In the end.. I am all alone.

When people don't agree on my viewpoint, I get irritated. But little did I realize that mine is also a disagreement with the other person and is bound to evoke the same feelings as mine in him/her.

I feel people live in a imaginary world. What I hate to understand is that people's preference change. And I have seen reasonably unreasonable people's view being changed to accommodate a not so preferred person. This happens so drastically that it hurts a person who was preferred. Is this a mistake of the person who changed or the person who caused the changed is no one's guess. But the point I am trying to drive now is, everyone is inherently volatile.

The idea of 'introvert' and 'extrovert' is grossly mis-understood. A person who derives energy from within is an introvert and an extrovert is otherwise. So it logically follows that a person dependent on others' company is definitely an extrovert. Its funny to recall that there are people who are not so sure if they are introverted or extroverted. By saying introverted, a person may get the advantage of being stand-alone, having his opinions based on his own beliefs. But if such a person is not really individualistic, it becomes a real problem. Mainly because such a person will not have best regard for others, but is still seeking others' company.

Why do we accept a person, who is normally rebellious, when he rebels? Being rebellious is sadly sought out as a trait following critical thinking. But a person, who is normally docile, is being rebuked when revolted. Who has the (I normally don't use slangs) rights to rebuke another person? In my opinion, a person who is rebelling is frustrated. At this juncture, I would like to point out an irony. People, as they grow, tend to become matured, losing out on the fun part. So it is commonly said that people should also try to emulate child-like characteristics. But the irony is, the child-like characteristics are killed over a period of time. Killed by maturity. It looks like maturity and childishness cant co-exist. Take for example, when you go to a company and try to learn without concern for ratings (child-like characteristics), you are over-whelmed by the feeling of shame over a period of time that you start to lose on the characteristics. The problem is, everyone is not objective. Some are competent. Some are not. The not-so-competent simply magnify their contributions. The competent, who actually enjoys work falls in line only. And over a period of time, competency loses out. This is a plague in itself. Because, over a period of time, the majority (incompetent) will be blabbering out to be heard and the competent, unable to bear this would switch tracks. It is exactly at this point, that a person becomes rebellious. This rebellion is either competent and is crying for attention for his new-found out-of-the-box idea, or is yet another immatured incompetent person. Leaving the latter, who would over a period of time join the plagued league, what is left is silent child-like souls crying for attention because of the belief in individual excellence.

People listen to people who talk stable. No one listens to an emotional speech as an idea. It is at this point where the helpless competent people lose out. Now where is the logic of 'survival of the fittest'? To continue on, what happens over a period of time is this set of people would definitely tide over this and form a shift in attitude. And this leads to a tough person, who is intelligent enough, atleast to be trusted.

To give sense to all these divergent thoughts, my idea here is, people who are unduly unreasonable and people who play the game as mentioned above, are the ones who rule. When a docile person retaliates, its of no use. When he doesn't retaliate, its of no use. When this set of people learn to jump to the first category, let them try to change the world. Else we will continue to lose out on our individuality.

In the end.. I am all alone. You can guess the category in which I fit into.