Compellation is not the noun form of to compel.

I just found out the amazing organization of the avant-garde blogging tool, Xanga. It seems as though everyone is Xangaing. I feel bad for livejournal. But I left too. But for the ultra cool blog tool, Blogger (Yay for Blogger!)

Anyway, browsing through the Santa Fe Xangas. It's really just depressing. Lots of people angry, sad, whatever. I try not to be too angry/sad though introspection and analysis is usually not the most uplifting of topics. Perhaps this is a good thing, though. Else people would just be downers in real life. And nobody wants that. And before you jump in and say that you would rather your friends be sincere than pseudo-happy, (as I would were I reading and not writing this entry) then you really do not understand how negative some people are. I had a long discussion about this the other day with Rod. He said that he is beginning to realize that the reason that he had issues with me was the fact that I do not fake feelings. People really aren't comfortable if you let on that you aren't interested in going out or talking or if you just feel a little off. Why, though? Why is it so hard to understand that everyone is not at the same level as you are? I propose that it is a condition of humanity. If you are in one mindstate, you assume that others are as well. Why wouldn't they be? But then there are these people who feel that they have to change around to be at the level that they are expected to be at, either by their friends or society. I cannot imagine. It must be horribly exhausting. I mean, the emotional strain. Or else, is it true that if you can convince others of something, you can convince yourself as well? "Whenever I feel afraid, I whistle a happy tune" mindset. But back to the question at hand. What is better, honesty, or , to put it in the kindest terms possible (my own tendency being towards honesty) an efeeort towards likeability? I suppose it depends. And there are gives and takes on both sides. I, for one, despise small talk, and I have never believed in transparent friendships. These humans are such interesting people. I would go into psycology if I was not fundamentally opposed to it.

I always have these thoughts about other people, as everyone does, about what would be the right choice (my own definition of right, mind you) in a certain situation. But at that instant I remind myself, I don't know what is going on in their head or in their lives. It is like when you see someone on an overly dramatic tv show or a chick flick, and you know what is going to happen and what the characters need to do to avoid it, but inevitably, they do the opposite. BUT whenever YOU get into a similar situation, it is so much harder to judge the correct approach. Sometimes, I can catch myself, but I am sure that I have fallen vistim to the same lack of objectivity in my life. This leads to my idea about psychology. The question is, does anyone have the right to presume to know what is going on inside another's head? In my dealings, I have consistently stayed with "no," though here, I have taken up analysis of my own thoughts. In my mind, it is an extreme form of arrogance to presume to know the drives behind another human being. Either that, or it is a pitiful, protective, reflex that allows one to have a sense of superiority over another. But enter the views experessed in the former part of this paragraph. Is it not arrogance, but a willingness to help with a third party view that drives these people? Perhaps both, though I cannot see how this sort of armchair psychology can be defended as a truly objective analysis. According to the tenents of behaviorism, the only variables that can be justifiably analyzed are physical realities, not mental goings-on.