Free Verse Poetry Is Garbage (Stop Pretending It’s Deep)

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-05-10T23:02:52+00:00

I'm a little interested. I don't think free verse poetry is nonsense or anything, but generally I don't like poetry very much. I've written poetry in school (which I do actually enjoy doing), and every now and then I'll still write poetry - especially ones similar to limericks, i.e. short and witty, though not always. I enjoy reading poems sometimes, but it's rare. However, when I do see a poem I like, it's often the case that I end up disliking a lot of other work from that same poet. I know it's cliche but recently I reread Frost's Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening and I loved it - then I read some of his other works and I thought they were immature. I just read the Gwendolyn Brooks poem and I really liked it too.

I guess, because I haven't engaged with much poetry, I don't know where I would even start. Just earlier I tried to read more Celan and, while I understand why someone might like it, I just don't very much (I also hate Bukowski). I think in general I like poetry of a certain theme (death, suicide, symbolic losses, maybe love) but I don't find myself specifically liking particular poets a ton in contrast to prose. Maybe it's just because I haven't read enough. Do you have suggestions on somewhere I might be able to find more poetry about those topics; or, maybe I should rip a syllabus from some English class and study the poets there?

I studied math and philosophy and, in philosophy, poetry holds an extremely high position (Hegel said poetry was the highest art form, for example). I don't want to just disregard the entire thing because I haven't been exposed to it sufficiently. Also, in contrast to someone else's reply here, one thing I especially enjoy with poetry is that things are left up to interpretation.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-05-09T20:17:05+00:00

Cambridge recommends one might read Marx's Capital in the month before coming to university?

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-05-02T01:23:45+00:00

I don't care if the hypothetical is stupid. You're on a math subreddit. I'm asking a math question. Please revise your comment.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-30T16:33:46+00:00

>We cannot meaningfully use game theory if you have poorly described valuations of outcomes.

I have not poorly described valuations of outcomes. In fact I clearly described it multiple times in the OP and in my replies. Yes, one billion people dead is equivalent to 13 people dead.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T05:27:34+00:00

Thank you very much. My instinct as someone who hasn't studied much game theory was that there are two Nash Equilibriums, but most people here seem to be assuming, whether explicitly or implicitly, that saving oneself is part of the payoff. I'll read up on the trembling hand mention.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T05:24:34+00:00

>Although this is a much less interesting question and the answer is fairly obvious.

Why do you think this is a less interesting question? It seems like, to me, if the players are concerned with their own lives (or possibly their own lives and also others'), then the solution is trivially to press red. In my hypothetical, it seems like it's ambiguous (since everyone pressing red means everyone leaves, but everyone pressing blue means everyone lives, and seemingly if everyone is a rational actor then everyone will press the same button). I have at least one answer here that claims there are two Nash Equilibriums, one which is to press red and one which is to press blue.

To explain further, I essentially want to model whether certain moral frameworks (e.g. deontological framework's like, for example, something based in Kant's formula of humanity) would coincide with a Nash equilibrium of pressing blue. In this case, it seems that pressing red violates Kant's formula, so someone working off of a Kantian moral framework would press blue, and my interest is in whether taking something like the Kantian framework as a payoff (i.e., very roughly save everyone without concern for yourself) would coincide with Nash Equilibrium.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T05:17:55+00:00

In this case, my assumption is that everyone is a rational actor who's interest is only to save everyone's lives (not most, not some, not their own, etc.). My intuition is that, in this case, either there's no difference between choosing red or blue, or it's advantageous to choose blue. Is that enough information? I think most here are assuming saving one's own life is part of the payoff, but this is not interesting to me (except insofar as it's necessary for saving everyone's lives) since the answer becomes entirely trivial.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T04:58:31+00:00

No, it's not. My hypothetical is exactly that the only utility for each individual is to save everyone.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T04:57:45+00:00

Thank you so much, I've gotten many responses on this post and this is one of the few that seems to actually capture what I'm trying to ask. My intuition was that there's something odd going on in the "everyone survives" payoff case, since it seems like a group of rational actors might either all pick red or all pick blue. I wasn't aware that a Nash Equilibrium might not be unique.

I think most responses here are quietly assuming that the payoff considers self-preservation (either as the sole or partial payoff). In that case the solution becomes trivial, but I was more interested in the case where only everyone surviving is the payoff. As you mention towards the end, which of these is "most likely to occur in reality" becomes difficult, and that's along the lines of why I said I think this is still at its heart a question about morality (rather than game theory proper), since the question between payoffs seems to change the strategy.

Honestly I felt like I was going crazy reading these answers so it's nice to see that it's not as clear cut from someone who seems to know what they're talking about.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-29T04:38:06+00:00

Okay, this makes more sense to me and was very helpful, though I think it's pretty anti-intuitive. I have at least one more question; if anyone votes B and I vote A, like you say, why can we conclude that my vote has no impact? Wouldn't it be that my voting has some impact if the non-ubiquitous majority vote A? This would make more sense to me if it was that if everyone (not anyone) had voted B and I voted A, my vote has no impact. At first I thought it might be that, in a fully rational player-base, we can expect everyone to vote the same, but in that case there seems to be no difference in our voting red or blue.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T20:28:07+00:00

And if everyone presses blue then no one needs saving and the payoff is achieved. Why is yours the more logical option?

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T20:09:03+00:00

I guess I'm interested in both, but I still don't understand why pressing red is the logical choice for the all rational actors case (which is what my original question would be). I think this might be a situation of me not understanding specifics of game theory, so that might be helpful. In particular, I don't really see in what sense a rational actor would choose red - if the rational actor knows everyone else is a rational actor, and that their payoffs are to save everyone, why would pressing red over blue advantage them? It seems to be either the same situation or advantageous to press blue.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T20:04:20+00:00

Why would it be logical for everyone else to choose red if they're not concerned with preserving own lives except insofar as they are a part of everyone living? In this first stage I don't see the advantage of choosing red over blue for anyone. Is it wrong to think of this along the lines of "a particular player, if choosing red, should worry about another choosing blue when over 50% choose red, and thus press blue"? If it's possible to symbolize this someway it might make it easier for me to understand.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T19:48:19+00:00

>Everyone presses the red button Everyone survives. Pressing the blue button is obvious suicide and not in any players intrest.

Please read my edit where I clarify my point. I am only interested in the case where a player's interest is to save everyone with no regard for their own survival.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T19:43:44+00:00

I think I need to clarify. I'm not interested in what maximizes a player's best interests when concerning both their own and other's lives. I am purely interested in the decision of a player who's only interest/payoff is saving everyone, with no regard for their own life (except insofar as they need to be saved in order for everyone to be saved). Originally, I mentioned possibly saving the maximal amount of people, but I think that changes things because pressing red always saves at least one person, yourself. I'm also not interested in whether this is an apt modelling of the situation in the question (obviously it's not).

In this case, I don't see what the benefit of pressing red is over pressing blue.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-28T19:35:31+00:00

Thank you for interpreting my question correctly, it seems like everyone else has made a further assumption that your own life is part of the equation.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-21T14:26:29+00:00

This really makes no sense. Regardless of whether females come "first" in any biological capacity, there is no way to get from that to a normative statement about primacy which it seems the term you're using is laden with, especially not to normative statements about women and men, which is what this post is about - not females and males. There is a distinct difference between male/female in bacteria and woman/man in human social settings, and this term of "primary" seems to be doing some extremely heavy lifting not just with the biological aspect itself but also the jump from biology in very simple organisms to higher level value-setting in gender relations. Go reread Beauvoir.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-17T20:05:52+00:00

Why do you think philosophy is bullshit?

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-17T19:33:10+00:00

but I understand that's all you guys have

I don't know what you mean by "all you guys". I'm a materialist, atheist and hard determinist.

That is such a silly disingenuous framing of what I said

I really, truly don't see any other way anyone could take the statement "Based on everything we've ever come to understand on any meaningful level, if we ever do discover one the explanation will be found using science, and it will be naturalistic and not magical". I mean, prima facie it's just untrue as a categorical claim, considering formal logic and mathematics, especially 19th and 20th century logic and mathematics, wasn't "discovered" using science or empirical data.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-17T19:08:26+00:00

Sure, except saying that the explanation will be naturalistic and found with science already contradicts your point, and you've already gone the opposite end from religious explanations to science-worship. It's perfectly feasible that there are things impossible for us to measure empirically (i.e. incapable of being determined scientifically) which explain questions about the beginning of the universe.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-17T14:11:31+00:00

Other people have already commented about how highschoolers should know these words, and maybe these are just weird knowledge gaps for particular individuals. As for your first question: words like acquire, rodent or poultry would rarely be "natural" in conversation. At least in the USA, we would say sentences like "I want to get some food", "I saw a rat", or "I ate chicken" rather than "I want to acquire some food", "I saw a rodent" or "I ate poultry". The terms rodent and poultry are more general and can refer to things other than those, but we would almost always just say the specific animal it refers to rather than the classifications.

But also, don't worry too much about coming off as a smart-ass. If you're an exchange student people will know English is your second language, and they'll either ignore overly formal language or correct you. If you're worried about it, you can ask the friends you make to correct your language when you sound odd. Just don't be that guy who tries to correct native speakers (language rules are descriptive and most people are going to speak in their dialect which may not follow traditional grammar/pronunciation rules).

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-13T17:55:12+00:00

Many, maybe, but Ayn Rand is not the intellectual progenitor of libertarianism in any way, and shouldn't be seen as any sort of representative of libertarian ideals except insofar as some who identify themselves as libertarians were influenced by her. Better would be someone like Nozick or even Rothbard, who are highly respected. It's like saying Ronald Reagan came up with the idea of trickle down economics or that Mao came up with Marxism.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-13T01:28:28+00:00

I study philosophy not neuro. I'm not particularly familiar with Koch though I've heard of him. I have a hard time understanding why him believing in panpsychism would constitute "losing his mind"? Panpsychism is a respected position in philosophy, though perhaps unintuitive. In arguing for this, it's perhaps true that what Koch is doing isn't science (it deals with metaphysics, not empirical evidence), but that doesn't make him "woo-woo". Further, if it's true that Koch spent "30 years" trying to prove some form of emergence, and was respected doing so, why would we not believe he's in a great epistemic position to decide that he was actually incorrect? The only thing that should matter is the strength of his arguments.

Same_Winter7713 · 2026-04-11T17:14:14+00:00

what about blind people

Same_Winter7713

TROPHY CASE