Fractally misfit - Revision history

Issa at 08:04, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T08:04:17Z

Issa at 08:01, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T08:01:21Z

Issa at 08:00, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T08:00:03Z

Issa at 07:59, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T07:59:32Z

Issa at 07:57, 24 September 2021

2021-09-24T07:57:37Z

Issa: Created page with "Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misf..."

2021-09-24T07:57:02Z

Created page with "Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misf..."

New page

Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community. Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:04, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.	+	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community; or in any case, what is how it feels.

	Interests are fractal, so being a misfit is also fractal. But also: there's a fine line between "too popular that there's a bunch of people I don't like" (like math in general) vs "too rare that nobody but me cares about it" (like my specific way of writing about math). So I need to find some balance that includes some people but not others, that compromises some of my originality but keeps others...?		Interests are fractal, so being a misfit is also fractal. But also: there's a fine line between "too popular that there's a bunch of people I don't like" (like math in general) vs "too rare that nobody but me cares about it" (like my specific way of writing about math). So I need to find some balance that includes some people but not others, that compromises some of my originality but keeps others...?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:01, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.		Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.
		+
		+	Interests are fractal, so being a misfit is also fractal. But also: there's a fine line between "too popular that there's a bunch of people I don't like" (like math in general) vs "too rare that nobody but me cares about it" (like my specific way of writing about math). So I need to find some balance that includes some people but not others, that compromises some of my originality but keeps others...?

	==See also==		==See also==

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:00, 24 September 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	* [[List of reasons something isn't popular or successful]]		* [[List of reasons something isn't popular or successful]]
		+
		+	==What links here==
		+
		+	{{Special:WhatLinksHere/{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:59, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.		Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.
		+
		+	==See also==
		+
		+	* [[List of reasons something isn't popular or successful]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:57, 24 September 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community. Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.	+	Some people ("socially well-adjusted people") fit into the default/mainstream society and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree. Of the remaining people ("the misfits"), some of them form fields/communities/subcultures such as the broader STEM community, and are popular/charismatic/well-liked to some degree within this community. Within this community there are also misfits, and some of them form a sub-community, such as the rationalist community or the math nerds community (these groups then have their own sub-communities of misfits, like heterodox EA or whatever). Of course, reality isn't as simple as this (e.g. there are people in the sub-community who are also well-liked in some broader community), but I hope this makes sense to some extent. Now, I think one of the distinct properties of ''what it's like to be me'' is that as we keep narrowing down the communities into misfits of misfits of misfits, I am still a misfit among the sub-sub-sub-...-community.