Comments

  • Ayn Rand's Self-Sainted Selfishness
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm
    We haven't had a Rand thread for quite a while. Gird up your loins.
  • Is depression the default human state?
    ↪TiredThinker
    No: It isn't a 'default state'. "Depression" describes a reduction in physical, cognitive and emotional functioning. It is a disease state, ranging from mild to severe, short-term to chronic.

    Happiness isn't the default state, either. Life just isn't arranged to allow us (or any creature) continual blissful relaxation.

    If there is a default state, it is the struggle of life to survive, grow, mature, and reproduce. When members of our species are successful, our lives work out reasonably well. Past success does not guarantee future results.
  • Something the Philosophical Community Needs To Discuss As We Approach Global Conflict Once More
    human plague of cannibals — bert1

    My theory is that as soon as the electricity grid goes down, the batteries fail, and they've used up all the drugs and booze, they will turn to cannibalism. Of course they will. No internet, no social media, no streaming services, no phones, no same-day delivery! The people will be so angry, upset, and frustrated there will be no sufficient relief other than grabbing some live bodies and throwing them onto the barbecue. Necrophilia before or after dinner?

    So Putin could crash our systems and Voila!
  • Something the Philosophical Community Needs To Discuss As We Approach Global Conflict Once More
    We're now on a knife's edge and there are many directions in which this precarity could lead us. — Garrett Travers

    Which knife edge of precocity are you most concerned about? Nuclear annihilation? Conventional world war? Global overheating? The Black Plague (or its equivalent)? Severe world-wide depression? Social collapse? Civil war?

    The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists' Doomsday Clock shows 100 seconds before midnight. We are at 412 ppm of CO2, up 11% since 2000. Depression and social collapse are always just around the corner. Maybe Americans will get a second civil war -- Stephen Marche, The Coming Civil War, Dispatches from America's Future, thinks we are on the way.

    So many problems, so little time. Or, altogether too much time. Don't know.

    I wish there was a Grand Solution we could all get behind, but if wishes were gold bullion, we would all be rich.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    "country" or "borderland" — Apollodorus

    In the past (like... 40 years ago) people often used 'the' when referencing--'the Ukraine'.

    Fox News says "The Ukraine” was previously used as a shortened version of “the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” and therefore saying “the Ukraine” refers to a time that many Ukrainians would rather not reference."

    I always assume Fox News is lying, so maybe it developed from the name being perceived more as a common noun than a proper noun, like 'the' midwest.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    If trump makes a comeback it's game over. — Changeling

    It might be "game over", and Trump never faded into the sewage lagoon where he had been consigned; he keeps resurfacing.

    Stephen Marche's The Next Civil War outlines possible ways the United States could start coming apart--not just from polarization, but from people diverging from common interests; white supremacists infiltrating into the police (and military); economic advancement by marginalized groups, and so on, That last -- marginalized groups getting ahead economically -- enflames the dominant demographic more than their own decreased economic well being.

    So from several causes, the game might be coming to an end.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Plus, how would Biden react if Texas decided to become independent and join Mexico or Spain? — Apollodorus

    Some days I think that would be unfortunate, and other days I think "Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

    E Pluribus Unum has worked, and not worked, in the US. There are several serious books suggesting that we might be better of with less "pluribus". One is The Nine Nations of North America by Joel Garreau. Another author suggested a more complicated map than Gauueau, grouping New England and Great Lakes states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and a few other scattered pieces) as Yankeedom--a diverse geographical area (all fall along the northern tier of states) but all have social cultures descended from the Puritan foundation of New England.

    It seems entirely plausible that Moldova and the pacific coastal regions of Russia might not have much in common, similarly, Kazakhs and Baltic cultures are pretty dissimilar.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jamalrob
    Reading what you wrote, seems to me I heard Putin say that it was the Bolsheviks who granted 'independence' to provinces of the old tsarist empire. My impression is that the Soviet Republics weren't all that independent of centralized control.

    So, how much difference would it make (outside of local boundary disputes) whether the soviet empire or the tsarist empire were reconstructed?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪ssu
    ↪Benkei
    ↪Manuel
    @et al Were the United States to invade Canada, capturing Ottawa early on and decapitating the government, we would probably be successful. (Just thinking about how the trucker convoy tied up Ottawa for 3 weeks.) The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear America militarily? There might well be a long period of internal resistance, but nothing we couldn't deal with. The Canadians are not much like the Islamic State, after all.

    Were Russia to invade Ukraine, capturing Kyiv early on and decapitating the government, they would probably be successful. (Just thinking about whether we have to call it "chicken kyiv" from now on, or can we go back to 'chicken Kiev'?). The rest of the world might be totally appalled, but who would want to take on nuclear Russia militarily?

    The leading major powers can pretty much do what they want to do in their own backyards, or even in someone else's distant shit hole garden, should they so decide. Urbane sophisticates don't like this sort of thing, but up against a shark what can even a couple of dozen North Atlantic organized herring do? Not too much, without risking making things worse for themselves.

    True, there are "sanctions" and maybe in the long run sanctions will have some effect; time will tell about that.

    If Comrade Putin wishes to reconstruct the Soviet Union, there is some chance he might succeed. After all, are corrupt Russian oligarchs very different from soviet commissars and apparatchiks? After all, just how committed is the West to the freedom-loving peoples of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, or Belorussia, to name a few of the former Soviet Republics? My guess is that we are not deeply committed. (The Baltic states are the exception, most likely.).

    Stay tuned.
  • Need Help to Move On
    ↪Tex
    You were asked and you gave. Blessings on you.

    Given his recent good fortune, it would not be unreasonable to expect at least a gesture of reciprocity. Sadly, he may not know how to reciprocate. He may not know how to express gratitude. Of course, I know nothing abut him, but some people don't feel urgency on any number of normal responses in social situations.

    I think it perfectly normal for you to be troubled by his lack of reciprocity. It's obvious that reciprocity of some sort would be the appropriate thing to do. Alas, it isn't happening, and maybe there is nothing either one of you can do about it (for quite different reasons, of course).

    If he had no skill at managing money (making it, keeping it, spending it wisely, etc) maybe he doesn't know the meaning of the substantial amount of money he received (maybe from you and from others. He might not have this windfall for long, if he doesn't know how to hold on to money. Perhaps somewhere down the line he will be broke, again, and will want help. Should that happen, you might want to carefully weigh whether to give him more money.

    It would be good if he could at least express gratitude for past help received. A lack of gratitude may be more grating than the lack of reciprocity.

    In any case, you are in the better position. You are not at fault.
  • Changing Sex
    the most commonly searched topics on the site is penis size. — praxis

    This is something else that Sigmund Freud got wrong. It isn't women who have penis envy, it is men. We all want to know how well we hang in comparison with other men--desperately hoping and mis-measuring to show that we are at least 1/8th of an inch above average.

    It's not the ship, it's the motion of the ocean. (consolation prize)
  • Changing Sex
    ↪praxis
    Congratulations; as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify."
  • Changing Sex
    ↪praxis
    It is a Kinseyism that a lot of people are neither heterosexual or homosexual, they are bi-sexual. They are said to have satisfactory sex with both the same and opposite sex. (I'm taking this on faith, not on personal experience.). You have probably seen Kinsey's and other people's stats on bisexual behavior. A small percentage of men are exclusively homosexual (like...2.5%); a large percentage are exclusively heterosexual. Increasing percentages of men behave bisexually on their way to exclusive heterosexuality.

    Is a man who has sex 60% with women and 40% with men homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual? Depends who is applying the definitions, I suppose. Kinsey (1894-1956) conducted his research in the 1940s and 1950s. His Institute at U-Indiana carries on today. How bisexual men found partners in the 1940s isn't clear to me -- I'd have to read a batch of Kinsey material, I suppose. And Kinsey's research was a new field: there was not a lot of nuts-and-bolts research before his.

    Homophile advocate organizations (who have a vested interest in larger numbers) tend to claim 10% of the population as homosexual. I think this is wishful thinking. A friend of mine always asked, "If 10% of the population is gay, who is getting my share?"

    In 2021, IPSOS, a French market research firm, conducted a large survey in 21 country, all continents. They found:

    80% of people worldwide identified as heterosexual, 3% as homosexual, 4% as bisexual, and 1% each as pansexual, asexual, and other. Results indicated that significant differences in sexual identity have emerged between generations across the globe, with the youngest group, or Generation Z, being more likely to identify as bisexual (9%) than Millennials (4%), Generation X (3%) and Boomers (2%). Generation Z and Millennials were also more likely to identify as homosexual, with 4% and 3% doing so respectively, compared to 2% of Generation X and 1% of Boomers. In addition, the survey found that men are more likely than women to identify as homosexual (4% vs. 1%).

    There are, of course, obvious problems in pinning down actual sexual behavior. Unless one can use a massive and intrusive 'bird watching' approach, one has to rely on self-report.
  • Changing Sex
    Remember the scene where the champagne was uncorked and everyone did a girlish scream? Do you think that was pre-mediated theater or a deeply pre_conscious , reflexive perceptual reaction that gets to the heart of what I’m talking about? — Joshs

    La Cage, as a film, contained no actual spontaneous behavior of any kind. It employed a fair amount of exaggeration for effect, but sure, the gay characters didn't seem artificial.

    Gay men in the Upper Midwest seem to be more tightly wrapped than gay men elsewhere in the country, though there are exceptions. When I moved to Boston from Minnesota in 1968 I found most people in Boston to be more open, spontaneous, and expressive than Midwesterners people. Others have observed the same differences.

    I am a good example of a tightly wrapped, tightly screwed together gay man. I always needed a couple of drinks to loosen up enough to engage other men in bars, and I was by no means the only one. Do Midwesterners learn to be tightly wrapped and screwed together, or is it just the way we are? Geographical Determinism? Extreme weather? A disease spread by wood ticks?
  • Changing Sex
    ↪Joshs
    ↪Tom Storm
    Some very campy gay man (can't remember) said "I never had a closet to hide in" because he was a campy child.

    This sort of thing was just outside my cultural and experiential zone. Jerry, Rich, and Vic, three guys I met in my first year at Backwater State College (1964), were, I long since understood, campy and cruisey, but at the time that was something I hadn't previously witnessed. I did not know what to make of it.

    So yes, I can acknowledge that these three guys, 2 rural, 1 urban at age 18 in backwater Minnesota were campy. Going back a little further, even I exhibited campy behavior at the age of 12, which wasn't appreciated.
  • Changing Sex
    gaydar — Joshs

    I'd be a lot happier with gaydar if it were more reliable. Like radar, it's a great advance over flying around in the dark. One might use 'gaydar' as a very narrow 'sex-finding' skill, but it is based on a 'gestalt' that includes "the identification of a constellation of behavioral and appearance cues (dress, pronunciation, interests, posture, demeanor, walk) as pointing to what I have been calling a gay gender-associated perceptual-affective style."

    It’s interesting how it’s common for members of the gay community to refer to each other as ‘she’ or ‘queen’ or ‘girl’. I don’t think this is just social conventions that we learn from each other. This use of language comes directly from the way we feel inside, this equal dose( and in those men who are strongly effeminate a much higher dose) of feminine style and masculine style. — Joshs

    While I have heard gay men refer to each other as "'she' or 'queen' or 'girl' [add in 'sister'] since I started traveling in gay circles (some 55 years), there have always been some men who did, and some men who didn't. I associate it with 'camp'. Some men 'camp' and some men don't. Some men are campy all the time, which I find kind of tiresome. Without a time machine, the only way we have of determining whether this is historically 'built in' or 'learned' is to look at print sources which are unreliable at capturing occasional instances of campy speech. Does Walt Whitman use feminine pronouns for men? I don't think so, but that's a guess.

    "Camp" (high camp, mid camp, low camp"... see Susan Sontag on Camp, 1964).

    Why do some men use, or not use campy speech? One guess is that it depends on whether or not they have immersed themselves in campy gay bars from the get go. It takes practice to do well. Men who don't drink and smoke (and go to bars) are less likely to be campy [theoretical postulate... no evidence on hand]. Men from rural hick backwaters [me], however profoundly gay they might be, tend not to be campy. Class has something to do with it. Lower class, more likely; middle class--too insecure; upper class -- more likely to practice high camp. [not fact based; conjecture]. And, as you say, at least some of it seems to stem from the self-protrayed gender role. Some guys are consistently butch/macho/masculine, and some guys are consistently the opposite, and probably always were, one way or another.

    Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde (1854-1900) practiced high camp. He was gay and straight (much more complicated than merely gay, straight, bisexual).
  • Are we responsible for our own thoughts?
    ↪Andrew4Handel


    are you suggesting we are just our brains — Andrew4Handel

    Certainly didn't mean to suggest that. We are everything between scalp and toe nails, all connected to the brain. l

    The existence of a 'self', the brain, consciousness, etc. are all very hard problems. As far as I know, no one has solved these difficult questions.

    Do you think with your Kidneys? — Andrew4Handel

    No, but my bladder operates an alarm clock. There is the alimentary nervous system that operates the gut. The ANS has something to say about how we feel, and even how we think (see the various studies of the microbiome).

    You seem to be assuming that consciousness is inextricably linked to some brain actives of which no reliable correlates have been found. — Andrew4Handel

    Right, nobody knows where the self or consciousness is located, if it is located anywhere. Son of a bitch. My guess is that "self' is emergent, arising from activities of the brain that are not, oddly enough, conscious. However the brain does it, the brain does a great job of faking our consciousness, and sense of a conscious self if they don't actually exit.

    I recently read a description of how we know we have relieved our sense of thirst. There is a small set of vessels in the liver that receive blood from the upper end of the intestines. When we feel thirsty, these vessels signal thirst, and we drink water. The water is absorbed in the stomach and intestines. The blood flowing from the small intestine provides the vessels in a specific location in the liver with a sample of blood, from which these vessels can determine whether we have drunk enough water, or not. If we have, the vessels signal satiety,

    This is a very recent discovery. Various locations and mechanisms have been suspected as the measuring point. Now we know. I suppose these vessels send a message to the brain, "Enough with the water, already!" when we have swallowed enough.

    I would have thought the brain detected thirst and its satisfaction, but no. The brain gets a memo.

    If we are just our brains then they are material objects controlled by laws of nature/physics/biology. — Bitter Crank

    That spongy 2-halved blob in our skulls does rather seem to be a material object, and it seems to exist within the sphere of reality controlled by nature, physics, biology, doesn't it???

    So no free will, then? Can we tell whether we have complete free will?. Can we tell whether we are entirely determined by physics and chemistry? I don't know how we could perceive such a pervasive determinism either way.

    Personally, I think people should stop worrying about free will. Endlessly ruminating about free will doesn't get us anywhere.
  • The problem of dirty hands
    The first issue Walzer ponders is whether there really is such a thing as an ethical dilemma. — frank

    I've come across Walzer in decades past (in the pages of Z Magazine--which seems to have bit the dust). My dim recollection is that he was difficult to comprehend.

    No such thing as an ethical dilemma? Really? How is that the case?
  • Are we responsible for our own thoughts?
    is our brain feeding us — Andrew4Handel

    Do you think your brain is something other than you? I am my body, my brain. What my brain thinks, I think.

    Many of the brain's activities are not conscious. All the physical regulating that the CNS carries out is done outside of consciousness. Some parts of the brain are manageable, controllable; some parts are not. One morning I might wake up awash in feelings of despair, angst, and anxiety. my brain may direct my feet and hands to a bottle of benzodiazepines (for immediate relief) and a bottle of SSRIs for longer term relief.

    I could spend the rest of th day ruminating (chewing over and re-chewing) all the reasons why life is unsatisfactory. I could get on the bike and go for a long ride. The latter would probably br more effective than the former, in terms of me feeling better.

    I, you, can decide to think some thoughts, or so we believe. One day I decided to learn French. I started, but found it tedious so I stopped, I am responsible for that, as far as I can tell, I spend much of my day reading, I am responsible for that. Various Amazon algorithms help me find books to consider, but I have to decide to buy them.

    The One Click feature is Amazon's way of extracting payment before I have had time to change my mind, like one does when one puts the book in the cart first. I like to put clothing in the Landsend cart and then not buy it, I get the pleasure of picking things out but not the cost of buying it. Merchants hate it when that happens. That's why Amazon invented One Click.

    Much of the content of our minds was put there before we had control over our environment. All kinds of things get dumped into children's minds, along with language, a basic understanding of the world, and so on, If we have had garbage dumped in our heads, and if we think garbagy thoughts, that just proves "garbage in, garbage out."

    So we are responsible for some of our thoughts, but not all.
  • Romanticism leads to pain and war?
    ↪Athena
    I assume that you are NOT suggesting that William Wordsworth (1770 - 1850), Romantic poet, was the cause of pain and war. So, some other sort of romantic.

    YOUTH are romantic, by nature. They haven't yet come to terms with having to take care of themselves--grocery shopping; laundry; regular house cleaning; showing up for work every day, on time; changing the oil every 3,000 miles--all that stuff. Youth are pretty much wrapped up in themselves. How long does 'youth' last? In many cases, 25--about the time their brains finish forming. (this is biographical -- I'm not looking down my nose at today's youth.)

    I entertained many romantic political and religious notions for many years, long past any definition of youth. It was a relief to flush out the system and get rid of the excess.

    Naiveté isn't romanticism; viciousness (Hitler, Stalin) isn't romanticism either. In the psychological, non-poetic meaning, it's just delusional, and delusions can definitely lead to bad consequences when we act on them. (Delusion is a standard feature of human beings.) Romanticism, without analyzing the term closely, is about inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual, says the dictionary.

    Here we sit with the ability to communicate with people around the world and we seem on the brink of disintegration and possibly another world war. Our reality is not the expectation of reason. Could Romanticism be the problem? — Athena

    the problem of disintegration and war is perennial. Cohesion within and between nations is difficult to maintain over the long run. "The peaceable kingdom" is a romantic idea. We are always rubbing up against each other, individually and collectively, making invidious comparisons. Before long, we decide to just get rid of some inconvenient group of people, and heigh ho, heigh ho, it's off to war we go.
  • Political Polarization
    I think the polarisation of the past can look less serious just because it is in the past. — Cuthbert

    "It's not even past" Faulkner said. But yes, past polarization fades over time.

    Black-white relations in the US have always been polar, slave and master, 'boy' and 'sir', down and up, urban and suburban, and so forth. I didn't experience the riots of the '60s because I ws living out in the sticks. I have, though, read their history -- before the '60s, and urban riots later on.

    I still don't think we were so polarized then (say, 1950 to 1980) as we have been since 1980, and much less so then than we are now. That isn't to say that the conditions that led to the riots were bad -- they were. But immiseration isn't the same as polarization.
  • Political Polarization
    Are we here in the United States more polarized now then we were in the 1960’s?
    — @Dermot Griffin
    Probably not     — Gnomon

    I think we are much more polarized.

    There was some polarization in the 1960s. Vietnam was the principle locus. Also hair length, hippie clothing and lifestyles, "bra burning" (in quotes because very few if any bras were burned) and such cultural issues. On the other hand, congress was much more collaborative; The two "bad guys", Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, were not miles apart on many issues. Nixon, for instance, favored treatment as the primary response to drug use. The Watergate scandal did not separate conservatives and liberals -- in congress or the streets. Most people ended up being thoroughly appalled by the Watergate scandal.

    Our present state of polarization has been building for quite a long time--way before Donald Trump slithered into office. I'd say it's been building since the last 40 years, ever since Reagan (1980-1988).

    One of the theories about polarization says that the leading cause of civil conflict is the rise of marginalized groups, relative to the dominant group. One author put it this way: "white people mind getting poorer less than they mind black people getting richer".

    The various minority growth that may tip demographics from white majority to white plurality in 20 years or so, has been accompanied by improvements in income among minorities in many places (certainly not everywhere). Better income, more education, more achievement, etc. It's not a zero sum game. Mexicans going to college doesn't reduce the number of whites in college, and improvement in minority income are not coming out of white people's wages. What is upsetting is the change in relative status.

    Racially, the two political parties in the US have become quite different. The Republican Party is mostly white and the Democratic Party is far more open to minorities (latinos, gays, blacks, asians, women, immigrants, etc.).

    Economically, the US is mostly working class. The relatively-poor working class and the absolutely-poor working class are sharply divided economically from the 8% to 10% of the population who are either financially comfortable "middle class" or "very wealthy ruling class".

    Mass media is a key part of our polarization. Elementary, high school, and even colleges are often less effective in teaching people how to live and think than in the past. Old mass media has largely faded--the three networks, the daily newspapers, and the like. The wild, unregulated internet has taken the place of more "civilized" and centrally controlled institutions.

    The Atlanta Constitution, Chicago Tribune, or San Francisco Chronicle were never going to report that a gang of pedophiles was running the US Government. There is nothing to stop QAnon from claiming that there are pedophile orgies on the floor of the senate, or that Hillary Clinton is a reptilian alien.

    Conspiracy theories are more compelling than nuts and bolts civics, economics, or public health. So JUST SAY NO! to vaccinations, masks, social distancing, and so on.
  • The problem of dirty hands
    Walzer is a political realist. I think realists of any kind venture further philosophically that a pragmatist could stomach. — frank

    Sorry, but what is the difference between a political realist and a political pragmatist? They seem to overlap quite a bit.
  • The problem of dirty hands
    Leaders should recognize their own guilt and even seek punishment for the crimes they commit on behalf of their citizens. — frank

    Does Walzer really think that any leader would do that? Given the notion that power corrupts, it seems highly unlikely that any leader with sufficient chutzpah and power would voluntarily confess. At any level, leaders usually attempt to defend themselves and their leadership position. Confessions of wrongdoing are more likely to be a "Hail Mary pass" -- a last resort.

    Confessing wrongdoing that is otherwise undetectable takes a very strong moral code that results in a lot of cognitive dissonance. Ambitious people who become leaders generally have pretty good ambiguity tolerance that enables them to live with inconsistencies.
  • The problem of dirty hands
    ↪frank
    Theologians have talked about "dirty hands" too. The hands that perform works of mercy are often 'dirty' in the sense that they have performed wrongful acts, maybe even very bad acts. It's unavoidable. In a more secular society, dirty hands may well serve good ends.

    Back to Mach, the modern national chief executive might perform or order all sorts of underhanded, devious, or outright illegal acts to protect 'the interests of the state'. (Not thinking here of tax evasion, Watergate break-ins, claiming to have won the lost election, etc.)

    Very powerful leaders, acting in the interests of the state, will be held to a different standard than the typical citizen. How much impunity the executive has depends on how well he succeeds in both projecting and achieving success. If the depiction or performance falls too short, the lesser powers-that-be may turn on the executive, and what was previously excusable may become prosecutable,
  • Is there a wrong way to live?
    I'm narrowing the argument down to lifestyle — Jake Hen

    This approach will definitely not avoid moral reprehensibility. "Lifestyle" involves choices that affect others in material ways.

    I love a rich green lawn; I like tropical flowers massed in large well-watered beds. I like to swim outside in my own large pool. I live in an area subject to a severe long-term drought. The state, county, and city all are inforcing stringent water conservation. Lucky for me, there are three houses next door that are 3/4 completed and are sitting idle. Water service was provided. I'm using water from the three houses to keep my lawn and garden green and my pool full. Yeah, I know that some areas have been forced to depend on bottled water for drinking because their taps are dry. But... a lot of those people came from shit holes anyway, so I'm sure it's not that big a deal for them.

    This woman is living a plush and horribly grotesque lifestyle.
  • Is there a wrong way to live?
    I know I would consider multiple ways of living horrible and grotesque, but morally wrong? Probably not. — Jake Hen

    What sort of 'horrible and grotesque' ways of living are you thinking of that would not pose moral problems?

    Some people do live horrible and grotesque lifestyles, and there generally are consequences for other people. I'm not thinking of the comic Addams Family, more like The Godfather.

    Maybe there is a categorical imperative to NOT live horribly and grotesquely?
  • Political Polarization
    "system decay" is one of those nice media-friendly buzzwords that gets alot of airtime because it commits publications to nothing whatsoever, politically, while sounding vaguely diagnostic. — StreetlightX
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    I think it just boils down to people not being able to respond with nuance in real time whilst sharing the same space with each other and looking each other in the eye. I don't think there is much hope for reasonable discussions on sensitive topics (the most important topics) when both parties are physically distanced from each other. — I like sushi

    Stephen Marche (The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future) said that "'the reduction of empathic distress' the basic inhumanity that the facelessness of the internet permits" is a major piece of the problem.

    On any Internet forum, unless very tightly governed, some people will be disinhibited and will go for the slasher style of interaction.

    I'm starting to question whether we should even bother? — I like sushi

    Yes, you should continue to bother. The effect you are looking/hoping for isn't going to come as a thunderclap. Positive effects will be subtle and gradual. And besides, in actual face-to-face encounters, people usually feel more "empathic distress" than they do on the internet.
  • What is intelligence? A.K.A. The definition of intelligence
    ↪Fooloso4
    Perhaps. But the point is, intelligence is primarily demonstrated through performance. Doing nothing distinguishes neither intelligence or a lack there of.
  • What is intelligence? A.K.A. The definition of intelligence
    a genius is generally someone who possesses exceptional skill or intelligence that they are able to put into practice in some endeavo — Tom Storm

    The ability to complete some task without being taught to do so,or solve a problem, or assess a situation and respond in an appropriate way (phronesis). — Fooloso4

    The ability to troubleshoot and fix a machine.The ability to assess a social or interpersonal situation and act accordingly. Acting prudentially to achieve a good outcome. — Fooloso4

    "the ability to work things out" — Down The Rabbit Hole

    So, intelligence is the ability to analyze a complex problem, create at a solution, and then perform the solution. Intelligence is analytical, creative, and performative at a high level.

    Intelligence is invisible if inactive. A sleeping genius and a sleeping moron are indistinguishable. It is in "doing" that the quality of intelligence is revealed.

    A very intelligent person can observe something and make more connections to other things they have observed. The person's reading will be enriched by associating and comparing plot, characters, word choices, writing style, etc. with other texts.

    Training is still required. Very intelligent people are not likely to mentally reinvent the wheel and everything that followed. Even if they could, it would take entirely too much time. A 19th century genius cannot open a 21st century computer and instantly make sense of it.
  • Changing Sex
    ↪Hanover
    Insightful observations about extraordinarily complex behaviors and mental processes.

    Good observational skills can be developed, but they also require that one be open to the flow of cues, signs, subtle behaviors, and so on. Sometimes I have 'closed the door' to the clues others are broadcasting for a sort of self-protection from too much information.
  • Changing Sex
    The most sensible persons I have known have all been homosexual men. — baker

    Yes, absolutely, Homosexual men are definitely the most sensible of men.

    A homosexual man told me that most homosexual men are macho types like heterosexual men. — baker

    Some gay men are even more macho than straight men, but maximum-machismo is sometimes more 'art' than 'nature'. That is, some gay men cultivate machismo (and so do some straight men). Lots of men and women find machismo attractive, though maybe not as a steady diet.

    the quickest way for a woman to find a good friend is among homosexual men. — baker

    Yes. Gay men can be close friends with women because they are not sexually interested in the women. They are 'safe'. Conversely, a woman may make a very good friend for a gay male because there is no sexual attraction. Gay men can, of course, be very close friends with each other, but there is often a sexual tension between gay men that also exists between straight women and straight men.
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    ↪javi2541997
    Right. People generally don't shower marginalized groups with positive traits. Generally the opposite. But marginalized groups can shower positive traits on themselves, justified or not. (Or, marginalized groups can buy into their own negative reputations.). Marginalization, however a group of people arrived, is itself a cause of negative attributions. Highly privileged groups may have many negative traits, but privilege alone results in these negatives being overlooked.

    We live in a world where there are many layers of RELATIVE marginalization and privilege. This further complicates things. Where one stands in the hierarchy can be difficult to figure out, and people generally don't like this kind of ambiguity. One way to lessen the ambiguity is by arbitrarily imposing prejudicial evaluations on others.

    It's a can of worms.
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    I won’t really be participating myself: — I like sushi

    Why the hell not?

    I would say anyone stating that oppressed minorities cannot be racist are deluded. — I like sushi

    I agree.

    It seems like "delusional" is our default state. There are convenient delusions, necessary delusions, harmful delusions, and so on. We can achieve rational thinking, but we have to work very hard to do it successfully. Of course, we may be deluded about how rational our thinking is.
  • Racism or Prejudice? Is there a real difference?
    To judge someone just on color,race,ethnicity or even just because they are identified as a certain religion is racist and in the last case just bigoted. — Zenny

    So, a positive judgement based on color, race, ethnicity, or religion would be bigoted to?
  • Changing Sex
    ↪praxis
    No, there is ample, hard evidence that life sucks. Reality is a bitch and then you die. And the dead stay dead, nothing more. So in the meantime, gather ye roses while ye may. or whatever it is you like.
  • Changing Sex
    It seems that I have much more faith in the idea that we’re all deluded (cannot know reality) than you do. — praxis

    That's probably so, especially if you say it. Delusions are, as I said, our stock-in-trade. Why, if we can perceive reality, do we cling to delusions? Because reality is often harsh, cold, and in ever so many ways, unpleasant. We literally can not bear an unrelenting diet of harsh reality without some sort of comforting delusions. To what extent delusional thinking is a feature or a bug varies, depending.

    Take happiness: Freud summed up our situation this way (paraphrasing): "Happiness just isn't in the cards." We long for happiness but it evades us. We respond with delusional thinking to cover over our serious disappointments and painful experiences. Delusions help many people carry on, doing what needs to be done.
  • Changing Sex
    This doesn’t really make sense, does it? — praxis

    Yes, it make sense. First, there is objective reality. Second there is us, the observers. We are both capable of observing objective reality (which is why we have science) and we can delude ourselves and others in various ways. Delusions are objectively observable in people. Donald Trump and a few million Republicans have "stolen election delusions". Most Republicans and Democrats are not affected by "stolen election delusions". They recognize that Trump lost the election.

    We name "delusion" for beliefs which have no objective support. A belief in an afterlife (hell or heaven) is delusional because there is zero evidence that such a thing exists. A belief in a 6 day creation is delusional because there is extensive evidence that the stars first shone 13 billion years, and so on.
  • Changing Sex
    ↪praxis
    A devout Christian can believe in his or her own salvation, know well the theology of their faith, perform worship and good works splendidly, and still be deluded. What they are deluded about is the truth of what they believe in. The delusion is invisible.

    Many Americans believe their country is the home of the brave, land of the free, the best place on earth -- by objective standards. That is a delusion (maybe one of those 'necessary delusions').

    find it extremely hard to believe that a transsexual doesn't realize what they are. I would think that they would tend to be keenly aware of themselves and their sexuality, much more so than ordinary folk at least, who have less of a reason to be self-conscious. — praxis

    Under ordinary circumstances, transsexuals are not deluded about how they feel, what they wish to accomplish trough therapy, the kind of sexual experiences they have. What they are deluded about is the idea that one can change one's sex from male to female or visa versa. What they can do is change their appearance, but not the underlying biology.

    A successful trans person is not deluded about their fully passing as a woman or man (or, unhappily, failing to pass). Other people provide the evidence that one is passing, or (possibly very cruelly) that one is not.

    Nor are they deluded about wanting to change from one sex to another. The delusion is thinking that one can change their biology.

    As I said above

    I believe there is an objective reality, but one important aspect of reality is that humans are delusional. My theory is that everybody is deluded to varying degrees. It is a question of "how much" and "about what". Delusions and illusions are the human stock-in-trade. — Bitter Crank
Home » BC