Im considering "(uncolicited) advice" to strictly be what you'd consider "valid". For example, is the advice given on point, relative to what the reciever is troubled with?

If you just want to vent, for example, for something that you know how to solve, but nevertheless gets you frustrated, the problem is... how the problem is articulated by someone who might attempt to give advice. That is, its not a matter of finding a solution (since you already know that), but something else. In this case, its actually something i can't quite pin down really, but its something within the domain "I need to socialize".

Another criteria is, is the reciever of the advice already conciously aware of the information given? If yes, thats of course another case the advice is not "valid" (=helpful) That case shouldn't be difficult to manage. The reciever should just state that. It removes the need for you to guess if they already know what you told them.

You are basically right when you say the vast majority this is not the category that "uncoliced advice" falls in. I think thats also a problem because it makes it harder for us to identify errors.

With the case where the reciever is already aware, for example, the error is not that the advice given was not apropriate, because thats a valid logical consequence of missjudging. So the error made is not on somebody's behavior, but on somebody's thinking process.
Also, i find it interesting to try and map out all of these situations that result in unhelpful "uncolicited advice" . Categories like, self-serving, missjudgements, all these are valid possibilities.

Thanks for putting this here, there are some minor tweaks id do to your response. Unless im mistaken in my understanding of english, If you imply something it means you dont call it out because that would be explicit. So, its just that you imply something. I also wouldnt say that what is implied, is they are wrong, but that they are ignorant/unaware of the information you give them through advising them.

(but these details dont undermine what you try to convey)

So, ive thought quite a bit about this, since we talked in the chat, and i also discussed it with some friend of mine.

It boils down to narcissism, essentially. The person being incapable to go through that insult element, and instead being stuck at it, is percieving it as an attack on their ego that they must necesarily defeat. Its irrelevant if that "attack" was valid or not. That is a characteristic behavior of narcissistic people. The kind of relationship doesn't seem to matter. The aspects of one's personality that might react badly to this, is a result of narcissism. And moods generally don’t really alter someone's cognitive abilities (it would require something very severe to do that).

So, basically, considering if they are in a place to be better off with the advice, is a matter of considering if they are a narcissist or not.

But at this point, that is something that should be called out by itself. If there is no reason for one to turn down or refuse objectively useful (there are specific criteria to determine this) then that behavior should at least not be enabled.

It also doesnt matter if the narcissist get upset over this, because if they were to behave freely they would almost certainly create far greater frustration, trauma and irrationality through their interactions with other humans.


Having said that, there is something else i wanna say about this. The general common sense opinion on this topic (basically that its a shitty thing to give unsolicited advice) is a is a reflection of how widespread narcissism, and enabling of narcissism, is within our society. Basically two thirds, and possibly more, might be either narcissists or enablers, with the remaining people being healthy, in this regard at least. That's something very scary to think about 😥

To me, yes! My biggest fantasy is being in the hands of a semi-evil dome feeder that is, on the ones hand caring (she feeds and fucks me for my pleasure) and on the other hand, kind of Evil (she drowns me in so much pleasure through feeding and sex that i become too addicted to stop when i want to! And then she can abuse that! :3

The market pool drastically shrinks if you just filter through incompetent people, narcissists, etc :/

But whats even more importand is how much the person is socializing, and getting to meet new people.

Btw that doesn't mean not to try, its actually more of a "make sure you socialize plenty!".

So, i recently had an experience that made me ask a few questions about uncoliced advices, in general.

What do we actually mean when we categorize some piece of advice as "uncolicited"?

"Advice that was given without being asked for" is the common explanation (or definition?). At the same time, a lot of people view it as something that is *always very undesirable*. I have even come across some post which said that uncoliced advice *is* a boundary violation.

I wanna hear peoples' thoughts on this, and i also wanna share some positives, negatives about it, as well as things that are relevant but not about it.


So what do i think are the positives of uncoliced advice?

It can break one's bubble of ignorance. Basically if you are completely unaware of something (which also means you will never be able to ask about that thing) receiving information about that thing from someone else is one of the very few things that can introduce you to the thing, which is good because that expands one's horizon of knowledge. Thats basically its only positive, but it does have variations (one can simply not keep something in mind when they do some activity, because they have not connected the two, if they are relevant, in their mind) and it has consequences which can be good.

What are the negatives?

It is prone to errors due to an insufficient grounding in reality. The way you give the advice might not be optimally helpfull, or it can be not helpfull at all if you dont understand sufficiently whats up with the other person (to which you want to offer the advice)

And there are also things we, wrongly - in my opinion, associate with unsolicited advice.

Being passive agressive; Yes, you can be passive agressive through giving uncolicited advice, thats about you, not about the act of giving uncolicited advice, in the same way that if you do something bad in some way, what matters when someone judges your action is that you did something *bad*, not the way in which you did it.

Offense; Offense can be justified (if what the offender says *is valid*) or unjustified. You can offend through uncoliced advice but that is about the validity of what you say. Not the act of giving uncoliced advice. With implicit offenses its similar, those are about the validity of what is implied (and there are specific techniques to figure out implicit assumptions that somebody makes)

Being offended; Im putting this as a separate thing because i could not include the element of fragile egos in the previous point. So, how you recieve an offense depends on how competent you are. If a very rational person recieves an offense, they will judge if it is valid or not. If yes, they will know they can improve themself, if not they will know the offender has made a mistake. In either case, they will act acordingly and reasonably. On the other hand, if a person with a fragile ego recieves an offense, they will feel threatened and, usually, lash out. So, thats about the person who recieves the uncoliced advice, not about uncoliced advice.

What do you think?

Excelent point, also! ^^

I actually disagree a lot with two things here!

Artists' careers are not in danger because of AI, for basically two reasons. One is that capitalism is the danger, that is because capitalism is the only system where a process becoming more efficient can be directly destructive for some people. And two, if your job *really* is threatened by AI, that means your job is not importand after all. WAIT! hear me out:

Im not saying that Artists are not importand (Im one ahah!). Im saying that, a lot of the time, what we mean when we use the word "Art" is really, just content. Simple-minded enough that having a human do it has really not much more, in terms of utility, than leaving it to the AI.

Many Artists dont really do more than mere mindless content creation. The criteria for this basically boils down to what are their intentions with their art.

It would be wrong, however, to say that we should abolish Artists. Instead what im saying is that we, artists need to be more vigilant, intelligent, and intentional with our art.

And also, this doesn't bring food to the table. Nobody will give you money to create a painting that criticises money.



Also, i have to point this out. "AI's footprint" is too vague, most AI models can run on your average computer! The reason OpenAI and other tech companies have such a high footprint is because they intentionally have developed models that are very inefficient. That is just an attempt to make the upfront costs of setting up a company with AI service so big that nobody else can join in that market. Effectively securing an oligopoly for these tech giants.

Edit:

For the first thing, its not very objective. Im basically describing the logic by which an observer might think of "Art", said observers are people who pay for it, for example.

My only advice is, try to learn to draw! Seriously, if you put hours into writting something, why not put some time in drawing something?

There is also an interesting thing going on. Even if your drawing isn’t great (assuming that its not utterly terrible) a "hand-crafted" cover picture will be greatly appreciated over an AI one, or even a picture taken from the internet.

And that is partially because people recognize AI for what it really is, in a sense, that is effortless slop.

Reading what you typed makes me think about stuff. I dont know how much this will help but...

I have great difficulty to really befriend people. That's because, either conciously or subconciously, i need to see something from the other person, specifically i need to understand his intelligence (if he is competend or not), which i need in order to trust them, and then build a bond over that.

I think this, potentially applies to other intelligent people as well.

Maybe this is not the best advice but i dont see why this wouldn't work, you could try to write something like the above in your profile. That is, to write something along the lines "I need the other person to be intelligent", and so on. And to do that in such a way that it will simultaniously make unintelligent people (narcissists for example, or people who act very impulsively) people slightly uncomfortable that from their POV you seem to questioning their intelligence, but at the same time for whatever you end up writting to actually be super reasonable, and blunt, and intelligent, so that someone who has the capacity will actually register it as such and will get interested in you.

What do you think?

Finally, some more through explanation of one of the rules! 😂

(I wonder about the other rules, is there a thorough explanation for them all?)