> 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'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.
As if the measure of interesting is the attention of trash, click bait journalists.
To me, it is why most people and places have become increasingly dull and monotone over my lifetime.
It is like we have developed a society of dull, shitty stage actors, constantly trying to perform 24/7 but there is no audience other than all the other shitty stage actors.
Gentlemen, have you heard The curious tale of Bhutan's playable record postage stamps (2015)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054775
“I saw geese,” ordinarily wouldn’t meet it (though in imagined contexts it would, of course).
Or as described in The New Yorker, HN is often about performative erudition, as perhaps is the case with this GEB’ish sentence.
[1] What is a wickie server? Damned if i know. But I'm sure there is someone on HN who has done one.
Just looking through now, Canine is interesting because it's similar to Dokku, which I already use. I might consider using Canine in a similar role in the future if I want k8s with buildpacks.
The Dull Men's Club groups aren't like that. The needle to hay ratio is far worse. It's all "huh, cool" coincidences and mysterious objects, but nobody really intends to show the world anything useful.
Part of the point of DMC content is a solace from everyday stressors. That's a factor in why divisive topics--politics, religion, etc.--are discouraged when "main points" of a post.
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!
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Attempt_at_Exhausting_a_Pla...
I'm not sure if it's the same thing as dullness though?
I view this as a sign that the group has become too popular and lots its “edge” (which in this case was its authentic dullness), and now is just a place for farming likes and impressions from the broader FB community. A lot of it is quite derivative of other popular posts - “what is the purpose of this thing I found in my hotel/new house/grandma’s house” posts seems to be a really common theme, for example.
I feel like this energy perfectly encapsulates what dull mans club is all about
I suppose it's no different to people that grind computer games to get 100% completion. A little dopamine hit each time that number edges up, followed by the satisfaction of having finally completed a long-sought goal.
Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
#nailedit
By virtue of the implied difference in demographics that's still a categorical change.
>Australian member Andrew McKean, 85, had dullness thrust upon him.
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.
1) I list each and every number that is part of the set. It is OK if the set is countably infinite, we can wait.
2a) I grab my special black box that receives a number and lights up a red or a green LED depending on whether the input is a member of my conjured up set or not;
2b) I grab the other special black box, this one has a single LED (to indicate it is switched on) and a push button which prints out the next member of the set on infinite 7-segment displays. The box is a bit wider than the 2a) unit.
These are mostly traversable, e.g. my 2b) generator could be built from a counter and a 2a) tester, or my 2a) tester could use a table lookup backed by a 1) list for all I know.
What they can/should not do is retroactively change their mind on the membership of a particular number:
- It is either in the 1) list or not, no erasers, no backsies;
- 2a) should always respond with the same LED for a given number, no moon phase lookups, no RNG, no checking of previous LED responses;
- 2b) can not even be rewound so it is impossible to tell if it would produce or skip the number, should we coerce it somehow to start again (we can't).
So using any of the two and a half mechanisms lead us to a set where the minimal element should have the same property as any other element: it is exactly as even/prime/blue/rectangular/crunchy or uninteresting as the rest of the set.
Edit: oh, are there uninteresting reals?
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.
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?
For one who enjoys engaging in such, I'd certainly appear dull, because I'm not going to partake in it, especially if one starts overtly using my name repeatedly, because I find it dull and artificial. By contrast, express a novel or distinct perspective on something I find relevant, mastery of some interesting skill or whatever, and we'd certainly be having some fun.
When some people say that a person can make a dull topic be interesting, they mean that the person can craft and narrate engaging human stories around the activity or topic. The payoff is not really learning or discussing the details of the topic itself but human failure, overcoming of struggle, human connections forming, or betrayal and so on. It just happens in the context of that hobby.
On the other hand, thing-oriented people like two car guys or computer guys will just discuss that topic itself down to the tiny detail, and an outsider truly has very little gain from this. I've sat in bars discussing CS, programming language features, algorithms, math etc. deep into the night over beers with pals throughout college, and I'm aware that this is deeply off putting to most people-oriented people and would find it extremely dull. But as you say, it works the same way backwards. For me it's like, okay thanks for telling me what happened in the last days, you went to a party where normal party things happened, sure, but when do we get to the part where we talk about eternal themes that aren't bound to the here and now of whatever happened recently? Tall tales, one upmanship and namedropping things for street cred just feels so dull. Why not talk some substance?
"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."
Like they're probably into something weird or niche that doesn't translate well in casual conversation so they just keep it surface level until they figure out if you're their type of person.
No kidding.
The one with the registered-trademark symbol--a Nebraskan who moved to the UK.
The other one--a Texan.
But after my kids were born I noticed something: my kids loved my voice, they listened to every sentence I made, they laughed at my quirky jokes I made and they loved when I sang to them or I brought them to the park or to the nursery and when I sat them on my neck. My wife took all that from me though, so now I need to fight to get my kids back.
But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective. Even if you think you are dull, chances are you are not. It's just the world such a place now that the bar is raised too high that most ordinary people can't cross even by jumping over the moon.
So I don't care any more what others think of me. I came to accept my dullness and embraced it. If it bores others, I don't care.
> But the moral of the story is: dullness is a matter of perspective.
Meh. Kids (or dogs) don't know better, they are just little love machines with literally 0 knowledge outside of you. That doesn't mean that dullness is a perspective, or they wouldn't benefit from it if you were just smarter, better, more interesting.
I think the point of the OP was to say that you don't need to be the best thing since sliced bread to get some basic love and companionship, which is the message modern dating and social media are sending to a lot of us.
You are enough, even if somebody in all resentfulness wants to have you believe otherwise.
In the meantime, get a dog. They thrive in dull consistency and will love you for it. They will happily walk the same path each day and just sleep at your feet while you do what you need to do.
Even the dullest of innocent jokes, delivered horribly, can get a chuckle in decent company. "Falls flat" means the "jokes" are inappropriate, mean, gross, *ist, etc. The phrase "colleagues or the opposite sex" is a tell.
That's everyday life for the vast majority of people, we got tricked by smoke and mirrors on social media into thinking life has to be something it isn't, most of what you see there is fake in part or in whole. People should just enjoy what they have/are instead of burning out running after made up things other people pretend to be doing to be happy
You consume the condensed moments from hours and days of time from other people's experiences in real time in your own life- you can see cute pets, exotic pets, funny moments, beautiful people all in a minute or five of boring, slow-ass real-time.
Not everyone works or thinks the same. Some goals and passions come from within, and for some people these can be the very reason for living.
One infinitesimal, geologically small moment where the universe is awake and alive and available for you. The world is an infinite blank canvas, and it's full of adventure.
Some people exist to do, build, or explore with their short time. Life is full of energy and opportunity to do so.
Some of these people would find the "traditional life" inescapably boring.
For every genuine passioned "influencer" you have 100 000 wannabes trying to scam you one way or another. And let's be generous, even if every single one of them was 100% genuine and well intentioned, that's still just a drop in the bucket, the extreme vast majority of people would fit in the "dull" category, and it's perfectly fine
You call yourself dull, but this short comment revealed the opposite picture. Kids are a lot more authentic than adults. Clearly they found a lot to enjoy about you.
> My wife took all that from me though, so now I need to fight to get my kids back.
There's an intense amount of suffering and courage in this statement which you tried to present in such a deadpan, flippant way.
> So I don't care any more what others think of me. I came to accept my dullness and embraced it. If it bores others, I don't care.
That's good, but I don't think you're actually dull or boring. Someone put that in your head and you accepted it.
I also did read the piece and recognize this "Dull man's club" is anything but. It's simply a tongue and cheek name for niche hobbies. I'm sure the hackers of the 80's/90's would have fit right in.
We sadly became more dull overtime in comparison as our hobbies all converged into the same few things. And even those few things could be interesting, but hobbies became so shallow. we watch TV but often don't analyze and critque it. We eat food but don't truly taste and savor its flavor. Being "dull" in my eyes means not truly interacting nor resonating with the things you do in your life.
Here's a summary:
Cliches work because they’re typically right on the money. Plus, kids don’t know most of them, so educators should use them. They’re a new audience and they’re inspired by cliches.
Some of my early experiences as an adult that broke my heart open a little were also with children - I don't have any of my own, but when my nephew and niece were young they were so open and enthusiastic and happy to see me it got past my wounded defense mechanisms.
This resonates a lot, and especially in "our community" of tech enthusiasts. I don't display enthusiasm about electronics, pcb design and assembly, with non nerdy people because I don't expect any form of interest (which is compounded by the assumption the person won't understand a word about it).
It got especially reinforced of late as I made a foray in woodworking to build myself a bookshelf from scratch with a custom design. There is something about non-tech hobbies that anyone can relate to (everyone was stoked by said bookshelf) that makes it easier to share. Even the layperson can grasp the design challenges faced in such hobbies, including nerdy but non tech ones (warhammer figurine painting is the first that comes to mind). OTOH when I show a custom-made PCB to someone, I just get a "ok cool".
> I wouldn't be surprised if I subconsciously have chosen friends who re-inforce those beliefs as well
There is also a strong tendency to vary friend groups and "get out of your bubble" if you think you're boring, to get "non-boring" people around you. Which can be healthy but highly frustrating, because you don't get to share stuff with them.
I can't wait to get children to share those interests with them.
The Dull Men’s Club is an interesting curiosity of the world, but clearly one that evokes strong feelings in certain people.
> Sign up for the fun stuff with our rundown of must-reads, pop culture and tips for the weekend, every Saturday morning
Way too exciting, it totally broke the flow for me.
Both have around 1.8M members. The smaller one features Andrew McKean, the main topic of that article. The other one--with the registered trademark symbol in the name on FB--appears to be more of a commercial enterprise, run by the Grover Click character.
I learned that the article is wrong on a point. All contemporary Dull Men's Clubs are copycats. The original is from 1980 and no longer exists.
zh3•7mo ago
andyjohnson0•7mo ago
I immediately thought of the interesting number paradox
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interesting_number_paradox
kergonath•7mo ago