Don't you ever get the feeling that being "smarter" in a way tends to rob you of many things? Being smart somehow seems to contribute to the tendency to think a lot about many things, and people who think a lot tend to have very little faith in others. Thinking about things makes you unable to accept a simple act of kindness, or look upon a tiny gesture without thinking and reading too much into it. Granted, it may give you many insights into things that have never been noticed before, but it is also easy to forget that it renders you unable to appreciate things simply as what they are, without wondering whether or not there is an ulterior motive behind it.

It seems, also, that wise people tend to be atheists or have less faith in a religion. Of course, this might be a hasty generalisation, but you cannot say that it is not at least partly true. Being wise/academically smart robs people of the desire to place your belief into anything else except faith in their own abilities, and believe nothing except what their eyes and minds tell them. But isn't it ironic that that is the very basis of faith? If something is placed before your eyes screaming at you to believe in it, then it isn't very much faith anymore is it? Having no reservations about something that isn't tangible and sticking to it no matter what - that, my friends is true faith.

Rather sad isn't it? It gets tiring to be questioning and thinking about things too much, that things simply can't be taken at face value. It builds walls between people. And too many walls, my friend, and you'll be living alone.

We also came to the topic of being nice. Sure, many people can be nice. But just how many people can be genuinely nice without having an ulterior motive behind it?

I personally don't believe in pretending to be nice to someone just to gain their favour, even though behind their backs I may think extremely lowly of that person. Many people think that just by getting people that they don't like to like them, EVEN IF they still don't like them, they automatically win. Sorry friends, you don't. And that obviously says a lot about you as a person.

I've always thought that there was a difference between cordiality and artificiality. If I really don't like a person, I do not deny that I will try to my utmost best to be cordial/at least civil to them (unless of course they prove themselves to be tragically unworthy of it or i simply cannot be bothered - which admittedly happens a lot) so as to avoid awkward silences and blank stares whenever eye contact is made, but I will not go to lengths to act as if we have been best friends since the day we met. Definitely, no one enjoys offending people, and it is only human nature that we feel comfortable with people liking us instead of otherwise, but if two people do not get along well, I see no point in pretending that they do. I appreciate that there is indeed value in trying to be nice to everyone, but it often compromises sincerity, and for people like me (i.e. impatient), it gets tiring, and I do not wish to treat people with hypocrisy.

It's probably easier to first try to bring yourself to like that person. But some people are simply unbearable and it is time to try the next step of trying not to dislike that person. If the problem persists then this is the line for you - "I do not like you, and I cannot pretend that I do. But let's engage in civil and awkward small talk occasionally". I'd also like to qualify that I'm not the easiest person to get along with, but I do have a set of principles which I base my life on, and we'd probably get along if we tried.

At this point I am no longer certain whether I still make sense. But if you disagree/agree, feel free to take it up with me on MSN or on my tagboard. I welcome intellectual banter.

This post is proof that despite my frivolous behaviour, I am able to hold up a discussion that does not involve frisbee or gossip.