries to grab the ball that sits on the table. Did you finish imagining? I want you to answer for yourself now what was the color of the hair of the kid? What about of what he was wearing? Did you imagine these kind of details or you just imagined some concepts?

In my case I did see all the details and many more. My imagination is like a movie. I can imagine my future house with a lot of details inside. I can build it and rebuild it in my mind. Some people have problems to do that.

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Don't assume the gender of my imaginary child.

[–] peaches@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago

Ha ha, true! I was imagining a boy.

[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

What did the ball smell like? That smelly rubber smell? What did the chair and table feel like? Could you feel the texture of the wood and the coolness? How did it feel to walk and move, like when you had your child body?

[–] peaches@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

So you imagined you were the child? Interesting.

[–] qyron@sopuli.xyz 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

This line of thought always leads me towards a silly sentence: logic is a sacred cow that as nothing sacred to it.

Most people take logic as granted. It is a basic element of human minds, thoughts and how those are externally expressed. But what is logical to one individual may be completely illogical to another.

Even if expressed in rigourously defined terms and expressions, the ideas a given logical sequence tries to convey and explain may be totally and completely flawed and irrelevant to another or simply wrong.

We are able to share concepts in its widest of forms but we can never truely and correctly express what we really think and understand to another because we are, in fact, even if in the most minute of ways, unique.

So, don't sell yourself short.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 1 points 7 hours ago

But logic isn't innate. It's a pattern. And human brains are basically very good at patterns.

But there are many, many, many patterns in life and logic is only one of them (and it isn't even particularly useful if you don't have some other patterns backing it up).

[–] MelonYellow@lemmy.ca 8 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

It's more either or, but whether your thoughts are spoken (hearing your thoughts) or images (seeing your thoughts) is a good one. Makes for an interesting conversation to have with friends and family!

[–] Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I feel like I lean mostly towards images, with words coming in when needed (imagining conversations, thinking about explaining something, etc). Visual thinking is a much faster ‘processing lane’ for me.

I was thinking about this subject just this morning when I was making oatmeal and groggily trying to remember what ingredient my oatmeal was missing; in a few instants the image of cinnamon in the oatmeal, our container of cinnamon, and where the cinnamon was in the drawer all flashed in my mind as images. How would someone who thinks in words do that? Do the words just come as fast for them as images do for me?

[–] Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone 2 points 4 hours ago

I think about the process of making porridge.

Step one heat pot Two add oats 3 water 4 cook 5 cinnamon Ohh missed the cinnamon

These steps run through my brain very fast, but that's how it goes.

I can't fathom having pictures in my brain to understand the world outside.

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I once managed to puzzle our HR person into silence when I explained why I did something a certain way.

[–] CheeseToastie@lazysoci.al 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Are you neurodiverse? Cos we often think outside the box

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I don't have any official diagnosis or anything, but some neurodivergent friends have sent me some stuff and I'm probably some form of neurodivergent, yeah.

[–] CheeseToastie@lazysoci.al 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Have you considered getting assessed? I really didn't think it would make a difference but it changed my life

[–] Zzyzx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 hour ago

I have looked into it, but even getting an appointment to get assessed where I live is a waiting period of like a year or so...

[–] Today@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago

We're all a combination of nature and nurture. No one is totally unique and no one is exactly the same.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 14 hours ago

Recently experienced this with my wife. We both described ourselves as internally organizing information "like bullet points".

She means memorization of countless individual facts all stored/categorized at the same level.

I tend to use bullet point lists to organize things hierarchically. Least indented is the high level takeaway, indented ones below are extended info for the less indented point above. That's how I tend to organize knowledge. I've learned that apparently this is not as ubiquitous as I believed.

It illuminates some deep seated causes behind a some of the friction in our relationship, but unfortunately it doesn't do much to help me see any way around them unfortunately.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Can you give some examples?

[–] sprigatito_bread@lemmy.world 4 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

I used to think it required an emotional connection for most people to find someone else "hot," because that's how I work. But it turns out that I'm in a small minority.

[–] ZDL@ttrpg.network 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I can appreciate æsthetics independently of emotion.

But I need emotion to get "turned on".

So I'm in this weird space where I can admire the looks of people (in about the same way that most people admire scenery) without wanting to fuck same (in about the same way that most people don't want to fuck a forest ... or a couch).

[–] sprigatito_bread@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I've heard that's called aesthetic attraction! I experience that too.

I'm attracted to gentle and caring personalities, and I've found that I am most aesthetically attracted to soft, rounded features, seemingly because I subconsciously associate them with kindness and approachability, regardless how true that actually is.

I think it's really fascinating how my aesthetic attraction seems to have taken input from my emotional attraction without me even being consciously aware of it. The more I learn about myself, the more it seems like my brain was orchestrating a plan to create a specific kind of relationship, and all of my attractions and even my own gender expression were coordinating to make it real.

[–] NotLemming@lemm.ee 4 points 10 hours ago

I think the name for that is being demi sexual

[–] untorquer@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago

I've grown into this way of thinking and feeling. I used to see attractiveness in aesthetics with emotional connection as an after thought.