T/S : people with no opinion about anything vs people with an opinion about everything

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

you know the types

1. dudes who sit on the fence about everything. no passion no anything about anything in particular. often nice people, and often very clever and objective but hard to have discussion with, due to lack of passion.

2. dudes who have an opinion about absolutely everything in the world, from the world at war to whether or not someone should tie their left shoe's laces first or the right. fun to talk to, sometimes charismatic, but often gets irrationally angry about something that really doesn't matter.

what would you choose if you have to choose between 1. and 2. for...

a) someone to live with for say .. a year
b) someone to go down the pub with
c) someone to marry
d) someone to go for a month-long expedition with
e) as the answer to "who do you prefer out of 1. and 2.?"

I just thought about that.. it's hard!!

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:02 (twenty-one years ago)

i dunno.

― dog latin (dog latin), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:09 (twenty-one years ago)

a) someone to live with for say .. a year

The second one. The first seems pleasant enough in the beginning but can turn out to be passive-aggressive.

b) someone to go down the pub with

as long as they're not angry/aggressive drunks, the second one.

c) someone to marry

do you think i'd really want to marry someone who was passionless??

d) someone to go for a month-long expedition with

see above answer

e) as the answer to "who do you prefer out of 1. and 2.?"

guess.

― Elle a chaud au cul (Jody Beth Rosen), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:11 (twenty-one years ago)

i choose #2

― purple patch (electricsound), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:12 (twenty-one years ago)

what about:

3. "Dudes" who are fit, filthy rich and fuck like a beast of the field?

― Keef Woodwork, Monday, 9 August 2004 09:38 (twenty-one years ago)

a) someone to live with for say .. a year

Number 1. I want my home to be a place of quiet and compromise, not a stimulating place. Home is for rest.

b) someone to go down the pub with

Number 2, without a doubt. Pub conversation is all about getting drunk and shouting about silly subjects.

c) someone to marry

I don't know. I always thought number 2, but one of the biggest problems in my just-past relationship was that Joe and I were both too much like this.

d) someone to go for a month-long expedition with

Depends what the expedition is, but if it's work-related, number 1. I'm there to work, not discuss the world. If it's a holiday, or extended pub break, then maybe number 2, but unlikely.

e) as the answer to "who do you prefer out of 1. and 2.?"

Different things for different situations. If it's by my own choice, and I have my own space to retreat to, I'd far prefer number 2. If it is a situation that I am in for reasons of convenience, or to accomplish a task at hand, I'd rather number 1.

I mean, ideally, it would be a person who has all the fire and passion and intellect of number 2, but is basically able, at the end of the day, to agree to disagree, and recognise that everyone has their own opinion, while still respecting them. That's all I ask!

― Super-Masonic Black Hole (kate), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i think im i between these two types of people, depending on my mood. i suppose this very answer fits into the first one though... oh dear.

― splooge (thesplooge), Monday, 9 August 2004 09:49 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd probably choose 1 for everything, as you know *shrug*

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:14 (twenty-one years ago)

will always prefer people w/an opinion over people w/out. but people w/an opinion on everything and wanting to talk about it = pretty quickly annoying

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:15 (twenty-one years ago)

one of the biggest problems in my just-past relationship was that Joe and I were both too much like this.

I'm most attracted to #2, and I get along best with #2, except when I don't. I don't see any options, though. Anyone mousier than me tends to get drowned out in my noize, which only makes them mousier, which then begins to irritate me far more than an all-out fight would have. I crave competition.

― Harold Media (kenan), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Actually, I'd go for a 1.4. It'd good to be interested in some things, but I still couldn't stand someone who has to have an opinion on bloody everything. I can't really deal with irrational anger, it reflects badly on a person.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i'd like a business card i think that says
'fit, filthy-rich, fuck like a beast of the field'.

effing brilliant that is.

― piscesboy, Monday, 9 August 2004 15:32 (twenty-one years ago)

It's weird: one of the things that sometimes annoys me about my girlfriend is how opinionated she can be, but given the choice I'd rather date someone who has opinions than someone who has none. On the other hand, I'm not sure I know anyone who doesn't have any opinions. What I like most, though (probably because I see myself in this way), is the person who has opinions but who can also see the other side.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:33 (twenty-one years ago)

(I have a really hard time dealing with people who either LOVE something or HATE it, with no in-between.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Here's another way to look at what I want: I want discourse. So, obviously, you have to have opinions to be able to have discourse about them. But the person who's ultra-opinionated often presents a barrier to discourse, because the way they feel is the way it is, and that's that. End of story.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

You kooky American puritanz. What I notice, as I get older, is that I pretty much like everything. (My flatmate even got embarrassed when he came downstairs the other day and I was singing along with the new RHCP video.) Which doesn't preclude LOVING CERTAIN THINGS INTENSELY. I like to think I am growing into some warm Renoir-esque wisdom, where everyone has their reasons. And I like thinking of the lines at the end of one of Donald Barthelme's later essays: that the proper task of criticism is praise... and that which cannot be praised should be surrounded by a careful, well-thought-out silence.

-- Jerry the Nipper (jerrythenippe...), March 8th, 2003.

any takers?

― cºzen (Cozen), Monday, 9 August 2004 15:51 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not the number but the seriousness and sincerity of the opinions that counts.

― |a|m|t|r|s|t| (amateurist), Monday, 9 August 2004 18:20 (twenty-one years ago)

what about the accuracy of the opinion??

i mean, of course a lot of opinions aren't right or wrong, but what if someone's opinion is serious and sincere, but just REALLY ill-informed or reactionary or just plain WRONG?? like constantly wrong? is that still a good thing?

would a person 2. who is like that still be better/more interesting/etc. than 1.?

― ken c (ken c), Monday, 9 August 2004 19:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I call false dichotomy anyway.

― cºzen (Cozen), Monday, 9 August 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

a mix of both is best. I realise that's a boring answer but still!

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 9 August 2004 19:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Type 1 will presumably come out of their shell and actually say interesting-but-carefully-considered stuff if you actually live with them/go out on the piss with them, whereas type 2 will never actually calm down and give it a rest for a while until you disembowel them.

(I'm thinking a type 1 that conforms to all those descriptions is less likely to like, exist than the opinion-on-everything type.)

― Fergal (Ferg), Monday, 9 August 2004 19:44 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.