I am a dull man by every measure. I don't have interesting hobbies, I am not an influencer, I don't post interesting posts on social media and I don't travel a lot, I don't do extreme things, I barely have any money at the moment, I bore others, in fact when I try to amuse my colleagues or the opposite sex, my jokes regularly fall flat and even my voice is dull I believe.
But after my kids were born I noticed something: my kids loved my voice, they listened to every sentence I made, they laughed at my quirky jokes I made and they loved when I sang to them or I brought them to the park or to the nursery and when I sat them on my neck. My wife took all that from me though, so now I need to fight to get my kids back.
But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective. Even if you think you are dull, chances are you are not. It's just the world such a place now that the bar is raised too high that most ordinary people can't cross even by jumping over the moon.
So I don't care any more what others think of me. I came to accept my dullness and embraced it. If it bores others, I don't care.
wvh 3 minutes ago [-]
I think this story sounds familiar to a lot of us, especially as men who likely spend less time on social media comparing and FOMOing. Let's hope you get your kids back too and somebody new will get enchanted by your "boring" voice.
secondcoming 18 minutes ago [-]
That's great, but what's your shoe size?
bmacho 1 hours ago [-]
> But after my kids were born I noticed something: my kids loved my voice, they listened to every sentence I made, they laughed at my quirky jokes I made and they loved when I sang to them or I brought them to the park or to the nursery and when I sat them on my neck. My wife took all that from me though, so now I need to fight to get my kids back.
> But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective.
Meh. Kids (or dogs) don't know better, they are just little love machines with literally 0 knowledge outside of you. That doesn't mean that dullness is a perspective, or they wouldn't benefit from it if you were just smarter, better, more interesting.
rester324 1 hours ago [-]
Maybe, but you forgot to write what's the benefit...?!
ecshafer 15 hours ago [-]
The Dull Men's Club group of facebook is actually oddly interesting. I would classify it more as a group who point out the very small oddities of every day life that are not very interesting. There is a post where someone saw two geese with 42 bay geese, another where the rental company fixed a door with a piece of pool noodle. Its more like a "huh that's kind of weird I guess" group.
altacc 3 hours ago [-]
It's the facebook version of r/mildlyinteresting on Reddit, which is also very popular. I think it's because this is the kind of thing that fills our days: small oddities and observations that spark our brain but aren't exceptional.
potato3732842 32 minutes ago [-]
>It's the facebook version of r/mildlyinteresting on Reddit, which is also very popular.
By virtue of the implied difference in demographics that's still a categorical change.
AlecSchueler 2 hours ago [-]
Except this one is gendered, so somewhat more exclusive?
potato3732842 31 minutes ago [-]
If your demographic information is important to your contributions to a group like that you're doing it very wrong.
altacc 2 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's exclusive. There is no gate keeping and there seems to be a high ratio of female post creators and commentators. Reddit is 60/40 male dominated, so is also skewered towards male content.
Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
xelxebar 6 hours ago [-]
One of my favorite books is The Mezzanine[0], which takes place entirely as a man ascends a single elevator but spins off onto all kinds of tangents that comment on and express exuberance about the most mundane things.
There's an entire thread on the evolution of stapler design, elaborations on the invention of perforations, and abundant self-reflection. It's almost like a hybrid of Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" and Hegel.
There's something magical about paying close attention to the mundane, IMHO.
Speaking of paying close attention to the mundane, it’s an escalator.
ThisNameIsTaken 3 hours ago [-]
Wow, that book sounds like a mix of Johan Harstad's footnote riddled Forsaken/The Red Handler (and who's Max, Mischa & Tetoffensiven even is about 'idling') and George Perec's An Attempt at Exhausting a Place in Paris[1]. As you say, the almost childlike fascination with the mundane is really valuable, it helps to guide my own eyes when wandering the city.
There's high praise in some movies or animation where they depict the mundane; the long sequence in Ghost in the Shell just showing the city as it is, away from the main story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTLckN9e7I), most of Studio Ghibli's films, a lot of Breaking Bad and especially Better Call Saul, where there's a lot of scenes of people just going about their day, John Travolta getting a can of paint and a pizza in the opening of Saturday Night Fever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfwQ_7xqO7Y), etc.
__alias 3 hours ago [-]
My fave I remember seeing years ago was one where a man - over some long period of time - managed to park in every single parking space of a supermarket.
I feel like this energy perfectly encapsulates what dull mans club is all about
Recently some spinoff/copycat groups have also sprouted up. There’s a “Dull Men’s Forum”, and a “Dull Men’s Fun Club”, for example, which post similar memes. And a “Dull Women’s Club” as well (even though I also often see women posting in the Dull Men’s Club, I suppose women on average have different sensibilities about where to draw the line between dull and interesting).
I view this as a sign that the group has become too popular and lots its “edge” (which in this case was its authentic dullness), and now is just a place for farming likes and impressions from the broader FB community. A lot of it is quite derivative of other popular posts - “what is the purpose of this thing I found in my hotel/new house/grandma’s house” posts seems to be a really common theme, for example.
gambiting 12 hours ago [-]
I had to block it because I realized it just completely overtook my feed and 99% of it was in that "interesting but ultimately forgettable within 30 seconds of reading it" zone that's filling up social media. I mean it lived up to its name - it's very "dull" if vaguely interesting.
skeeter2020 12 hours ago [-]
this is the part of the internet that everyone would be better off avoiding: not bad but no long-term value. When the internet was novel and your engagement limited these were rarer, cool things to share (often face to face!). Now this content is internet sugar that will be the health crisis of a generation.
kalleboo 11 hours ago [-]
Isn't that most of Hacker News as well? "Oh that's an interesting technical solution - which is completely irrelevant to the work I'm doing"
strken 3 hours ago [-]
The neat thing about HN is that I can nearly always find at least one thing on the front page that's useful to me, especially if I read the discussion.
Just looking through now, Canine is interesting because it's similar to Dokku, which I already use. I might consider using Canine in a similar role in the future if I want k8s with buildpacks.
The Dull Men's Club groups aren't like that. The needle to hay ratio is far worse. It's all "huh, cool" coincidences and mysterious objects, but nobody really intends to show the world anything useful.
brudgers 6 hours ago [-]
The standard on Hacker News is intellectually interesting.
“I saw geese,” ordinarily wouldn’t meet it (though in imagined contexts it would, of course).
Or as described in The New Yorker, HN is often about performative erudition, as perhaps is the case with this GEB’ish sentence.
nottorp 4 hours ago [-]
Nothing is completely irrelevant. It's just very hard to point out when and where some post on HN about properly frobnicating a wickie [1] server in a data center in South Baluchistan will subtly help your development decisions at your current or future job.
[1] What is a wickie server? Damned if i know. But I'm sure there is someone on HN who has done one.
colechristensen 6 hours ago [-]
I'd agree with you if there was anything else of value on my facebook feed.
mafro 4 hours ago [-]
One of the few Facebook groups I stayed in over time. It has a very British sense of self-deprecating humour. We're all amused by our mutual dullness.
_fat_santa 12 hours ago [-]
This is a cool concept but I have an issue with one being "dull" on a conceptual level. Personally I think that every single person on earth is both the dullest person you have ever met and the most interesting person on earth, it just depends on your perspective.
I have friends that play DnD which I personally find very dull but hearing them talk about it, it's clear they do not see it the same way. Conversely I love cars and talking about cars and I can talk with another gearhead for hours on the topic, but the times my wife has listened in on my conversations she said it was the most boring thing she has ever heard in her life.
kergonath 12 hours ago [-]
> Personally I think that every single person on earth is both the dullest person you have ever met and the most interesting person on earth, it just depends on your perspective.
You are most certainly right, but I don’t think that this is in contradiction with how the Club works. Everyone is dull and interesting depending on the situation and the audience. The Club is for when you found or saw something interesting and important to you, but your audience disagree, does not notice, or does not care.
Nobody is fundamentally dull, but everybody is being dull at some point.
hug 8 hours ago [-]
I don't know why this perspective bothers me so much, but it does. This idea that people are alternatively dull or interesting feels wrong to me, on a kind of visceral level. So far so that I'm having trouble marshaling my thoughts enough that I can tell you why. It's like there's an intuition gap so large I'm getting vertigo. Nothing here is intended to say that the way you feel about it is invalid, but I need to write out my own feelings in order to put my brain's feet back on solid ground.
It feels entirely backwards to me that there is some kind of dull/exciting switch that flips and a person becomes dull or exciting, depending on whether the observer finds the topic the person is speaking about interesting. The one at fault (such that there is any) for the lack of interest isn't usually the speaker, surely?
I have a friend who works in a field that most people absolutely find completely uninteresting (and, to be frank, I am also uninterested in the field in general), but when we sit and have a pint after work and have a chat, I can't help but be engaged because there is more to learn about everything, and while the technical minutiae of his trade is unexciting, the conversation is not. I know more about turbidity now than I ever expected or needed to, but I don't feel like it was time wasted.
Swap me out for an analog of your wife, and the guy flips from interesting to dull? That seems unfair, for some reason, not that fairness should really ever into it. Just because an interest isn't shared doesn't mean it should be derided as dull, right?
And, y'know, conversely, I know a dull guy. Like, I like to think I'm a good conversationalist. I can hold my own in a chat with basically anyone. But this guy. He sink-holes literally anything you try to say. One word answers. You can drag out the most maniacal story of the past few years of your life, a story that every single person you've ever talked to about it has been engaged and you get a good back and forth and a bit of patter, but this guy: "Oh, cool". And he's like that with everyone. Play word association, you say salt, I say pepper, you say this guy's name, I say dull. All of this seems really mean, but I'm pretty sure he's happy being that guy. I mean who knows what his actual inner thoughts about the matter might be, because you'll never get him to say anything worth listening to about it.
And this, I think, is probably the crux of why I'm so not on board with the way you see it. My friend and my boring friend are not the same, vis-a-vis in a dullness competition. They're not even in the same weight class.
Anyway. Perspectives. Weird, huh?
somenameforme 5 hours ago [-]
Ah, but perhaps you're proving the point? Is it not possible, if not probable, that the fellow you're referencing simply considers you dull? For instance I would, in general, tend to have little interest engaging with a good conversationalist, because I often find that that that, especially in an American context, boils down to inoffensive superficiality at length, owing to the nature of banter without purpose, which is what most conversation for the sake of conversation is.
For one who enjoys engaging in such, I'd certainly appear dull, because I'm not going to partake in it, especially if one starts overtly using my name repeatedly, because I find it dull and artificial. By contrast, express a novel or distinct perspective on something I find relevant, mastery of some interesting skill or whatever, and we'd certainly be having some fun.
romanhn 16 hours ago [-]
Reminds me of the Dullest Blog in the World (https://dullestblog.com), which I frequently checked out more than 20 years ago. Hilarious to see a new entry just a couple years back.
agnishom 7 hours ago [-]
Fascinating. The blog claims to be dull, and I am sure it is: but, it is no different from 'influencer content' except that those come with audiovisuals.
guicen 6 hours ago [-]
There’s something oddly comforting about this. In a world where everyone’s trying to stand out, some people find peace in just noticing ordinary things. Maybe being "boring" is underrated. You don’t always need a big story to feel connected. Sometimes it's enough to care about small details nobody else pays attention to.
fiftyacorn 3 hours ago [-]
I think its an age thing - you spend your youth thinking its important to fit in - but then reach a point where you realise you are who you are and just accept it
Reminds me of the proof that all natural numbers are interesting. If there is some set of uninteresting natural numbers, there must be a minimal element of that set. It being the smallest uninteresting number is interesting which is a contradiction.
bee_rider 7 hours ago [-]
Of course, it sort of a joke, and so having an element of surprise helps it. But really, the properties that make a number “interesting” should probably be defined from the outset. By including “the smallest member of any set is interesting,” at the start, the joke is kind of blown because the result becomes obvious, right?
Edit: oh, are there uninteresting reals?
rzzzt 13 hours ago [-]
Why aren't all numbers in the set uninteresting? Did someone make a mistake when defining it?
Perhaps the minimal element should be removed from the set; there will be plenty of members that still remain.
Cerium 12 hours ago [-]
Serious response? In that case the set still has a smallest member which can then be removed, if we keep going eventually there will be no uninteresting numbers remaining.
leereeves 12 hours ago [-]
The problem with that is the explanation of why each number is interesting becomes:
the smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers
the second smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers
the third ...
...
That version of "interesting" quickly becomes "not interesting". The concept simply defies mathematical logic.
kbelder 11 hours ago [-]
It reminds me about the logic puzzle of the criminal sentenced to death, where the judge says "you will be executed on or before Sunday, and you won't know what day it will be until we come for you."
The criminal knows it can't be Sunday, because he would wake up on Sunday and know he was going to be executed that day. But if Sunday isn't possible, on Saturday he would know he was being executed that day; so Saturday wasn't possible either. The same reasoning can be repeatedly applied to every day between now and Sunday.
It's obviously flawed reasoning (Surprise! they execute you on Thursday), but the flaw is difficult to articulate.
jameshart 11 hours ago [-]
This isn't how math works.
When you get to the point in a proof of the irrationality of root two where you've demonstrated that if it is expressible as a fraction p/q, then both p and q have to be even, you don't then need to proceed to prove that if they're both even, then they both have to be divisible by four, and then if they're both divisible by four, that means they're both divisible by eight...
I mean, you can, but you don't have to.
You can just say 'if it's a rational number then it has a reduced form where p and q have gcf of 1, so if p and q would both have to be even, that is a contradiction'.
Same with the 'set of uninteresting numbers'. If 'being uninteresting' is a property numbers can have, then the 'set of uninteresting numbers' exists, and it has a least member. Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers is interesting.
You don't have to infinitely regress from here and get tied up in knots saying that surely there is some 'first truly uninteresting number' to prove that the set is actually empty - you can just see that you must have gone wrong somewhere. Either:
1) Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume.
or
2) 'Being uninteresting' is not a property numbers can have
I think actually of the two, 1) is more likely the case.
But that doesn't defy mathematical logic. It is a consequence of mathematical logic.
rzzzt 5 hours ago [-]
If someone tasks me to create a set of even/prime/blue/rectangular/crunchy/uninteresting numbers I have two options:
1) I list each and every number that is part of the set. It is OK if the set is countably infinite, we can wait.
2a) I grab my special black box that receives a number and lights up a red or a green LED depending on whether the input is a member of my conjured up set or not;
2b) I grab the other special black box, this one has a single LED (to indicate it is switched on) and a push button which prints out the next member of the set on infinite 7-segment displays. The box is a bit wider than the 2a) unit.
These are mostly traversable, e.g. my 2b) generator could be built from a counter and a 2a) tester, or my 2a) tester could use a table lookup backed by a 1) list for all I know.
What they can/should not do is retroactively change their mind on the membership of a particular number:
- It is either in the 1) list or not, no erasers, no backsies;
- 2a) should always respond with the same LED for a given number, no moon phase lookups, no RNG, no checking of previous LED responses;
- 2b) can not even be rewound so it is impossible to tell if it would produce or skip the number, should we coerce it somehow to start again (we can't).
So using any of the two and a half mechanisms lead us to a set where the minimal element should have the same property as any other element: it is exactly as even/prime/blue/rectangular/crunchy or uninteresting as the rest of the set.
Dylan16807 5 hours ago [-]
3) Numbers can be uninteresting, but the property is not binary.
leereeves 10 hours ago [-]
There's a third option. The definition of uninteresting we're using may be flawed. Here's a quick stab at a more rigorous approach:
We could start by defining a set of "all numbers that are uninteresting other than by membership or position in this set".
That describes the set the proof naively called "interesting numbers" without the contradiction.
Then we could create a second set with all members of the first set except those that are interesting because of where they are in that set (smallest, whatever). This is a new version of "interesting numbers" that approaches the version in the original proof but is, in human terms, less interesting. As you said, "Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume."
We could repeat that, making a sequence of sets that approach the definition of interesting in the original proof, but the definition of each set is progressively less interesting in human terms.
Then if we really want to be rigorous, we could talk about "first degree interesting" (what most people mean), "nth degree interesting", or "asymptotically interesting", but the last one is an empty set.
11 hours ago [-]
Tade0 13 hours ago [-]
My algebra 101 professor made this exact argument.
RyanMathewson 8 hours ago [-]
James May, former host on Top Gear, now has a show titled “James May and the Dull Men“ (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt32651187). I find it delightfully dull to watch.
SlowTao 7 hours ago [-]
Yes, this is were I found out it is NOT a good idea to cook your curry in a washing machine.
danielodievich 14 hours ago [-]
One of my most favorite places in nearby oregon is the community of Boring, OR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boring,_Oregon. Exceptionally lovely place. I've yet to visit it's sister town of Dull in Scotland, but I hope someday to remedy that, albeit with measured levels of excitement
ahazred8ta 10 hours ago [-]
Bland, Australia (NSW) joined the group in 2017.
zh3 16 hours ago [-]
I will exclude myself from this club by finding it interesting enough to comment on.
andyjohnson0 15 hours ago [-]
> I will exclude myself from this club by finding it interesting enough to comment on.
I immediately thought of the interesting number paradox
I find some posts interesting, but most comments utterly stupid and a huge waste of time, although there is an occasional gem.
15 hours ago [-]
dalmo3 14 hours ago [-]
No banana for scale?
smj-edison 13 hours ago [-]
And no shoe size!
thinkingtoilet 14 hours ago [-]
I laughed out loud at this line. It feels like something out of Futurama:
>Australian member Andrew McKean, 85, had dullness thrust upon him.
b0a04gl 7 hours ago [-]
there's a kind of quiet intent behind the love for mundaneness. it's controlled input. predictable, low-stakes, non-escalating moments. in a feed wired for urgency and reaction, these neutral observations offer relief. one of way to stay connected without overhead. it's kinda not shallow but stable
sandworm101 15 hours ago [-]
I think once you are features in a guardian article, you arent dull anymore. Building model airplanes in a shed is dull. Being so good at building them that journalists take time to visit you is not.
chubot 15 hours ago [-]
I don’t think building model airplanes is dull. I’d say doom scrolling and para-social behavior are the modern dull things
BizarroLand 14 hours ago [-]
This is pretty true. Brilliance is marked at many levels by not doing what everyone else does, after all.
It's also marked by doing what other people do better than they do.
Lonerly contrarianism is not a cornerstone of brilliance.
kergonath 12 hours ago [-]
> I think once you are features in a guardian article, you arent dull anymore.
Come on, the Graun is the epitome of dull middle class.
"There are many men in London, you know, who, some from shyness, some from misanthropy, have no wish for the company of their fellows. Yet they are not averse to comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. It is for the convenience of these that the Diogenes Club was started, and it now contains the most unsociable and unclubbable men in town. No member is permitted to take the least notice of any other one. Save in the Stranger's Room, no talking is, under any circumstances, allowed, and three offences, if brought to the notice of the committee, render the talker liable to expulsion. My brother was one of the founders, and I have myself found it a very soothing atmosphere."
calvinmorrison 14 hours ago [-]
if you're interested in the opposite, finding the intrigue or fascinating in the seemingly mundane, you might be a candidate for the RR&R. The most recent topic was an elaborate history of a Oklahoma state senator based on some old telegrams found in a junk shop.
Aw man, this sounded like just my kind of place. But...
> It’s a sentiment eagerly embraced by The Dull Men’s Club. Several million members in a number of connected Facebook groups strive to cause dullness in others on a daily basis.
Apparently I'm too dull to even have a FB account. I know it's a bit tongue in cheek, but in the name of maximum dullness, something with UX closer to this site seems much more appropriate than a Facebook group.
reg_dunlop 14 hours ago [-]
I guess this explains my affinity for nocss.club
13 hours ago [-]
notnmeyer 14 hours ago [-]
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks.
i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
wccrawford 13 hours ago [-]
Only if you don't have cats. If you have cats, "under" is the only sane choice.
GianFabien 12 hours ago [-]
Don't you love all the punctures in the paper?
dgfitz 13 hours ago [-]
If you have cats you’ve willing given up your sanity.
GianFabien 12 hours ago [-]
ouch! that is a catty comment.
shiroiuma 9 hours ago [-]
It depends on the cat, and how your home is set up. In my lifetime, I've only had one cat that played with the toilet paper. In my current place, the toilet is in a separate room by itself, and the door is kept closed, so the cat can't even get in there.
robocat 13 hours ago [-]
There must be a confounding variable: are you an engineer-type?
What traits are correlated with overing?
Do underers look at the world differently?
And it is a false dichotomy. Some people just don't care what direction when they replace the roll - what's a suitable name for that clade? And then there's the people who use the floor and ignore the holder.
notnmeyer 10 hours ago [-]
overers see the world as it is and live to solve problems.
underers are frantically trying to fix their broken lives.
nihilists lacking opinions are empty shells.
Volundr 12 hours ago [-]
Mine is in the under configuration, due to being near an AC vent that will sometimes unspool the whole roll in the over configuration.
But after my kids were born I noticed something: my kids loved my voice, they listened to every sentence I made, they laughed at my quirky jokes I made and they loved when I sang to them or I brought them to the park or to the nursery and when I sat them on my neck. My wife took all that from me though, so now I need to fight to get my kids back.
But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective. Even if you think you are dull, chances are you are not. It's just the world such a place now that the bar is raised too high that most ordinary people can't cross even by jumping over the moon.
So I don't care any more what others think of me. I came to accept my dullness and embraced it. If it bores others, I don't care.
> But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective.
Meh. Kids (or dogs) don't know better, they are just little love machines with literally 0 knowledge outside of you. That doesn't mean that dullness is a perspective, or they wouldn't benefit from it if you were just smarter, better, more interesting.
By virtue of the implied difference in demographics that's still a categorical change.
Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
There's an entire thread on the evolution of stapler design, elaborations on the invention of perforations, and abundant self-reflection. It's almost like a hybrid of Leonard Read's "I, Pencil" and Hegel.
There's something magical about paying close attention to the mundane, IMHO.
Praise dullness!
[0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mezzanine
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Attempt_at_Exhausting_a_Pla...
I feel like this energy perfectly encapsulates what dull mans club is all about
Gentlemen, have you heard The curious tale of Bhutan's playable record postage stamps (2015)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054775
I view this as a sign that the group has become too popular and lots its “edge” (which in this case was its authentic dullness), and now is just a place for farming likes and impressions from the broader FB community. A lot of it is quite derivative of other popular posts - “what is the purpose of this thing I found in my hotel/new house/grandma’s house” posts seems to be a really common theme, for example.
Just looking through now, Canine is interesting because it's similar to Dokku, which I already use. I might consider using Canine in a similar role in the future if I want k8s with buildpacks.
The Dull Men's Club groups aren't like that. The needle to hay ratio is far worse. It's all "huh, cool" coincidences and mysterious objects, but nobody really intends to show the world anything useful.
“I saw geese,” ordinarily wouldn’t meet it (though in imagined contexts it would, of course).
Or as described in The New Yorker, HN is often about performative erudition, as perhaps is the case with this GEB’ish sentence.
[1] What is a wickie server? Damned if i know. But I'm sure there is someone on HN who has done one.
I have friends that play DnD which I personally find very dull but hearing them talk about it, it's clear they do not see it the same way. Conversely I love cars and talking about cars and I can talk with another gearhead for hours on the topic, but the times my wife has listened in on my conversations she said it was the most boring thing she has ever heard in her life.
You are most certainly right, but I don’t think that this is in contradiction with how the Club works. Everyone is dull and interesting depending on the situation and the audience. The Club is for when you found or saw something interesting and important to you, but your audience disagree, does not notice, or does not care.
Nobody is fundamentally dull, but everybody is being dull at some point.
It feels entirely backwards to me that there is some kind of dull/exciting switch that flips and a person becomes dull or exciting, depending on whether the observer finds the topic the person is speaking about interesting. The one at fault (such that there is any) for the lack of interest isn't usually the speaker, surely?
I have a friend who works in a field that most people absolutely find completely uninteresting (and, to be frank, I am also uninterested in the field in general), but when we sit and have a pint after work and have a chat, I can't help but be engaged because there is more to learn about everything, and while the technical minutiae of his trade is unexciting, the conversation is not. I know more about turbidity now than I ever expected or needed to, but I don't feel like it was time wasted.
Swap me out for an analog of your wife, and the guy flips from interesting to dull? That seems unfair, for some reason, not that fairness should really ever into it. Just because an interest isn't shared doesn't mean it should be derided as dull, right?
And, y'know, conversely, I know a dull guy. Like, I like to think I'm a good conversationalist. I can hold my own in a chat with basically anyone. But this guy. He sink-holes literally anything you try to say. One word answers. You can drag out the most maniacal story of the past few years of your life, a story that every single person you've ever talked to about it has been engaged and you get a good back and forth and a bit of patter, but this guy: "Oh, cool". And he's like that with everyone. Play word association, you say salt, I say pepper, you say this guy's name, I say dull. All of this seems really mean, but I'm pretty sure he's happy being that guy. I mean who knows what his actual inner thoughts about the matter might be, because you'll never get him to say anything worth listening to about it.
And this, I think, is probably the crux of why I'm so not on board with the way you see it. My friend and my boring friend are not the same, vis-a-vis in a dullness competition. They're not even in the same weight class.
Anyway. Perspectives. Weird, huh?
For one who enjoys engaging in such, I'd certainly appear dull, because I'm not going to partake in it, especially if one starts overtly using my name repeatedly, because I find it dull and artificial. By contrast, express a novel or distinct perspective on something I find relevant, mastery of some interesting skill or whatever, and we'd certainly be having some fun.
Edit: oh, are there uninteresting reals?
Perhaps the minimal element should be removed from the set; there will be plenty of members that still remain.
the smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers
the second smallest member of the original set of uninteresting numbers
the third ...
...
That version of "interesting" quickly becomes "not interesting". The concept simply defies mathematical logic.
The criminal knows it can't be Sunday, because he would wake up on Sunday and know he was going to be executed that day. But if Sunday isn't possible, on Saturday he would know he was being executed that day; so Saturday wasn't possible either. The same reasoning can be repeatedly applied to every day between now and Sunday.
It's obviously flawed reasoning (Surprise! they execute you on Thursday), but the flaw is difficult to articulate.
When you get to the point in a proof of the irrationality of root two where you've demonstrated that if it is expressible as a fraction p/q, then both p and q have to be even, you don't then need to proceed to prove that if they're both even, then they both have to be divisible by four, and then if they're both divisible by four, that means they're both divisible by eight...
I mean, you can, but you don't have to.
You can just say 'if it's a rational number then it has a reduced form where p and q have gcf of 1, so if p and q would both have to be even, that is a contradiction'.
Same with the 'set of uninteresting numbers'. If 'being uninteresting' is a property numbers can have, then the 'set of uninteresting numbers' exists, and it has a least member. Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers is interesting.
You don't have to infinitely regress from here and get tied up in knots saying that surely there is some 'first truly uninteresting number' to prove that the set is actually empty - you can just see that you must have gone wrong somewhere. Either:
1) Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume.
or
2) 'Being uninteresting' is not a property numbers can have
I think actually of the two, 1) is more likely the case.
But that doesn't defy mathematical logic. It is a consequence of mathematical logic.
1) I list each and every number that is part of the set. It is OK if the set is countably infinite, we can wait.
2a) I grab my special black box that receives a number and lights up a red or a green LED depending on whether the input is a member of my conjured up set or not;
2b) I grab the other special black box, this one has a single LED (to indicate it is switched on) and a push button which prints out the next member of the set on infinite 7-segment displays. The box is a bit wider than the 2a) unit.
These are mostly traversable, e.g. my 2b) generator could be built from a counter and a 2a) tester, or my 2a) tester could use a table lookup backed by a 1) list for all I know.
What they can/should not do is retroactively change their mind on the membership of a particular number:
- It is either in the 1) list or not, no erasers, no backsies;
- 2a) should always respond with the same LED for a given number, no moon phase lookups, no RNG, no checking of previous LED responses;
- 2b) can not even be rewound so it is impossible to tell if it would produce or skip the number, should we coerce it somehow to start again (we can't).
So using any of the two and a half mechanisms lead us to a set where the minimal element should have the same property as any other element: it is exactly as even/prime/blue/rectangular/crunchy or uninteresting as the rest of the set.
We could start by defining a set of "all numbers that are uninteresting other than by membership or position in this set".
That describes the set the proof naively called "interesting numbers" without the contradiction.
Then we could create a second set with all members of the first set except those that are interesting because of where they are in that set (smallest, whatever). This is a new version of "interesting numbers" that approaches the version in the original proof but is, in human terms, less interesting. As you said, "Being the least member of the set of uninteresting numbers isn't as interesting as we assume."
We could repeat that, making a sequence of sets that approach the definition of interesting in the original proof, but the definition of each set is progressively less interesting in human terms.
Then if we really want to be rigorous, we could talk about "first degree interesting" (what most people mean), "nth degree interesting", or "asymptotically interesting", but the last one is an empty set.
I immediately thought of the interesting number paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
>Australian member Andrew McKean, 85, had dullness thrust upon him.
It's also marked by doing what other people do better than they do.
Lonerly contrarianism is not a cornerstone of brilliance.
Come on, the Graun is the epitome of dull middle class.
"There are many men in London, you know, who, some from shyness, some from misanthropy, have no wish for the company of their fellows. Yet they are not averse to comfortable chairs and the latest periodicals. It is for the convenience of these that the Diogenes Club was started, and it now contains the most unsociable and unclubbable men in town. No member is permitted to take the least notice of any other one. Save in the Stranger's Room, no talking is, under any circumstances, allowed, and three offences, if brought to the notice of the committee, render the talker liable to expulsion. My brother was one of the founders, and I have myself found it a very soothing atmosphere."
https://www.ephorate.org/
> It’s a sentiment eagerly embraced by The Dull Men’s Club. Several million members in a number of connected Facebook groups strive to cause dullness in others on a daily basis.
Apparently I'm too dull to even have a FB account. I know it's a bit tongue in cheek, but in the name of maximum dullness, something with UX closer to this site seems much more appropriate than a Facebook group.
i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
What traits are correlated with overing?
Do underers look at the world differently?
And it is a false dichotomy. Some people just don't care what direction when they replace the roll - what's a suitable name for that clade? And then there's the people who use the floor and ignore the holder.
underers are frantically trying to fix their broken lives.
nihilists lacking opinions are empty shells.