How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality. — TheMadFool

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. — TheMadFool

Learning the Buddhist doctrine.
— baker

Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the Mādhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own.
— T. R. V. Murti — TheMadFool

Where is there chance in the present moment?
— baker

There’s no saying what will happen. — Wayfarer

First question: Are there militant Buddhist extremists who attack people in order to defend their cherished religion?

If not, why not? — ssu

If the variance is not caused by blunders (because we're past that) then how is cohort agreement predicting truth? — Isaac

OK, so what's the alternative? Given our group of experts, the variance among whom we know is caused by a wide variety of factors, reasoning error being very low on that list (if present at all).

How do we then talk about that variance in a non-lame way? — Isaac

So experts fall down on which theories they prefer, find more intuitively compelling, find less risky to throw their weight behind... etc. — Isaac

I remember an argument I got into with a guy on Fangraphs (a sabermetrics site): guy had a model that predicted the strikeout rate of pitchers and was highlighting pitchers he believed had been lucky so far that season (and were thus overvalued by fantasy players). I suggested that another explanation might be something that was not in his model and that was hard to measure, like sequencing or deception. His response floored me: it couldn't be that because if there were such an effect it would show up in the data. That's the wrong answer. Something is in the data; the question is whether it's stochastic and how we could know. (Hence the obsession on Fangraphs with sample size.)

I'm getting to the point. There are statistical methods you know better than I that can give you an idea how much of the variation in opinion can be explained by your social roles and stories model. I assume that value is something less than 1. My question is, how do you know that what's left definitely isn't reasoning? — Srap Tasmaner

In baseball, batting average (BA) is determined by dividing a player's hits by his total at-bats. It is usually rounded to three decimal places and read without the decimal: A player with a batting average of .300 is "batting three-hundred".
/.../
In modern times, a season batting average of .300 or higher is considered to be excellent, and an average higher than .400 a nearly unachievable goal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batting_average_(baseball)

What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path? — TheMadFool

I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor. — Wayfarer

In the course of his Awakening, the Buddha discovered that the experience of the present moment consists of three factors: results from past actions, present actions, and the results of present actions. This means that kamma acts in feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; while present actions shape not only the present but also the future. This constant opening for present input into the causal processes shaping one's life makes free will possible. In fact, will — or intention — forms the essence of action.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.intro.than.html

And if he has to "tell me my place", then he's not the boss. A boss is a boss precisely because he doesn't have to say, directly or otherwise, "I'm the boss"; instead he's just an idiot expressing his insecurity. — 180 Proof

I agree though, "power hierarchy" (status) usually subordinates "truth" – that's social stupidity (a herd / prey species' cognitive defect).

The view I take is even less particularly personal than the one considered in the essay. In the sphere of production, the need to constrain the destructive capacity creates a dynamic where contempt for the stupid makes it more powerful on many levels. This factor is multiplied by having so many systems being dependent on wise responses in this regard. However that may be, I think the dynamic itself is as old as we are as a species. — Valentinus

The task-relationship model is defined by Forsyth as "a descriptive model of leadership which maintains that most leadership behaviors can be classified as performance maintenance or relationship maintenances."[1] Task-oriented (or task-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the tasks that need to be performed in order to meet certain goals, or to achieve a certain performance standard. Relationship-oriented (or relationship-focused) leadership is a behavioral approach in which the leader focuses on the satisfaction, motivation and the general well-being of the team members.

Task-oriented and relationship-oriented leadership are two models that are often compared, as they are known to produce varying outcomes under different circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Task-oriented_and_relationship-oriented_leadership

In task-oriented cultures, the primary means of achieving one's goals is through skillfully managing tasks and time

In relationship-oriented cultures the group to which a person belongs is a crucial part of that person's identity and goals are accomplished via relationships

Which takes priority, individual accomplishment and responsibility, or maintaining human relationships?

https://www.watershedassociates.com/learning-center-item/task-orientation-vs-relationship-orientation.html

D-K effect? — 180 Proof

And people may behave on reasons which are not sound but make sense in the context of survival. — Tom Storm

Have you ever noticed how sad so many happy people are? — Tom Storm

I haven't seen any evidence of this. — Xtrix

If it's true, then women who are taking hormonal contraceptives have to weigh what those chances are. — Xtrix

When you ask “What Does X believe”, you don’t read a book, you ask the members of the religion. — Ennui Elucidator

I got the reference. Do I take this as a compliment or an insult? — Tom Storm

Dawkins focuses on the fact of Islam, or Christianity or any other religion being factually incorrect.
But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion? — stoicHoneyBadger

I sympathize with anyone who has concerns. It turns out this is completely untrue. — Xtrix

How does Christianity survive without supernaturalism or the fact of Jesus (either as historical person or son of god)? How does it survive without a claim to exclusive access to heaven? Those are great questions for Christians and they seem to be working on them. If/when they move on and the Christian community follows them, will they in that instant stop being Christians? I doubt it. — Ennui Elucidator

I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor. — Wayfarer

Inform yourself better. They're actually perfectly ready to leave you behind.
— baker

A bodhisattva who leaves (samsara) is not a bodhisattva. — TheMadFool

no child left behind

I fail to see the relevance.

If a certain group is under the impression that its belief system is the right one (orthodoxa = right belief), that group will also consider it a duty/responsibility to edify others of it. — TheMadFool

What do you mean? That the earth is sometimes flat, is always flat, is not flat, is flat if you "think" it is and not if you don't? It seems that according to you, whether the earth is flat depends on who is talking. Yes? No? — tim wood

By stupid I do not mean intellectually challenged but instead a person who without reason retreats from reason to some unreasonable position and maintains that position by recourse to irrationality against reason. . — tim wood

After some thought, a modification. Some ignorance leads directly to stupidity because in a complex world there's an obligation to know at least some things. — tim wood

Also, how do you locate this continuum of rationality in the context of intersubjectivity and the potential shared interests of society/groups? — Tom Storm

In some countries, a high-risk population that is reluctant to get vaccinated are young medical nurses, for fear that they will become infertile.

Now, at first glance, and esp. when seen from a male perspective, this seems an unwarranted fear.

But if I were in their shoes, my line of reasoning and concerns would be such: Taking hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of something going wrong when taking the vaccine. So in order to reduce those risks, stop taking hormonal contraceptives. But then it is almost certain that an unwanted pregnancy will occur (since men cannot be relied upon to use condoms or to wait), and this will need to be solved with an abortion. An abortion increases the risk of infertility. If a woman isn't able to have children this can result in the man abandoning her or otherwise reduce his affections for her.

So what are those young women supposed to do?

Statistically, it's probably safer to take their chances with covid than with a man. — baker

My second point is that many conflicts involving blame are like the above , where it is not a master of the other being irrational, but instead their being in the thrawl of a way of thinking that you have moved beyond , but don’t understand why they can’t see things your way. So you assume they are being stubborn, lazy, irrational. Instead, they simply haven’t made the ‘shift’ that you have. — Joshs

The whole edifice of the psychology of blame would crumble if the angry accuser were ever to come
to a realization that there’s is no such thing as irrationality, there are only different forms of rationality, and the blameful finger-pointer is unable to extricate themselves from their own worldview, or even recognize their rationality as a just one of a potentially infinite range of worldviews, each of which aims at the same moral end , but via an often profoundly different construal of empirical circumstance. So they have no choice but to see the one who violates their expectations as morally culpable , irrational, stupid. The irony here is that it would be the accuser who is being stupid here, but I would have to use that word in this context according to its innocent , non-moralistic sense. They don’t want to have to accuse anyone, but they lack the insight into how others think to avoid succumbing to hostility. — Joshs

But in sense-making creatures like ourselves , reason is guided by normative cogntive-affective aims. We aim to anticipate events in as orderly a fashion as possible. Our ‘reasons’ are our best predictions about events. We only view others’ reasons as irrational when we fail to recognize the nature of sense-making. We don’t necessarily have to be able to translate the others system of anticipations into terms that we can understand, we only have to recognize in principle that this is how cognizing beings organize experience. — Joshs

My original post was about the basis of blame, accusation and hostility. I argued that such an attitude requires that I reject the idea that there is an internal order behind the behavior of the other I accuse. I will not need to blame if I recognize that the other is operating out of a moral worldview , even if I don’t quite understand its details at the moment. — Joshs

Ignorance of our true nature, rather, and what is our true nature you ask? Emptiness. — praxis

Stupid is not only an absence of understanding or skill, it is an active principle that seeks ways to circumvent attempts to contain its effects.

If one puts stupid in a corral, it will keep a constant eye on the gate. If the gate is left open for too long, stupid will get out. To counter this agency, a concentric ring of other corrals are built so the results of failures to restrain stupid are minimized.

In times when many gates are open simultaneously, that is when the destructive capacity of the agency is greatest.

Stupid wants to be free. — Valentinus

Point! Assume ignorance and educate! — tim wood

American politics, in particular, seems characterised recently by large outbreaks of stupidity. I mean, Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a living breathing example of stupid, making it possible for anyone to carry a gun without a license but litigating against schools that want to get their students to wear masks. If that’s not a definition of ‘stupid’, then I don’t know what is. — Wayfarer

I always thought Peterson's support of Trump was the stupidest thing he ever did. Also note that he confidently predicted that Trump would win in 2020. — Wayfarer

I had the pig down for greed - thought that figured - snake for hatred - check - and roster for stupid. — Wayfarer

I guess the causal connection is like this: Ignorance (root cause) -> Vanity -> Hatred -> Ignorance (root cause). I'm not quite clear how hatred leads to ignorance. — TheMadFool

It’s important to remember that getting vaccinated is not just about protecting yourself; it’s also about protecting those around you. In the long run, we will all benefit from herd immunity. The question that remains is whether we can actually get there.

http://www.williamsonherald.com/opinion/commentary-why-should-i-care-if-others-get-vaccinated/article_96e737c2-b369-11eb-90ce-c79d7571ff9a.html — Xtrix

Worth repeating for those genuinely curious — and interested in the facts (upon which we base our ethical decisions). — Xtrix

↪frank I believe baker is a woman. I had Astra Zeneca yesterday and I feel my skin is sensitive and muscles aching. These are listed as common side effects. If Baker got her shot in the left arm that could explain the slight numbness, I'm not sure what "hot flashes" are, and I don't think palpitations are that uncommon; they can be brought on by anxiety for example. But you have more medical experience than I. and I agree with you that it's best to err on the side of caution. — Janus

↪baker Status? — tim wood

I'll ask the doctor to increase your dose. — tim wood