I for one would like to see less pride displayed in everything. A whole month dedicated to it is honestly wild. Imagine celebrating a Sloth, Lust, Greed, Gluttony, Envy, or Wrath month…
> Pride is defined by Merriam-Webster as "reasonable self-esteem" or "confidence and satisfaction in oneself".[1] Oxford defines it as "the quality of having an excessively high opinion of oneself or one's own importance."[2] This may be related to one's own abilities or achievements, positive characteristics of friends or family, or one's country. Richard Taylor defined pride as "the justified love of oneself",[3] as opposed to false pride or narcissism. Similarly, St. Augustine defined it as "the love of one's own excellence",[4] and Meher Baba called it "the specific feeling through which egoism manifests."[5]
Seems to capture "both" aspects for the word to me.
are you sure?
I mean, math is math, wherever you go, the rules always apply, they can be updated, but once you know something, it is valid until proven wrong.
OTOH "social happenings" (which really is a synonym for "people branding", marketing in short) makes no sense at all.
I can understand why someone decides to completely ignore something like this
https://www.harpersbazaar.com/beauty/hair/g43794418/summer-2...
The fact that you can't see the other side of this shows how one-sided type view point is.
99% of people will never need or use calculus in their life. Most jobs have zero to do with Excel.
There are probably 100s of millions of people who care about what celebrity X is up to, and a factoid about a defunct app, on a dead phone, by a dissolved company is almost the definition of useless trivia. It's the person who knows how many pieces of dryer lint were in Dan Quayle's pocket the day he got married. You just happen to care about it.
Knowing celebrity news allows for instant connection with millions of people who also know about this news. In practical terms you can with higher probability form a bond with someone by talking with them about celebrity news then tour can by opening a conversion on obscure math (or computer) topic. If your job is able building relationships, or you simply care about connecting with people it's a much more efficient way of doing so.
Guess what? You likely don't have this knowledge. And you probably are glad you don't, and are maybe even proud that your don't. And you likely excuse yourself for feeling this way, while blaming others for feeling the same about a topic your care about.
doesn't imply that ignoring the Kardashians is as bad as pride in ignorance of math/science. (direct quote from you)
> There are probably 100s of millions of people who care about what celebrity X is up to
But if those celebrities died together at the same time, very few of those 100 millions people would actually suffer any consequence.
So they are basically useless to society, math and science are provably not.
> Knowing celebrity news allows for instant connection with millions of people who also know about this news
I'll pass om that, thank you.
Millions of people watch soccer in my country, never cared for a second.
Guess what?
I have tons of connections with people I share common interests with.
Who would have thought that was possible?
> Guess what? You likely don't have this knowledge. And you probably are glad you don't, and are maybe even proud that your don't.
Have you ever considered that people simply don't care and their life is just as good as anybody else?
I honestly don't understand what drives your thought process, but if you are thinking that I need to excuse myself for not caring about most famous people, sorry to break the news for you, you don't know how wrong you are.
> while blaming others for feeling the same about a topic your care about.
That's just you assuming bad faith.
I don't care what other people care about or not, it doesn't affect me at all, I simply replied to pride in ignorance of social happenings is just as bad as pride in ignorance of math/science. It is simply not.
But is that because socialization isn't bound by rules, or is it because the rules are too sophisticated to be fully understood by our current state of the art in social sciences? We (probably) live in a deterministic universe, so doesn't that mean "the rules always apply" for socialization, which is a natural physical occurrence, just as much as they apply for math?
Who did dismiss socializing?
We are talking about (quote) social happenings (unquote) among famous people who happen to be famous just because they exploited marketing strategies to become famous for the sake of being famous, with no other talent than being born rich.
In that contest the content doesn't make any sense, there is no reason why this year you should wear green and the next one yellow (but it applies only to Hollywood for some reason...[1] do we know what's trendy now in Myanmar? I don't think so), it's a completely random thing, that also has no impact on anybody's life, nothing bad happens if you do not do it and since most of us will never end up on the cover of fashion magazines and tabloids, why should we care about it?
Nobody said that you shouldn't have a BBQ with your friends and family and participate in a proper social gathering.
[1] the most simple explanation is that these people live basically in a confined space and only associate with other people who happen to live like they do, so if one of them wears a fedora at a party in one of their villas, probably someone else will wear it too, photographers find 3 of them and invent the narrative around "this is the year of the fedora"
It's Black Mirror's Mazey Day basically, but if one thinks about it, apart from greed, exploitation and lack of better things to publish, there's not much to gain by studying it, except maybe become one of them or more probably look like a poorer less glamorous cosplayer of one of them.