I am a dull man by every measure. I don't have interesting hobbies, I am not an influencer, I don't post interesting posts on social media and I don't travel a lot, I don't do extreme things, I barely have any money at the moment, I bore others, in fact when I try to amuse my colleagues or the opposite sex, my jokes regularly fall flat and even my voice is dull I believe.
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.
tboyd47 3 hours ago [-]
> 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.
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.
johnnyanmac 1 minutes ago [-]
[delayed]
keysdev 9 minutes ago [-]
Much of that comes with age. I guess if you are a vampire or some sorta immortal, after a while you will also dont care what otgers think of you.
knowitnone 1 hours ago [-]
"someone" we all know who but everyone is afraid to say it
tboyd47 1 hours ago [-]
If he doesn't feel comfortable to name his abuser, I won't step forward to do it. It's his tale to tell.
lm28469 5 hours ago [-]
> I don't have interesting hobbies, I am not an influencer, I don't post interesting posts on social media and I don't travel a lot, I don't do extreme things, I barely have any money at the moment, I bore others, in fact when I try to amuse my colleagues or the opposite sex, my jokes regularly fall flat and even my voice is dull I believe.
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
roland35 4 hours ago [-]
What's funny is when you actually know people who are influencers, it turns out their lives actually are nothing like what it is online! I think we are all a lot more dull than some would like to admit.
zdragnar 2 hours ago [-]
Isn't that what is so toxic about social media? You end up comparing your real life to the curated, best-possible-angle lives of your friends and (subjectively) famous people online.
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.
te_chris 3 hours ago [-]
I think their lives look extremely dull online too. Prisoners of the most mediocre algorithms
everdrive 3 hours ago [-]
You're both right. Being an influencer seems like the worst possible choice: all of the life-deranging detriments of fame without and of the prestige or wealth.
echelon 3 hours ago [-]
> other people pretend to be doing
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.
lm28469 3 hours ago [-]
Sure, but these people are actually "doing, building, exploring", not terminally online trying to sell you their lifestyle to make money from advertising and partnerships.
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
wvh 7 hours ago [-]
I think this story sounds familiar to a lot of us, especially as men who likely spend less time on social media comparing and FOMOing. Let's hope you get your kids back too and somebody new will get enchanted by your "boring" voice.
dyauspitr 34 minutes ago [-]
Removal of the no fault divorce law can’t come fast enough.
secondcoming 7 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
safety1st 6 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
james_marks 3 hours ago [-]
I have no idea if this stat is remotely true, but the PSA still works:
men need to contribute around the house and not take their wife for granted.
fellatio 5 hours ago [-]
You know a sentence is gonna be sexist when it starts "fellas"
4 hours ago [-]
Nicook 2 hours ago [-]
from the guy named fellatio T_T
npteljes 5 hours ago [-]
Instead of the sexist rhetoric, consider that people are complex. One can have outstanding qualities and great success in one facet of life, and be absolute garbage in others. So far, we have discovered no infallible signs or metrics that determine a person, and over time, they are subject to change as well.
yapyap 6 hours ago [-]
What a fun comment, surely the person who commented this isn’t in some way resentful towards women.
Andrex 5 hours ago [-]
It's weird the guy going through the divorce seemed to deliberately avoid casting aspersions, but the parent commenter had to throw in his two cents anyways.
bmacho 8 hours ago [-]
> 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.
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.
wvh 6 hours ago [-]
Isn't that the whole point though – nobody wants to or has to live in a void. Maybe children would prefer different parents, and maybe parents would want different children. That's not how that works. You keep them alive, love them, and give them enough tools and knowledge for them to have a fighting chance on their own.
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.
rester324 8 hours ago [-]
Maybe, but you forgot to write what's the benefit...?!
bonoboTP 6 hours ago [-]
I obviously don't know anything about you beyond this comment but you chose to include a mention of your divorce, so I think it's not overstepping to try to connect these themes. To be blunt, could it be that being less dull would have improved the longevity of the marriage?
kgwxd 5 hours ago [-]
> in fact when I try to amuse my colleagues or the opposite sex, my jokes regularly fall flat
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.
jen729w 4 hours ago [-]
You know nothing about this man. Please don't judge them based on a casual comment in a forum. That's cruel.
kgwxd 4 hours ago [-]
[flagged]
zaphar 4 hours ago [-]
Are you trying to imply that you know this person? That your assessment is informed by direct experience of interactions with them in the settings he describes?
If not then the null hypothesis should in fact be that your assessment is anything but accurate.
1 hours ago [-]
xeromal 4 hours ago [-]
What the hell is this comment?
ecshafer 21 hours ago [-]
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.
xelxebar 13 hours ago [-]
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.
Speaking of paying close attention to the mundane, it’s an escalator.
jenny91 4 hours ago [-]
This is my favourite book, it's hilarious and it kind of mirrors how I go about my life: pondering every little detail and how everything fits together.
I'm not sure if it's the same thing as dullness though?
ThisNameIsTaken 9 hours ago [-]
Wow, that book sounds like a mix of Johan Harstad's footnote riddled Forsaken/The Red Handler (and who's Max, Mischa & Tetoffensiven even is about 'idling') and George Perec's An Attempt at Exhausting a Place in Paris[1]. As you say, the almost childlike fascination with the mundane is really valuable, it helps to guide my own eyes when wandering the city.
It's the facebook version of r/mildlyinteresting on Reddit, which is also very popular. I think it's because this is the kind of thing that fills our days: small oddities and observations that spark our brain but aren't exceptional.
potato3732842 7 hours ago [-]
>It's the facebook version of r/mildlyinteresting on Reddit, which is also very popular.
By virtue of the implied difference in demographics that's still a categorical change.
AlecSchueler 8 hours ago [-]
Except this one is gendered, so somewhat more exclusive?
altacc 8 hours ago [-]
I don't think it's exclusive. There is no gate keeping and there seems to be a high ratio of female post creators and commentators. Reddit is 60/40 male dominated, so is also skewered towards male content.
Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
AuthorizedCust 45 minutes ago [-]
> Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
#nailedit
potato3732842 7 hours ago [-]
If your demographic information is important to your contributions to a group like that you're doing it very wrong.
Cthulhu_ 8 hours ago [-]
There's high praise in some movies or animation where they depict the mundane; the long sequence in Ghost in the Shell just showing the city as it is, away from the main story (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARTLckN9e7I), most of Studio Ghibli's films, a lot of Breaking Bad and especially Better Call Saul, where there's a lot of scenes of people just going about their day, John Travolta getting a can of paint and a pizza in the opening of Saturday Night Fever (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfwQ_7xqO7Y), etc.
__alias 9 hours ago [-]
My fave I remember seeing years ago was one where a man - over some long period of time - managed to park in every single parking space of a supermarket.
I feel like this energy perfectly encapsulates what dull mans club is all about
failingslowly 15 minutes ago [-]
I think that's fantastic. The dedication to such a trivial accomplishment!
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.
Recently some spinoff/copycat groups have also sprouted up. There’s a “Dull Men’s Forum”, and a “Dull Men’s Fun Club”, for example, which post similar memes. And a “Dull Women’s Club” as well (even though I also often see women posting in the Dull Men’s Club, I suppose women on average have different sensibilities about where to draw the line between dull and interesting).
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.
AuthorizedCust 43 minutes ago [-]
Some of these are _pages_ that post content stolen from "dull" groups or from other groups that are thematically not far off, like Aldi fan groups. As your view includes pages that are just mass-theft operations seeking Facebook payouts, you have selection bias.
gambiting 19 hours ago [-]
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.
AuthorizedCust 40 minutes ago [-]
I cannot think of anything better than a 99% dull feed.
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.
skeeter2020 18 hours ago [-]
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.
kalleboo 17 hours ago [-]
Isn't that most of Hacker News as well? "Oh that's an interesting technical solution - which is completely irrelevant to the work I'm doing"
strken 10 hours ago [-]
The neat thing about HN is that I can nearly always find at least one thing on the front page that's useful to me, especially if I read the discussion.
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.
brudgers 12 hours ago [-]
The standard on Hacker News is intellectually interesting.
“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.
nottorp 10 hours ago [-]
Nothing is completely irrelevant. It's just very hard to point out when and where some post on HN about properly frobnicating a wickie [1] server in a data center in South Baluchistan will subtly help your development decisions at your current or future job.
[1] What is a wickie server? Damned if i know. But I'm sure there is someone on HN who has done one.
colechristensen 13 hours ago [-]
I'd agree with you if there was anything else of value on my facebook feed.
_fat_santa 19 hours ago [-]
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.
kergonath 18 hours ago [-]
> 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.
4 hours ago [-]
hug 14 hours ago [-]
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.
Anyway. Perspectives. Weird, huh?
castlecrasher2 22 minutes ago [-]
You're both saying the same thing. Seemingly dull people become interesting depending on the audience, particularly when the dullee actively interviews the duller.
somenameforme 11 hours ago [-]
Ah, but perhaps you're proving the point? Is it not possible, if not probable, that the fellow you're referencing simply considers you dull? For instance I would, in general, tend to have little interest engaging with a good conversationalist, because I often find that that that, especially in an American context, boils down to inoffensive superficiality at length, owing to the nature of banter without purpose, which is what most conversation for the sake of conversation is.
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.
bonoboTP 6 hours ago [-]
Right. I think it's a different conception of being interesting or dull. It's probably the distinction between people-oriented and thing-oriented people.
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?
mafro 10 hours ago [-]
One of the few Facebook groups I stayed in over time. It has a very British sense of self-deprecating humour. We're all amused by our mutual dullness.
AuthorizedCust 38 minutes ago [-]
Would you believe both Dull Men's Club groups were created by Americans?
No kidding.
The one with the registered-trademark symbol--a Nebraskan who moved to the UK.
The other one--a Texan.
AuthorizedCust 3 hours ago [-]
There are two Dull Men's Clubs on Facebook. This article covers both.
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.
tempodox 3 hours ago [-]
In the middle of this wonderfully dull article, The Guardian botched it. They embedded a link in the text:
> 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.
arethuza 3 hours ago [-]
Worth noting that there is also the village of Dull in Scotland - twinned with Boring (Oregon) and Bland (Aus).
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.
bee_rider 13 hours ago [-]
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?
Edit: oh, are there uninteresting reals?
rzzzt 20 hours ago [-]
Why aren't all numbers in the set uninteresting? Did someone make a mistake when defining it?
Perhaps the minimal element should be removed from the set; there will be plenty of members that still remain.
Cerium 19 hours ago [-]
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.
leereeves 18 hours ago [-]
The problem with that is the explanation of why each number is interesting becomes:
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.
kbelder 18 hours ago [-]
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.
jameshart 17 hours ago [-]
This isn't how math works.
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.
rzzzt 11 hours ago [-]
If someone tasks me to create a set of even/prime/blue/rectangular/crunchy/uninteresting numbers I have two options:
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.
Dylan16807 11 hours ago [-]
3) Numbers can be uninteresting, but the property is not binary.
leereeves 17 hours ago [-]
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.
17 hours ago [-]
Tade0 19 hours ago [-]
My algebra 101 professor made this exact argument.
romanhn 22 hours ago [-]
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.
agnishom 14 hours ago [-]
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.
Bet the guardian would never write about the "Dull Women's Club"
RyanMathewson 14 hours ago [-]
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.
SlowTao 13 hours ago [-]
Yes, this is were I found out it is NOT a good idea to cook your curry in a washing machine.
danielodievich 20 hours ago [-]
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
ahazred8ta 16 hours ago [-]
Bland, Australia (NSW) joined the group in 2017.
guicen 13 hours ago [-]
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.
TurboHaskal 4 hours ago [-]
Maybe this is just me and my experiences but when I encounter people in the wild that seem dull I often assume they just have fringe interests that are kinda problematic to share with regular people they haven't built rapport with yet.
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.
fiftyacorn 10 hours ago [-]
I think its an age thing - you spend your youth thinking its important to fit in - but then reach a point where you realise you are who you are and just accept it
I find some posts interesting, but most comments utterly stupid and a huge waste of time, although there is an occasional gem.
22 hours ago [-]
thinkingtoilet 21 hours ago [-]
I laughed out loud at this line. It feels like something out of Futurama:
>Australian member Andrew McKean, 85, had dullness thrust upon him.
5 hours ago [-]
samirillian 24 minutes ago [-]
Yes.
dalmo3 21 hours ago [-]
No banana for scale?
smj-edison 19 hours ago [-]
And no shoe size!
b0a04gl 13 hours ago [-]
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
sandworm101 22 hours ago [-]
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.
chubot 22 hours ago [-]
I don’t think building model airplanes is dull. I’d say doom scrolling and para-social behavior are the modern dull things
BizarroLand 20 hours ago [-]
This is pretty true. Brilliance is marked at many levels by not doing what everyone else does, after all.
It's also marked by doing what other people do better than they do.
Lonerly contrarianism is not a cornerstone of brilliance.
HamsterDan 3 hours ago [-]
Your standard for dull is too high. Most of the world does not create anything. The mere fact that you're creating something, even if it is an amateurish model airplane, is already cooler than what most of the world does with their free time.
kergonath 18 hours ago [-]
> I think once you are features in a guardian article, you arent dull anymore.
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."
calvinmorrison 20 hours ago [-]
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.
> The over or under toilet paper debate raged (politely) for two and a half weeks.
i found this particularly confusing because we all know that “over” is the only sane choice.
wccrawford 20 hours ago [-]
Only if you don't have cats. If you have cats, "under" is the only sane choice.
dgfitz 20 hours ago [-]
If you have cats you’ve willing given up your sanity.
GianFabien 18 hours ago [-]
ouch! that is a catty comment.
GianFabien 18 hours ago [-]
Don't you love all the punctures in the paper?
shiroiuma 15 hours ago [-]
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.
robocat 19 hours ago [-]
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.
notnmeyer 16 hours ago [-]
overers see the world as it is and live to solve problems.
underers are frantically trying to fix their broken lives.
nihilists lacking opinions are empty shells.
Volundr 19 hours ago [-]
Mine is in the under configuration, due to being near an AC vent that will sometimes unspool the whole roll in the over configuration.
bee_rider 13 hours ago [-]
Vertical seems to tear better.
20 hours ago [-]
TacticalCoder 20 hours ago [-]
[dead]
Den_VR 4 hours ago [-]
I’ve never seen so many comments deserving of Dang’s banhammer as some mixed into this discussion.
The Dull Men’s Club is an interesting curiosity of the world, but clearly one that evokes strong feelings in certain people.
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.
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.
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
men need to contribute around the house and not take their wife for granted.
> 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.
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.
If not then the null hypothesis should in fact be that your assessment is anything but accurate.
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
I'm not sure if it's the same thing as dullness though?
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Attempt_at_Exhausting_a_Pla...
By virtue of the implied difference in demographics that's still a categorical change.
Personally I see the name as more a jokey play on the stereotype of boring middle aged men who find such things interesting.
#nailedit
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.
Gentlemen, have you heard The curious tale of Bhutan's playable record postage stamps (2015)? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44054775
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
No kidding.
The one with the registered-trademark symbol--a Nebraskan who moved to the UK.
The other one--a Texan.
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.
> 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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dull,_Perth_and_Kinross
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Dull Men’s Club is an interesting curiosity of the world, but clearly one that evokes strong feelings in certain people.