People have been contending that one thing exacerbates something else for a long time: the deleterious influences of cheap pulp novels on youth in the Victorian Period, or the higher hem lines and dances of the 1920s, or the lewd and lascivious scenes in the movies of the 1930s, or the anti-communist hysteria of the 1950s, or the horror of hippies in the 1960s, or violence on TV in the 1980s, or video games in the 1990s, and so on. — Bitter Crank

I'm with BC. I remember when I was a a teenager. I was very unhappy. Very. I had all the symptoms listed in the Wikipedia article. We didn't have the internet, or facebook, or virtual reality. Well, we did have VR - I created it myself in my fevered brain. So, are things worse now? The WP article doesn't indicate that the studies referenced establish that. It also doesn't indicate whether they control for user selection, i.e. are fucked up kids more likely to use FB than more successful ones?

I really don't like facebook. It seems kind of creepy. Mostly, it just doesn't work for me. Other things on the internet and other new media are wonderful. Texting, iphone photography, and email have greatly improved the ease of keeping contact with people I like and love. As an engineer, the ease of getting information from the web has made me better at my job. I'm a really crappy photographer, but I love taking pictures of things going on in my life and sending them out to my family and friends.

So, anyway. Hell in a handbasket. right @Bitter Crank

That's one of the cruxes of the internet. It's a substitute for feelings of loneliness, boredom, sadness, angst, and anger, which are all of these important things that prod an individual towards forming an identity. If you have a reality where anything goes, then people become more estranged from themselves. I mean, it's not the Matrix... yet. — Wallows

You keep speaking authoritatively about how the internet is bad for the development of identity, but you don't provide any support beyond "seems to me...."

Well, some people are considering leaving a child with a PC to the internet, as 'benign neglect'. I think there's some merit to this idea, given what can be found on the internet. Back a while ago, before super-algorithms were around and about on the internet, it was way too easy to find pornography on the internet, for a child. Nowadays, Google, Facebook, and others rely on a combination of algorithms and human moderators to filter content. The internet is becoming a more sanitary environment due to this; but, I wonder what this all leads towards. — Wallows

I guess my point was, don't worry too much about the internet. Love your kids. Protect them. Keep them safe. And you don't even have to do it well, just well enough. Children are pretty resilient. They deserve to be treated well, but they can thrive in imperfect situations. Trust them. You couldn't make it perfect for them if you wanted to. And if you did, it wouldn't be what they need.

Although this takes a different track than the other posts on this thread, I think it is relevant.

I have always been partial to the concept of "good enough" parenting. There is no doubt in my mind that my appreciation for this way of seeing things is a reflection of my deeply embedded laziness. Good enough parenting is, well, good enough. Children are given, imperfectly, the security, support, affection, and interest they need. The parent is loving, supportive, consistent, and interested - sometimes, maybe often - but not always. Often enough. The parent sometimes (often?) fails to give the child what it wants and needs. If I may possibly overstate the case - the parent's failures are the anvil on which the child's identity is forged.

This is related to something I believe as a father of three - children are who they are the minute they come out of their mothers. Probably before that. I've never met an experienced parent who didn't recognize that.

So, what's the point as it relates to this thread - If a child has a decent life with parents who try to give them the security, support, affection, and attention they need, the kid will turn out ok - with an intact identity and a reasonable chance at happiness.

When I was a kid, it was television that was going to rot our brains, and look how well I turned out.

I don't think I left it out. I don't think it comes under the heading of "What are our values?" As I indicated in the OP, broader issues of the place values hold in our philosophies and our lives are not the intended subject of this thread. I'm hoping to talk about them later. — T Clark

@Joshs, @Bitter Crank, @Terrapin Station, @s, @ssu, @Possibility, @i like sushi, @VagabondSpectre, @praxis, @ZhouBoTong.

As this discussion has developed, I can see it is unrealistic for me to have limited it to such a narrow focus. I think that's true because my own thoughts are so undeveloped at this point. It's probably a futile attempt anyway, given that @Bitter Crank has "never been big on obedience."

So, by the power vested in me as the Original Poster, I remove any restrictions on this discussion of values. Maybe I'll come back later and try a more focused approach once I have a better idea what I'm trying to say.

Thanks but I am saying Wallows is a provocateur who is just as in, only, interested in causing a commotion with his threads. I'm not against sharing controversial opinions but this thread is a rudderless, free-for-all filled with people provoked by his outrageous title and comments. I think everyone will leave worse for it. I've said my piece and continuing past this point wouldn't benefit anyone. — Judaka

I've been thinking about this discussion and I want to look at it from a different angle. About a year ago, there were a series of discussions on the forum that helped me realize I have a lot of unexamined assumptions and underdeveloped ideas about what men's and women's roles are and how men are seen in our society. I found myself writing things and realizing that I didn't really have a lot to back up my thoughts. I found those discussions really helpful.

Upshot - no matter the quality of the original post and the motives of the poster, this discussion has had a lot of value for me. You've been ranting a bit about banning this and deleting that and the low quality of the forum. The forum means a lot to me. I've found that my writing has improved and I think more clearly since I've participated. Seems like maybe you're expecting more than that. It's probably an unrealistic expectation.

It seems to me that certain people like to argue both sides of this issue depending on which gives them rhetorical advantage. — fishfry

Not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying I'm doing what you describe above? If so, I don't see how.

What about things that people sure seem to "value", but are less likely to admit?

aesthetics (vanity, judging appearances, etc)

popularity (being cool - what IS cool may vary, but few people seem capable of escaping the desire of being admired - I occasionally like to think I have, but I am probably just conditioned to being chronically un-cool :nerd:)

power (superiority)

Are these "values" in the same way as the one you have listed? — ZhouBoTong

After I wrote my first posts in this thread, I was thinking about things like this - values that come out of less admirable aspects of who we are. Could they all be included under a value of status, which would be a social value I didn't include in my list. So does "value" really mean a motivating factor rather than an ideal?

In a sense, I guess our primitive drives - self-preservation, procreation, security - are our most basic values.

Seems to me what you indicated in the OP was you didn't want to discuss the place that OBJECTIVITY
holds in our lives. — Joshs

What I'd like discuss is specific values held by the people of the forum. I'm trying to put together a list of what I think my central personal values are.

You missed something here. You left out philosophical approaches that attack the whole enterprise of ferreting out a particular value system and privileging it over others. — Joshs

I don't think I left it out. I don't think it comes under the heading of "What are our values?" As I indicated in the OP, broader issues of the place values hold in our philosophies and our lives are not the intended subject of this thread. I'm hoping to talk about them later.

Judging by your declared values I would guess that you’re politically liberal or perhaps independent. It’s not too clear as listed. Definitely not libertarian. — praxis

Yes, I am a liberal. When I read your comment, I asked myself - Did I leave any of my personal values out of the list that might be considered more conservative. The one I thought of is responsibility.

What other more conservative values are there? Social stability? Security, Honor? Emphasis on tradition? Patriotism? Religious devotion? I'm trying to be fair, but I'm probably not the one to fill in this list.

What would a libertarian's values be? Individuality? Responsibility? Self-reliance? Distrust of social institutions?

And what are your personal values.

(What are the ethical ramifications of such a future?) — xraymike79

The thing that jumps out to me from the interview was Nick Humphrey's comment that the Earth could only support millions of people effectively. If that's really true, we've been screwed since 1800.

Following up on the post I sent out a few minutes ago, here is my preliminary take on what some of our values are. What kinds of values are there? Moral, political, social, intellectual, aesthetic. What else?

The Boy Scout Law:
A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

I always do a finger count with this to check how well I measure up. I come up with 7 out of 12.

Here’s a list of the values of Western Culture from the web:

• Democracy.
• Rational thinking.
• Individualism.
• Christianity.
• Capitalism.
• Modern technology.
• Human rights.
• Scientific thinking.

My personal values, in no particular order:

• Loyalty - social
• Honesty - social
• Kindness – moral/social
• Competence – social/intellectual
• Intelligence – intellectual
• Playfulness – intellectual/social
• Trustworthiness – moral/social
• Reason – intellectual
• Fairness – social/political

I hope I can fiddle around with all of these and I can make a better list. Then maybe I’ll come back and start a new thread to discuss the place these values have in our lives.

I have a feeling these are too simplistic and that there's another set of values underneath that drive these. Any ideas?

Making threads like this, which just poke the hives nest, warn first then revoke the privilege to make threads or ban. — Judaka

You write well and I'm interested in the things you have to say, but I think your "Is criticism of the alt-right inconsistent?" was just as much "poking the hives nest" as this one is.

The wider distribution of "lots of awful, lots of great" among men than among women is unsubstantiated claptrap? It's obvious to anyone who looks, and it's been verified in study after study. — fishfry

Well, here's how you "substantiated" it previously:

From the fact that both the prison population and the Nobel prize winner population skew strongly male; we can conclude is that men have a much wider distribution of achievement. When I was in grade school I noticed that the "good girls" just did what they were told, and "did well" in school on that basis. Women cluster to the middle ... not too many serial killers, and not too many Nobels. — fishfry

"Substantiate" means to "provide evidence to support or prove the truth of." What evidence have you provided other than your memories of the good girls in school and offhand claims about serial killers?

I think it's actually a beautiful thing, to ask others to view something in the world aesthetically, maybe especially if that thing is not what we'd normally consider beautiful or pleasing in some way. — praxis

It also really changes the texture of this whole discussion. It's hard to make the case that judgments of aesthetic quality are elitist if the artist knows to expect that judgment and perhaps welcomes it.

presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. — praxis

I've been thinking about this more and I really like your way of looking at things. I've always been bothered by the "I say it's art so it's art" argument, but this gets around that. Saying "this is art" is no longer an arrogant claim of significance. It becomes a humble request to be judged.

I find this to be a strong argument. Rembrandt produced high quality art. That at least is the consensus of the art world. It’s rooted in Western social, cultural, and historical factors that give rise to our common values. I might like my art, but if I’m the only one, then it is not high quality. It also probably does not reflect our common social, cultural, and historical values. I would also add that most high quality art is difficult to produce; taking a lot of creativity, skill, and/or original thought.

However, a lot of people really enjoy craft fairs and fill their homes with such artifacts. These artifacts may also reflect these values, and they might also require skill, creativity and/or original thought. You won’t find any of these artifacts in art museums, though. — Noah Te Stroete

I agree with the things you've said. As for things that aren't in art museums, I don't really care about whether it's art, I care about whether it's good.

presenting something as art is essentially offering an invitation to view something aesthetically. — praxis

I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think that's a good way of avoiding the whole "what is art" argument. Now we can have a "what is aesthetic judgement" argument.

So what makes a piece of art high quality? And why should anyone accept your standard? I’m open to arguments. — Noah Te Stroete

As I said a couple of posts up:

Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors. — T Clark

Judgment of quality is an application of social values and, as I wrote, those are determined based on social, cultural, and personal factors. As with all social judgments, consensus plays a big part. There's lots of room for individual preference, but if you get too far out, you are no longer talking to anyone other than yourself.

No. There is no 'good art' or 'bad art', nor is there any such thing as 'better' art. If the artist presents someting as art, it is art. Your part, and mine, is that we get to say "I like it" or "I don't like it". It's nothing more than personal taste. And every expression of personal taste is correct and unchallengeable, although other such expressions may contradict it. That's what personal taste is.

So no, there is not even "a little justification for this".
— Pattern-chaser

I tend to agree with this, but I am always open to hear counter arguments. I would like to hear what T Clark has to say on this. — Noah Te Stroete

I want to make sure we're talking about the same things. @Pattern-chaser says there is no good art and no bad art. P-C brought up Robert Pirsig recently in a different thread. Pirsig said that art is "high quality endeavor." Seems like P-C would disagree with that. I, on the other hand, don't really care if something is art or not. I care if it is high quality. I also care whether or not I like it, but, as I've said, I believe those are different things.

the objective measures of what makes candy good — ZhouBoTong

I'm not a big believer in objectivity for any aspect of our emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social lives. Science, morals, aesthetics. Everything always comes down to a matter of human values. Good or bad, right or wrong, true or false. But saying something is a matter of values is not the same as saying it is all a matter of preference. Values are a product of social, cultural, and personal factors. Biological factors.

The only art that is still taught is Poetry and Literature. And it is taught A LOT. Why? What gives these art forms more value than painting, sculpture, music, movies, or television? — ZhouBoTong

I am a verbal person. I place high value on words - reading and writing. So, my opinions are not unbiased. On the other hand, learning to communicate in words effectively is indispensable for everyone who wants to live in society. I think learning to read, write, and speak is different from the other arts.

So you disagree. — Brett

As the saying goes, you're not even wrong.

Is it really considered bad form to mention this? — fishfry

If by "bad form" you mean unsubstantiated claptrap based on unsystematic, biased observation, then yes, it is bad form. Don't try to pretty it up with some sort of truth to power act.

Thanks. I am 37. I teach. — ZhouBoTong

If you're 37, why are you still letting "their" opinions bother you?

What makes candy "good" is that a person likes it. — ZhouBoTong

Obviously, I don't agree. I don't think there's any way for us to get past this disagreement.

You're objecting to a moot point (I might be wrong about the specific causes of height variation, but my point is that adaptive variation exists); I said we should expect to see height correlate with environment, and we do! — VagabondSpectre

Again, you didn't just say that adaptive variation exists, which I would have no problem with, you gave a detailed description of specific body differences between men and women and claimed they were caused by specific differences in their social and biological roles.

Eyeballs have evolved separately dozens of times in the grand history of life on earth. We might say that evolution has a tendency to innovate and refine eyes when evolving life finds itself in a light filled environment. — VagabondSpectre

It is my understanding that this is not true, so I checked. The underpinnings, infrastructure if you will, of reactivity to light have been around since just about the beginning. The photoreactive proteins and structures and some of the light-reactivity related genes are present in some of the currently living organisms near the split between vertebrates and invertebrates. It's not as if vision just popped into existence in completely unrelated organisms by coincidence. There was history involved.

Evolution by natural selection, as envisioned by Darwin, only represents adaptation by specific organisms to changes in specific local environments. There is no master plan or pattern. No tendency. Dolphins and sharks both have fins and are streamlined, but it's not because nature tends toward fins and streamlining. Evolution has no direction. No guiding principle.

Story telling, as you put it, is just a shorthand method of describing evolution. A process which has been going on for a billion years is too slow to point out events. — Bitter Crank

Sure, I believe that all organisms on Earth come from a common ancestor and that they developed from that ancestor based on genetic changes interacting with the environment. That's called evolution by natural selection. The problem with the story-telling is that 1) evolution doesn't usually work in such a simplistic way, and 2) even if it does in a particular case, there usually no evidence for a particular chain of causation.

And no, evolution doesn't have "vague tendencies." It doesn't have any tendencies.

but it's at least highly plausible that greater height enables greater top speeds (more useful in plains) and hinders mobility in dense brush (a hindrance in jungles). — VagabondSpectre

First - I have no way of knowing how plausible it is and I doubt you do either. If you want to set me straight on that, please do.

Second - You didn't present it as a possible, plausible explanation. You presented it as fact.

I need to soften my language but aren't you just searching for like minded individuals that share your joy of a certain work? — ZhouBoTong

Well, no. I'm trying to give people who aren't familiar with the work a chance to experience it. I'm trying to share my knowledge and taste with them. I am offering something to them. I'm looking for like-minded individuals. In reality, the connection doesn't get made a lot of the time, but when it does, it's extremely gratifying for both people involved.

Oh, and you questioned who "they" was that kept telling my tastes were bad. "They" (that I have a problem with) is our education system. — ZhouBoTong

As I said in one of my earlier posts, maybe one of the differences between you and me is how long I've been out of school. Anyway, once you're out of school, "they" won't be able to bother you anymore. Did you think school was supposed to be wonderful and fun? No, it's work.

Yes, and I couldn't be more certain of it. — Terrapin Station

Then we likely don't have anything useful to say to each other in relation to aesthetics.

The only way that something like that can make sense is that you're making a distinction between what you like and what other people like. It would make zero sense to say, "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." — Terrapin Station

I said "I can tell the difference between what I like and what is of high quality." For example, I have loved Goetzes caramels since I was a kid. Have you ever had them:



They are the most god-awful candy possible, except maybe jujubees, twizlers, dots, lik-em-aid, those disgusting wax lips, those sickening wax bottles with sugar water in them, etc. etc. It's like eating sweet plastic.

I didn't say "This is/isn't of high quality, but that has nothing to do with whether anyone likes it." or anything like it.

Sexual dimorphism and changing frequencies of traits are a part of the fundamental building blocks of Darwinian evolution (well described and well observed): — VagabondSpectre

I have no problem with that. It's the story-telling about how specific traits result from specific evolutionary effects that bothers me.

The set of tasks that evolution is optimizing women for don't change a great deal; much of their energy is imperatively invested in a body that can support the necessary sex organs. Meanwhile, men of any size, shape, and personality are capable of having a working penis, and using it. Instead of growing big tits and big asses, evolution is free to roll more dice with us in order to ensure that inter-generationally we can adapt to a wider set of changing environments that require different kinds of tasks. For instance, height is beneficial in mostly open landscapes (savannah, plains, hills), but it is decidedly not useful in dense forest or jungle (for obvious reasons); we should expect to see height correlate with environment in this way, and we do! — VagabondSpectre

I am very skeptical of this type of simplistic story-telling about evolution. There is not this sort of one-to-one correspondence between traits and evolutionary "causes." Your explanations don't seem very plausible to me.

Evolution knows — VagabondSpectre

I know you're using this as a metaphor, but still, evolution don't know nothing.

Eternal cynic. — NKBJ

I am the least cynical person I know. I am, however, skeptical. It bothers me when you make a claim with potentially significant social implications with no support except your impressions. You've been around the forum long enough to know that is a common attitude here.

Despite my wariness of your cynicism, here's an article which supports my post. This article speaks specifically about journaling as a female literary outlet, but the social structures and constraints are the same. — NKBJ

All I could get access to was an abstract. It is generally related to gender roles in literature, but I didn't see anything that backed up what you claim. It's not even that I think you're wrong, you just haven't provided any support for your position.

A) Typically throughout history laborers have not been the ones creating art.
B) A day job ends at the end of the day. Motherhood is 24/7. — NKBJ

As I said, if you have information to provide beyond "seems to me," I'd be happy to look at it.

Regularly on this forum we see topics that seek to define certain concepts with precision and exactitude. Without a precisely-defined vocabulary, we are told, there can be no meaningful philosophical discussion. I disagree, and that's what this topic is about. — Pattern-chaser

This is a well thought out and well written post. It's also one that I disagree with. For me, the biggest frustration on the forum is long, wandering discussions that never get anywhere because terms are not defined at the beginning. I would say half the threads have this problem.

When I start a discussion where I think there will be misunderstandings about word meanings, I sometimes go on the web and collect 5 or 6 different definitions for the word and present them at the beginning of the post. That can give a good feel for the range of meanings the word may have - the vagueness you talk about. Then we can talk about the vagueness and decide if we can work with it or if we need to tie things down more.

This thread kinda blew up; but, I'm glad everything is fine. — Wallows

I'm a big supporter of keeping to the original post. If you, the original poster, thinks it has gotten off track, you have the right to try to set things straight.

Though I do hope common sense would tell you that raising 7 children pre-washing machines and refrigerators while continually pregnant was a job that left little time for leisurely painting or writing War and Peace. — NKBJ

No, that doesn't really sound like common sense to me. How many men ever had lives where they didn't have to work long hours in the fields or factories? We don't need to take this any further. If you do find the source I'd like to take a look at it.

Neal Stephenson — Bitter Crank

I've read some of Stephenson's books. I didn't really like the science fiction, e.g. Snow Crash, but I loved Quicksilver.

Fun fact, one of the reasons poetry has been populated by so many females for so long is that it is one of the few arts that can be written "on the go" while having little ones playing and nagging and interrupting all day long. — NKBJ

Source for this "fact?"

I still remember the anger and outrage in your posts due to that thread. But, I learned something from your reaction. That even though, women haven't been treated (and in some cases still are) equally, that it's a double wrong to feel guilty about it as a male who cares about their children or jobs or homemaking just as much as the unfairly treated women have. I mean no sarcasm or wittiness in this post. — Wallows

I can tell you are being sincere in your response.

From my point of view as a man, it's not that I "feel guilty as a male." It's that I expect to be treated with respect.