[NT] Any other NTs find poetry BORING??

[Orangey]

Hmmm...and it's the poetry that's boring, is it?

 

[mrcockburn]

Then you just need to expand your repertoire.

I did, and it's of no use. It's like swimming against a current. You can't fight nature, and poetry is naturally boring (to me).

If you observe that all the chickens you've ever met were dumb, are you going to withhold the judgment that chickens are, in fact dumb, or are you going to persistently IQ-test every chicken out there until you find a smart one? Eventually it doesn't make sense, and it's not an efficient use of time.

Replacements needed:
Chickens --> Poems
Met & IQ-test --> read
dumb --> boring
smart --> interesting

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Yes. Very.

 

[ObeyBunny]

I’m bombarded by poems that do not rhyme
They’re boring, conceited, and wasteful of time.

Shitty ass writers who think themselves smart
Lazily craft this shit they call ‘art.’
---
Truth be told, I actually like poetry. But it depends how good the writer was, what tone of the message is, how long winded they are, and whether or not I give a lumpy peanut decorated flying shit sandwich about what they have to say.

I heard good poetry and- especially in my English class- I’ve heard extremely bad poetry.

 

[kelric]

Yes -- I generally don't enjoy poetry. Although it's true that most of my poetry reading (probably close to all of it) was stuff that I got assigned in school, with the usual "ugh" factor that goes along with that, I really prefer writing that's more to the point.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Yes. Very.

I wrote that without reading the thread. Now that I've trudged through it, I concede that there are things more boring than poetry.

 

[Magic Poriferan]

I have no comprehension of poetry. It does not make me feel anything. I don't think I can recognize or understand "good" poetry. I don't see the point in it.

 

[Orangey]

You can't fight nature, and poetry is naturally boring (to me).

Facile explanation of inductive reasoning.

Eh, a little condradictory here, n'est pas?

 

[copperfish17]

I hated poetry until I came across SAT II Literature in high school.

 

[Robopop]

I wish I could enjoy poetry, I'm just so apathetic about some things I have to be interested in it first. Maybe in the future.

 

[mrcockburn]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcockburn
You can't fight nature, and poetry is naturally boring (to me).

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrcockburn
Facile explanation of inductive reasoning.

Eh, a little condradictory here, n'est pas?

Hey PINKY. I never posted that second comment, whatever that nonsense means.

You think you can outsneak an entp?

 

[Resonance]

Demonstration, please.

I thought you'd never ask.

Humans' ability to reason (to perform logic, to become 'enlightened' as you idealize) is dependent on the health and proper functioning of certain parts of the central nervous system; this health and proper functioning is subsequently dependent on the endocrine system and health of the body, as well as thousands of genetic factors which influence the development of the CNS and endocrine system directly or indirectly. It may be necessary for someone to indulge in various 'un-enlightened' activities in order to establish the necessary biochemical balance for optimal thinking conditions.

Furthermore, humans' ability to come up with novel ideas (and novel solutions to problems) is entirely dependent on having a broad base of experiences which may or may not be somehow intuitively related to the problem one is currently trying to solve. Playing upon words and meaning, as one does with poetry, is an extremely effective way to link otherwise incommensurable concepts and create insight.

So were enlightened thinkers like Mozart, Kant, and Smith really not enlightened in my sense of the term because they dressed decently?

What were they doing, other than appealing to the senses, by dressing decently?

The word 'analogy' never came up in my initial post; therefore, by making this point your imagination has led you beyond the limits of reason. The reason is that analogies denote an explicitly logical relation between phenomena. Therefore, there is a considerable difference between the statement, 'court is to lawyer as ring is to boxer' and the statement 'he was feeling bad and so tricycle," in that the former is logical while the latter is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. It is, however, ambiguous.

 

[Provoker]

It may be necessary for someone to indulge in various 'un-enlightened' activities in order to establish the necessary biochemical balance for optimal thinking conditions...Furthermore.

The request was for a demonstration. For some reason you attempted to prove your assertion by restating it in other words, which is of course circular reasoning. Therefore, once again: demonstration, please.

What were they doing, other than appealing to the senses, by dressing decently?

Certainly the error in your thinking is that you are not taking into account the cost. But as any economist knows, there is no such thing as a free lunch. It follows that the cost of not wearing clothing, given the Enlightenment society's level of development at the time, would invoke a far greater appeal to the senses than wearing clothing that allows one to blend in and focus on other things. Thus, once again you have committed the fallacy of a false analogy. Then again, people who do not understand why they made a fallacy in the first instance are likely to commit a similar one in the second. You still have not acknowledged your lack of distinction between historical and rational knowledge and how this undermines your irrelevant computer analogy; for your analogy would have it that arithmetic is obsolete because we now have calculus, which is of course false for the aforementioned reason.

It is not nonsense. It is, however, ambiguous.

?

 

[Coriolis]

To the OP:

I usually either really like a poem, or have no patience with it; there is rarely a middle ground. I have not encountered much poetry that I like, but it is out there, and it can affect me on levels that more direct and objective writing cannot. Yes, there is probably emotional appeal involved, and I am sure that is a significant part of the impact. Most of my own writing, speaking, and other interaction tends to be very objective with limited emotional content. A good* poem shows me "the other side", what I am missing most of the time. A good poem gives me a different perspective on something, or causes me to notice and consider something I usually overlook.

I also appreciate the precision of language in a good poem. I try always to be precise in my own use of language, taking great care to use those words that will convey my meaning most exactly. Though poetry is usually subjective and non-scientific, it also requires a certain precision of language to convey the thoughts and images of the author. Good poetry has an economy of language, an efficiency in which every word must contribute to the whole; none wasted, or extra, or misplaced.

*"good" here is my own personal, subjective definition; in other words, poetry that appeals to me

 

[MacGuffin]

Most NTs suck at artistic endeavours, so it's likely they won't "get" poetry.

I like some, but a lot of it I have little use for.

A tiny percentage is flat-out amazing.

 

[Stevo]

I don't really read or seek out poetry, but I do have a couple of opinions on it. I generally don't like poetry with an immediately apparent rhyme scheme. I just think it sounds trite. Generally, what gets me is a particular phrase that for some reason really appeals to me. It's difficult to describe.

 

[digesthisickness]

Most NTs suck at artistic endeavours, so it's likely they won't "get" poetry.

I like some, but a lot of it I have little use for.

A tiny percentage is flat-out amazing.

i totally disagree. i believe we're capable of being just as good as anyone else with artistic endeavors AND getting the efforts of other's attempts at them.

the poetry that i don't go in for is the overblown pretentious type where a bush is worshiped for three paragraphs and it's admittedly not even a metaphor. or the type that is deliberately vague and cryptic so that the author can use the cop out, "i wanted each reader to see what they see in it." which means nothing but, "it doesn't mean shit".

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

i totally disagree. i believe we're capable of being just as good as anyone else with artistic endeavors AND getting the efforts of other's attempts at them.

the poetry that i don't go in for is the overblown pretentious type where a bush is worshiped for three paragraphs and it's admittedly not even a metaphor. or the type that is deliberately vague and cryptic so that the author can use the cop out, "i wanted each reader to see what they see in it." which means nothing but, "it doesn't mean shit".

All of this. Specifically to the second point, I believe interpretations of art are like quarterbacks. If you have more than one, you don't really have any.

 

[MacGuffin]

i totally disagree. i believe we're capable of being just as good as anyone else with artistic endeavors AND getting the efforts of other's attempts at them.

Capable? Sure. More likely to dismiss art because it doesn't neatly ping the interests of the NT? Even more likely.

For examples, read the rest of the thread.

 

[Orangey]

Capable? Sure. More likely to dismiss art because it doesn't neatly ping the interests of the NT? Even more likely.

For examples, read the rest of the thread.

All this thread says is that a handful of so-called NTs are Philistines.