But what's that got to do with the topic of the thread? — Clearbury

Just checking to see if you are AI.

A test for benevolence is to see how much a person has sacrificed for you. As Jesus says, there is no greater love than laying down one's life for one's friends. In less extreme examples, if someone is devoting their time, money, and energy to you in a way that clearly imposes a cost on themselves, that is a clear sign that they value you. — Brendan Golledge

I dont think benevolence, or love should be confused with relationship. Relationships exists within our experience as interactions with another which provide some form of value. Stronger relationships provide more value and so this justifies more sacrifice in order to maintain them. However, sacrifice of ones life is a sacrifice which can never be repaid, so it has no such rational justification. Therefore, its either motivated by an emotional connection so strong that someone cant bear to live without them (at which point it's effectively suicide), or its that they are subjugated to an idea (it may be benevolence, loyalty, bravery, obligation etc.). At no point is this sacrifice motivated by a valuing of the relationship, as one cannot experience the relationship when dead. One can sacrifice themselves for an idea, but they cannot sacrifice themselves for a relationship. Ofc, you could claim you value the idea of their experience, but then you'd need to somehow justify that without connecting it back to the relationship.

True loyalty lies in the rejection of these ideas and emotions in favour of recognising someone for the value they provide you via your experience, not via some principle or rejection of life without them.

I think a lot of interest in the Dunning Kruger effect comes from pride. A lot of people think, "Ha ha, stupid people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are." I would think that if you were actually smart and you realized how dumb other people were, then you'd feel sad, because it would severely limit all your interactions with them. Or, in the case of a malicious smart person, I suppose he could feel greed, because he would realize that he has the opportunity to manipulate the stupid people. In this case, he might laugh at the stupid people, but he'd probably keep his laughter to himself, or else the people would be harder to manipulate. — Brendan Golledge

One troll on the TPF forum likes to uses "Dunning-Kruger" as a code word to call his interlocutor "stupid" without using a forum-forbidden word. He thinks he's clever for sneaking in an ad hominem instead of actually making a philosophical counter argument. Have you experienced that illicit usage of a technical term? Is that why you started this thread? :smile: