The best example of this is the scapegoating/pinning of "collusion with Russia" onto Donald Trump, when in the reality it was the Clinton DNC who colluded to interfere in the 2016 (and now 2020) election. Again, the Clinton DNC is a front for the House of Islam: one required access to the "underground market" via Clinton, which is where you will find all of your human trafficking, pedophilia etc. and it leads back to the House of Islam. This is the sum of all fears of Islam: the world wakes up and realizes the depths of the corruption of the House of Islam. Hence, the need to destroy Trump at all costs given his knowledge that Islam is the root of fascism, and not "it's the Jews!". The Jews are the perpetual scapegoat for the House of Islam, which is why they still keep *some* Jews alive. You can't blame a group of people that don't exist. — A Gnostic Agnostic

It seems to me I see beliefs here. I see us them thinking here. I see blame here.

For me these are not necessarily criticisms: beliefs are necessary for so much that I love, there are divisions and us thems and some people deserve blame. That said, it seemed like elsewhere you have been contrasting yourself with people who believe, blame and promote us them thinking.

You missed the point. It isn’t what they can teach you, but what you can learn from your participation in the discussion: humility, patience, tolerance... — Possibility

But perhaps what he or she as an individual needs to learn is pride or the sense that should not simply get away with being disrespectful, or perhaps he has been to patient in the past and not cut off relations with rude people or users or too tolerant of things that were in fact simply vicious.

and everything is on eye level for me. And even in this I say: "belief" is not a virtue, and neither am I to be "believed" but the truth is powerful enough to speak for itself. I can only point to it, and watch the worshipers of lies become filled with hatred and accuse of me spreading hatred. If it is inside of you, and I stir it, the problem is not that I stir, but that you hate. — A Gnostic Agnostic

And what about those theists who do not feel superior to atheists, who see all as sinners or in shamanic or indigenous religions even see us as merely one creature amongst many. Or Christians who took Jesus' 'he who is without sin, cast the first stone. Or other theists who do not act or see as you say?

Could you really not sense the sarcasm? -.- It was not serious — A Gnostic Agnostic

I got that it was sarcasm. The sarcasm was you taking on the voice of the theist while painting them as a them. Sarcasm generally has a target, in this case it was theists.

Well, that's just silly. If one were to have the capacity to tolerate adversity, and yet choose to live a life full of comfort, then I don't see how anyone would willingly choose to tolerate adversity. — Wallows

Adversity means unpleasant or difficult. I guess I wouldn't choose to have anything that was simply unpleasant - but I certainly want difficult. Not all the time. But I don't want to lounge on a perfect sofa being taken care of all the time. I want challenges, and frankly, even some drama.

I gave up on Batricks also.

if you don't understand what you don't understand, then it's hard to make you understand the very thing your arguing opponent wants you to understand.

But here's a start...she could have responded by quoting me where it showed I misunderstood her, and explained why this showed I misunderstood her. Then I have something to work with, and she is also testing to see if her interpretation is correct. There is a significant difference between we disagree and you aren't understanding what I am saying. I did quote her in my posts. I also tried to point out how her definition of hatred had shifted over time.

If she had told me before that I misunderstood and around what with a quote, it would have struck me as just taking an out. Perhaps I missed her saying 'you are misunderstanding my position', since to me it seemed like she was focused on disagreeing.

I do recognize that it can sometimes be hard to tell if it is a misinterpretation or a disagreement, but then specifics are the door out, if there is one.

I am pretty sure we disagree with each other. And if that becomes clear then it is,yes, a beating the dead horse situation. If we are misunderstanding each other, of course that can come to an impasse also. But I never experienced her as clarifying her position in relation to misunderstandings I was showing of that position, through her focusing on specific remarks I made. It seemed like someone disagreeing with me.

I could be wrong, hence my question.

But it's a kinda easy out to just say 'you don't understand me', if I do but disagree. I do consider it an if, right now. But heck, I'd be happy to find out we actually agreed. Or agreed more than it seems. I could have saved us all a lot of time and said 'No, you don't understand me', But I think she does.

I got that he was presenting the position of the religious, however I consider what he is going blaming and characterizing groups.

But what is in the past is over: I am not interested in playing the "blame" game as I now understand the "original sin" as just that: blaming others.

and

You're missing the point: the point is to *not* objectively define good and/or evil.

In doing so, one invites a potential for polarization: "us" (ie. good) vs. "them" (ie. evil) and one is bound to become entangled fighting as one, against the other.

[these are from other threads] It seems to me that he is going against this here and elsewhere. I don't think the difference between bad and evil matters in the context of 'not blaming' and 'not polarizing'.

I do understand that it might be tricky to find a way to avoid this, but if it is, then it reframes his criticism of religious people and religions.

He did not say the following, but I think it is a fair read:

You religious people who divide the world into us and them and blame others are being bad.

I don't think that can avoid hypocrisy.

Do you believe that some countries are illegitimate in that they took someone's land with out permission? — Purple Pond

They were illegitimate (not sure that's the adjective I'd use, but it's not far off), then it hardened, and they become legitimate. Because now the original victims and conquerers are dead. And because to take the land away now would be abuse by whatever power managed to accomplish this.

Should we return it? Well, if it very recently happened possibly. Depending who we are and who they are and the effects of doing this or trying to will be. If it means WW3, then probably not.

I think Israel needs to make it equal under the law for Palestinians. In theory and in practice. I am not sure there is a way to go back in time, but they need to stop doing new things that should get reparations.

Native Americans: It's not practical to give them back the continent. But I could see giving them more land.

Animals: we should try to minimize the damage we do to them. At least, that's my preference.

I think the main thing is to try to set the history right. To acknowledge that certain actions were not only not noble nor manifest destiny nor the right of Kings etc. but even just malicious behavior often based on hallucinations. That's a tough enough goal. Get past that one and perhaps something else could be done.

I generally agree with you on this one, though I think one could choose to try to change a belief and this can happen over time. Not about your birth date or something else with very little swing room. But beliefs about people or psychology or approaches to business or political ideas. One can decide for a variety of reasons that if there is a chance, for example, the belief you have might be wrong, you can go in search of anomalies. You could engage with people who believe the opposite and check very carefully to see if you are dismissing out of hand. This might be especially appealing if it is a belief that you would prefer was not true, but the bulk of the evidence you are aware or, and or deduction, lead you to believe otherwise. There is no discrete choice: Now I will believe that our government should have more socialist facets to it, or whatever. But one could more in the direction of making it possible and if some evidence arises, keep on going, choosing to go for the belief that you prefer but seriously doubt. There could be other motivations. Since some beliefs have to do with other people, there can be some beliefs that actually affect one's experiences with other people. More of less interpersonal placebo effects. There are similar things in learning skills. If you go in with the belief you can't, well this will affect how you deal with frustration and failures along the way. So, one might aim for the confidence beliefs. And again, the rub is, this is not a decision, as you say, like choosing chips tonight at the store. It's more like the stroke victim choosing to fight to walk again. It's a long haul thing. And stroke victim who believes he never will stands some good chance of being correct.

See how much more fun atheists are as compared to "believers" who "believe" in someone/something such that if it is undermined, they become outraged? How can I outrage you, o atheist? Your unbelief in a god makes you EVIL! Nevermind the hundreds of millions of dead bodies behind the theists, they are made VIRTUOUS by their BELIEF in god! And you don't believe! How dare you! Terrorist! — A Gnostic Agnostic

I thought you were arguing elsewhere that we should not think interms of good and evil. Isn't it implicit in this argument that you see theists as tending towards evil?

If you ever want to try to stick to the issues, instead of speaking about me, I am here for you. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

1) you asked about something regarding you, so part of that post was a response to the request. 2) I did focus on the issues, even in that post. You made a false set of claims about historians. And failed to concede a single point even when it was obvious. 3)

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt — Gnostic Christian Bishop

lol, you discuss people all the time. You discuss groups of them. And you also discuss yourself, describe yourself, present yourself. Or no one would know you think you achieved apotheosis. Live up to Eleanor's values on what should be discussed and you will find others follow it more in response. Live up to rational integrity and no one will find it necessary to point out you avoid conceding points. You don't hesitate to discuss people when it seems right as part of your polemic. Gurus and dictators expect people to 'do as I say, not as I do'. Other people realize that they can be called out on their own actions and words.

That’s one of the dangerous aspects of this theory: it risks absolving people of guilt in certain crimes, — NOS4A2

If it is true that speech acts increase certain effects, then we have to deal with that danger. IOW you are saying that a problem with what I am saying is that it might lead to certain negative consequences. But that has nothing to do with it being true or not. It is as if you are conceding it is true, but it would be better not to believe it since it will lead to X. But of course if the effect is an increase in crime, then the people committing the crimes are still those easily influenced by certain speech acts. They are dangerous people. Speech acts continue, people have violent potentials, some of them. This could be seen as why both groups are dangerous. The guy who drives the bank robbers to the bank and knows they are planning to rob the bank, well, he didn't make them rob the bank. They could have chosen to go into the florist's next door and buy flowers. Yet, we manage to hold him responsible for the crime also. Even though driving to a bank is legal, generally. So we are not forced to treat the direct violent criminals as responsibility free. IOW if we put the driver in prison it does not mean that the guys who went into the bank with guns are not responsible for their actions.

What am I not understanding? Please be specific about how I show that I do not understand, rather than simply disagree for the reasons I've given.

I think people try to come up with a variety of ways to feel as good as possible. And there is a wide range of ways to 'feel good'. Sometimes it even looks like they are trying to feel bad. But perhaps expecting something good and getting the bad is the worst for them or they think it is. Usually having just one approach, it seems to me, leads to problems. I don't think most people expect to be happy all the time, not that they'd mind.

I think actually it's a problem to try to live up to an ideal in many situations. People can have the ideal that they are a tough guy and don't allow their fear or caution to avoid situations where they are in real danger for no good reason. Ideals can be helpful things to strive for, but when it comes to becoming yourself, allowing your innate talents and responses to be free to express, if the ideal you have is actually based on what others want, or a cultural ideal, you may be damning yourself to failure and missing out on what you actually are good and will feel right doing and expressing. So someone thinking noticing how dark things are is cool, rather that just accepting that those feelings are in fact ones they feel sometimes or more, will now have an internal rule to live up to. They've gone from potentially accepting themselves - by allowing for dark feelings - to wanting to not have other feelings - joy, intimacy, communal belonging, amusement, hope. So the ideal that started by helping someone accept themselves now becomes the new boss.

So we have company 1 and it uses advertising and more people buy the product and company 2 where without advertising their sales do not go up. Then 1 stops buying goes down. Uses it, it goes up. We can't test for that. YOu think they don't test for that?

We can try it with a party.

Person one does not send out emails, let's no one know.
Person two sends out emails and makes calls.

Now you can say the communication did not cause people to come. I would say it was one of the causes. But I hope you can agree in scenario 1 less people will come to the party, perhaps none.

Now if we change the communication topic to many phone calls saying:if you bring me a film of you killing my wife, I will give you 50K and someone kills the wife, I would put that husband in prison. Even though the various hit men or criminals he sent it to were not completely caused to perform the act of murder. Of course they brought something to the table. They had their tendencies and desires and this in a mix with the husband's contribution.

And given that criminals have these tendencies, I consider the husband dangerous.

Because we will in this universe, not one where people don't have those tendencies.

So the issue is how much like the latter scenario is hate speech or some other communicatitve act, which is part of what leads to people being violently attacked. If you have intention to have it lead to others committing violence, choose a behavior that statistically leads to certain effects, though of course any invidual directly committing the act of violence also is committing a crime, and it is reasonable to expect your action - communicating - to lead to violence, perhaps it can also be treated as a crime. Not that any of this is easy to determine, but many crimes are tricky to determine, like some tax crimes.

And further, I didn't see any response to my virus spraying. Let's shift it to an office building change it to an allergin. I, a disgruntled former employee, spray an allergin into the ventilation system. Only those workers who stay more than 4 hour sin the building and whose immune systems react to this allergin are affected. Without their immune system responses, overresponses, they would not get the rashes. Without them choosing to be in the building more than four hours, they also would not get it.

Are we really going to say that the rashes were not effects of my spraying the allergin. Must something be the only cause to be considered causal?

This is where I came in...

Most people that genuinely feel hatred are behind bars for crimes of passion, performing ethnic cleanses or going through intense CBT

'genuinely feel hatred' is a phrase which focuses on the type of feeling. Now to meet your criteria it has to be for such prolonged periods of feeling rage that the person's body suffers from stress related deterioration. And you contrast this with 'fleeting' moments of feeling that one can't even distinguish from disgust.

First, there is a lot of room between prolonged periods leading to physical problems due to the stress of negative emotions and fleeting moments that one can't even identify the feeling. And there is a significant percentage of the population who experience hatred between your extremes there. Two, it is very easy to distinguish between hatred and disgust when it is not some fleeting feeling one barely notices.

But when we address "hatred" is not merely just an emotion, in philosophical, sociopolitical, etc., contexts, I view it as more than just a "reaction" but in order to meaningfully classify someone as "harboring all this hatred" attaching it to their identity as a person, there must be a pattern of intent to cause harm and/or restrict something - or someone, habits and practices, along with a series of self-defeatist behaviors, actions, either addressed - or unaddressed, etc. — Swan

I never said anything about attaching it to one's personality and identifying with it. I wrote about experiencing the emotion.

I think your use of the term does not fit the way people on the street use the term, nor the way people who are experts in the language use the term 'hatred'. It also seems like you shift the definition around when it is pointed out that many people feel hatred for bosses, parents, people with different political positions and more. Now it has to be a situation where people are suffering physical ailments from long term stress caused by a pattern of feeling hatred much of the time. This is a radically idiosyncratic definition of the term. Not one used by psychologists, regular old people nor people who write dictionaries.

And basically you are telling honest people with the minimal introspective skills necessary to notice their own hatred that they are pathological or they don't understand their own language.

Well, it depends. I mean if you are poor and struggling, stuck in a job that has Kafkaesque qualities, or any other really tough things to deal with regularly, having this attitude might be helpful. I do think it is important to allow oneself to feel what one feels. So creating a new habit and thinking it is cool or right or deep to be negative is a problem also. But this will be tricky to judge from the outside or evne the inside sometimes. When you are genuinely expressing your feelings and when you are living up to an ideal.

Let's say on some level you notice some systemic problems around you. Life is hard, there are some seriously horrible things that people do, there is longing, there is a lot of presenting oneself as thinking this is cool or that one is having a good time. We tend not to say we are confused or afraid, even though pretty much every teenager is confused and or scared a good deal of the time. So, you hit philosophers or literature that says this is a part of life. Or films. It's a relief. I am not necessarily weird. There are real problems and dark areas. The platitudes we are told might be, well, platititudes. I think this is really wonderful and supportive, in addition to being sort of depressing. Better than wandering around feeling like you have to pretend those feelings are not there or signs you are pathological.

I think it feels good. I've been there, not becuase say, I was an existentialist or something like that. So, it came, actually more out of literature: Kafka, Dostoyevsky, certain poets. For me, given what I had gone through and what I saw around me, it was like a real exhale. Yes, there is this underbelly of darkness. Thank you. I noticed this also. I think this can be done well - and I would guess I was a mix - or done rather self-importantly and like a style thing, but I don't think it need be false.

OK, I think I get you, sort of like being into philsophy is like being a goth or emo. I don't really experience this, though subcultures might have this somewhere. Does this happen around you? ARe you at a unviersity?

And you'll notice I didn't say that it did cause any particular individual.. However one of the effects of the advertising is that more people will buy the product. So, it is causal to an increase in products. Of course other causes and conditions affect which ones will be influenced, if only by now knowing the product is available. I could spray a virus in your home and since it may or may not make you and your family sick, or just some of you, one could argue, as it seems to me you are arguing, that if you get sick, my act did not cause your illness. However if I perform this act, more people will get sick that house, than if I didn't. That is an effect of the act. Just as an effect of the act of advertising will have as an effect that more people will buy that product. I am not responsible for customer 235 buying the deoderant. However I did make more people buy it. The relevance for the thread should be clear. It is not about me controlling inviduals, it is me contributing to in increase of something

but what's the attitude?

1) I am pointing out that the story is actually humbling, since it is based on the idea that they are not the center of the universe, generally, it is the deity, in those religions that are like that. 2) Your hypothesis also does not explain why so many of the original religions did not involve people being special, they were one type amongst many others, with specialness all over the place.

Yeah. Which is why I brought up most people that genuinely feel hatred are undergoing intense CBT (if not, likely require it) therapy, and left untreated.. (violently harms themselves), if not anyone else - and "embracing" that is just moronic when there are ways to mitigate it. — Swan

Where do you get the statistic that most people who genuinely feel hatred at undergoing intense CBT? And what is intense CBT as opposed to the usual CBT? Can you link us to any of that?

So yes, a great deal of people find all kinds of things frustrating and repulsive; doesn't explain much about "hatred" which I view as a prolonged (state) driven by a series of self-defeating/undressed emotions, — Swan

Or you could say they hate a bunch of things

to dislike someone or something very much:

So, you define it a way that makes you think it is not so common, but disliking someone or something very much is very common. And I actually think there are much stronger feeling of rage and anger that we tend to suppress.

"back-stabbing" and so forth - intent to cause harm or restrict someone else harmfully, one way or another - to someone, or another. — Swan

I meant socially backstabbing. The way hatred comes out via gossip, betrayal, office political maneuvers. The types of feelings that come up in close relationships where teenager in relation to their parents or spouses in relation to each other feeling intense rage.

So, I don't think OP is some evil guy filled with "hatred" or whatever, think he's just being hard on himself. And yeah, there are plenty of people not walking about "filled and bubbling over with hatred" and manage themselves and emotions just fine. Just seems hyperbolic. — Swan

I don't think I said all or most people are bubbling over with rage, but most people do experience hatred. It's not an abnormal feeling. I mean look at the poltical divisions in the country and tell me that hatred is not common. It doesn't mean it is all the time. People smile at the their kids, help strangers who felll, down but mention Trump or Hilary and their supporters and you find hate fast. Bosses who mistreat their workers, and that is not uncommon. Ask waiters and bartenders if they ever feel hate at their customers, or anyone is a service postion: hotels, for example. Anywhere where one just has to eat being treated with disrespect.

And of course most of these workers do not snarl their way through life. They have other reactions to other things and people. But they feel hatred, in any sense of the word I have seen.

And so I. It is one of the many emotions I feel, now and then.

A geat deal of philosophy seems to be about professing the correct attitude. — Wallows

How does it seem to be about this`? I'm not skeptical, I just have no idea what this means.

Except if core drive is to feel special would you make up the existence of entities more powerful than you are. And 'specially made' fits, in some ways the Abrahamic view, but I don't think it fit, indigenous, animistic, pantheistic types of beliefs very well, since these groups tended to view themselves as one amongst many created creatures of all sort of types:spirits, minor deities, animals, plants (which were considered conscious). Humans were just one amongst many special beings, and less powerful and special than some.

There is nothing complex about anger or rage. It's the most primitive knuckle-dragging ape-like thing there is — Swan

All our emotions are knuckle-dragging ape like things. We're social mammals, primates.

Trying to gloss up random hatred as some complex philosophical preponderance of thought is just complicated what it is. — Swan

Just like the other emotions hatred is not a philosophical thing, but given that we have our limibic systems enmeshed with other parts of our minds our emotions are involved with and affected by all sorts of things.

Most people that genuinely feel hatred are behind bars for crimes of passion, — Swan

I really don't think this is true. Most people who are behind bars turned their hatred or some other motivating drive into ACTIONS that society deemed inapporpriate or wrong. Prisoners are much more likely to be people who cannot feel anger without acting it out with violence. But most people feel hatred. They just don't act it out. They may judge the emotion and do all they can to suppress it. Some of these people are passive-aggressive. It is also perfectly normal to hate that which expresses hatred at you, especially if it is not grounded fairly in what you have done, or when violence or extreme disrespect is aimed at you. Or even things like social backstabbing, ongoing disrespect - often bosses are hated, in part because there is no good way for the person disrespected to easily extricate themselves from the dynamic - abuse of power, or when people mistreat people we love. We can also hate organizations or patterns in society

So can we consider it causal? Use of advertising at point in time A leads to increased behavior B during time period X. In context overestimation of effects seems to include a concession.

This an answer to that question, not one related to particles.

The experience.

Another temporary escape from desire, is the way that we find enjoyment in the arts and beauty. Pleasure in art, for Schopenhauer, engrossed us in the world as representation, while momentarily being oblivious to the world as Will. Art can also give us an intuitive and therefore deeper connection to the world than science or reason could.
Music was the highest form of art for Schopenhauer. Because it’s not “mimetic”, or a copy of anything else as, say, painting is, music depicts the will itself. As such, music is pure expression, a “true universal language” understood everywhere. Listening to music we may appreciate the Will without feeling the pain (desire or boredom) of its workings. The philosopher wrote:
“The composer reveals the innermost nature of the world, and expresses the profoundest wisdom, in a language that his reasoning faculty does not understand.” — The Power of Schopenhauer from www.medium.com

Artists would just be people making it seem like life is better, less painful, part of the natalist propaganda. And in truth, to antinatalists, it would be better if no art had ever been made, and if no one had existed. Life includes its own consent, People think of consent like how you would answer to the offer to sign a contract. But it's not like that, life wants to live. From the moment it is there. We humans identify, sometimes, with the thinky little verbal thing, one portion of the organism, and it seems like this little piece of the organism didn't sign any contracts and it can get mad it was not offered a choice. But the whole organism chooses life with great passion all the time. And if it doesn't then it stops living. Like elderly people whose mated die and they die a couple of day later.

And a lot of stupidity. For example, I once encountered someone who suggested that it would be true that the shape of our planet is hexagonal, so long as the theory was useful enough in terms of predictive power and so on. — S

What an amazing coincidence. I remember a guy presuming that the idea that the earth is hexagonal has predictive value as part of a strawman argument rather than using the actual, non-strawman argument presented in the post he was responding to. The sad thing is the guy who presumed that is not stupid. I used to think it was malice, but the tragedy is it's neither malice nor stupidity.
He's, reliving his childhood.

Yes, a ton of money is wasted on advertising, and there are plenty of studies showing that it's not near as effective as is commonly believed in the business world--or as claimed by the advertising industry, of course.

People need to know about your products or services in order to be interested in them, obviously, but lots of money is regularly wasted on advertising. — Terrapin Station

So the effects are exaggerated, but there. People need to know, or they wouldn't come buy them. So putting the advertising out there increases the liklihood of sales. Perhaps the advertisers have made it seem more necessary than it is and more valuable than it is.

Advertising must have positive effects. If this were not the case the case, companies would have experimented with less and none and stopped using it. In fact they do try varying amounts and are devilishly thorough, at least many of them, in tracking results. And these experiments, along with the studies you mention which the companies can find and many must be aware of, would have already led to no longer advertising or minimal use of the cheapest possible information based communication. No branding, no money spent on sets, photos, actors, copywriters color ads, large ads, online banners, marketing research and so on. Just lists of products and where to get them. If that.

Informing people is a kind of communication. It has effects. They are not universal. But no one is arguing that any speech act will compel every human to do something.

I think there's some truth in that, but there is also a lot of malice out there, and sometimes in here.

Again, why does the guy grab something from the fridge? Why isn't he satisfied without doing so? Is it something related to a deficiency in hunger, thirst, comfort, entertainment? — schopenhauer1

And this is confused also. Desire is not a lack, it is a fullness feeling. There are problems when desire cannot be satisfied or met. But then unless this is something like starvation, life can still be experienced as a challenge, a part of the dynamism of life. Often the anti-natalist position seems to me to hide a hatred of life, or rather, actually be this. Here you have been generalizing that life is suffering. So the issue is not that a child hasn't consented, it is that life is bad and no child should experience it.

So desiring is like a wound that is never clotted by simply fulfilling a desire. — schopenhauer1

Desire is like a wound when it is very painful. Few of us posting here ever experience hunger as a wound. I enjoy desire, I enjoying just being about to satisfy it, I enjoy, the process of satisfying it and I enjoy it's return. Not as a rule, but this certainly happens and if we are talking about food, here, I think most people on this forum have enough control of their food to experience this way.

So you think that these corporations are wasting their money and haven't figured this out after so many years?

And, yes, I realize people can believe false things for long periods of time. But you'd think experts, who they tend to consult with, would have let them know that companies that do not advertise do just as well as those that do, and the incredible benefit of saving that money would have led a number of corporations, generally fascinated with money, to try and that confirm this.

I think it might have even been useful if they were out of balance. They were the one who checked the sentries, the nets, the cave opening many times. They were mostly a pain in the ass, but once in a while they saved the whole tribe.

I did find this. I can't see the whole article...

Could obsessive-compulsive disorder have originated as a group-selected adaptive trait in traditional societies?
Polimeni J1, Reiss JP, Sareen J.
Author information
Abstract

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) possesses distinctive characteristics inviting evolutionary and anthropological explanations. A genetically based condition with low fecundity persisting through generations is paradoxical. The concept of group selection is an evolutionary principle capable of clarifying the perplexing epidemiology of OCD. Using a group-selection paradigm, the authors propose that OCD reflects an ancient form of behavioural specialization. The majority of compulsions such as checking, washing, counting, needing to confess, hoarding and requiring precision, all carry the potential to benefit society. Focussing primarily on hunting and gathering cultures, the potential evolutionary advantages of OCD are explored.

It's just a hypothesis, but if you read the verbs they mention one can see how they might benefit the group.

Or cofused minded people. We make mistakes. But in any case I don't think hate is evil. I think it hate can be horrible and many acts justifed by hate are horrible. But I am focused on the feeling