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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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
Gentlemen, have you heard The curious tale of Bhutan's playable record postage stamps (2015)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054775
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?
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.
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.