Excellent.
You have a talent for empty bullshit
Why? Any allusion that tries to point to the death of insight to the destruction of the soul of man
is good , despite pundits rejecting such a notion, despite the emergence of mounting evidence to the contrary, even anti intellectually rational reasoning trying to disprove such.
Excellent.
You have a talent for empty bullshit[/quot
To prove the point, any analysis to gain insight has for the most part been abandoned in favor of pharmacological treatment of symptoms
The sought after systemic cause, has resulted in fallacious transactional failure to get through.
It is no longer an issue within the scope of contradictory structural indications of disturbances in meaning interpretation
You may scratch the last paragraph if you care , of the whole thing if seeing inconsistency there in.
To prove the point, any analysis to gain insight has for the most part been abandoned in favor of pharmacological treatment of symptoms
The sought after systemic cause, has resulted in fallacious transactional frailer to get through.
It is no longer an issue within the scope of contradictory structural indications of disturbances in meaning interpretation
You may scratch the last paragraph if you care , of the whole thing if seeing inconsistency there in.
[/quote]
Either provide an example or stop waffling.
Referring to the systemic uncertainty of balance between the entangled sub structures and the corresponding lack of definite accountability of diagnostic criteria ; the gap is widening .
The medicated patient , for instance can not progressively gain understanding as to what ill’s him, because it is assumed that even in an unmedicated state, he is as perplexed as to his understanding as if he has never been analyzed.
This view is paradoxical, since it’s affordability determines the real nature of the gains of lengthy analysis that is required to advance to better understanding.
This is more waffle.
Evolutionary psychology is not related to medicated patients.
Put up or shut up!
Jordan Peterson is a confused man. He is an isolated drug addict, depressive, who gets his kick from a body of randroid twitterarti and facebookies.
He lost the plot years ago and now descends down a rabbit hole of his own construction, ignoring inconvenient truths about the social world he has chosen to ignore.
I know this is not an argument against the content of the video clip, but just listening to his hopeless cherry picking, reductionism and exceptionalism is enough to make me puke.
However…
I think his interlocutor seems worthy.
My initial objection to these kinds of discussions is that the differences of which they speak are assumed to be innate biological differences, rather than given by learned, cultural and social conventions.
It highlights a disciplinary wedge between biological and more nuanced anthropological studies.
I liked the campus survey which showed that 0% of women would have sex with a stranger whilst 79% of men would - more even than would agree to date a stranger.
In all seriousness it would be hard to justify this difference solely on the basis of cultural and social conventions.
But I did meet a woman, a mature student, on campus who was definitely in the “lets go straight for the sex camp” - and was personally invited to her room where I declined the offer, being a more sensitive soul.
There must be a motive force, a human nature, that motivates all behavior, including learning and construction of social convention…
keeping in mind that we are all mutations and that this nature is not exactly the same for all of us, there will be no formula that captures every single individual. Random mutation has and will generate a plethora of individuals that will collectively buck all the norms. But we can speak in generalizations like humans have two arms and legs, ten fingers and toes. It’s pointless for you to then say you met someone born with with only one arm… As it’d be significantly more shocking if there was no exception to the two arm norm.
That same principle ought then apply to psychological norms… human brains and how they are put together are subject to random mutation, after all.
Exceptions to the norm ought to be expected in that department as well… like everything else in our biology.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t speak about the norms…
Now you may believe some norms are a product of convention over nature but the onus always falls on you to argue the case that any human motive is exclusively the product of a social convention.
It’d be significantly more absurde to suggest the social and cultural conventions sprang into existence motivated by nothing, meaning the conventions can only be explained by recourse to human nature and motive.
Any attempt to explain the statistics brought up in that video, must refer to human nature. Even if you credit a social convention, that convention needs an accounting, motivated by human nature… with the only alternative being that it’s a social convention inherited from an ancestral species, with motives that no longer apply to us.
If you had a competing theory of human nature with which to counter the one presented in the video, that might be something…
But objecting to the “assumption” of human nature being the underpinning cause is intellectually vacuous.
Really? Sounds like mysticism rather than science.
Without resorting to sloppy langauge. It’s called variation.
But humans more than any other animal depend less on innate genetically determined causes and traits and far more on learned culturally determined psychology. What Locke describes as a tabula rasa. We are born with a blank slate - not utterly and completely blank but more blank than all other animals. It is this infantile vulnerability that makes us such a unique species. If you want to know how we are determined by our genes alone bring up a baby in a box - pushing the food in one hole and the shit out of another. Then reflect that a child born to an ice-age hunter/gatherer 9kbp is genetically indistinguishable to a baby born in a 21stC megacity, and that such babies could be interchangeable across time, nation and subsistence strategies.
Not nothing but through lived experience, volition, motivation, invention, necessity, design, conflict, resolution, philosophy, culture, and a little bit by genes - but only a tiny amount.
I hear ignorance can cause that to occur… you know, like a caveman thinking a cellphone is magic.
Ok, so we’re not born blank slates… which only leaves the question as to what exactly the nature we’re born with is.
That our nature is different from other animals’ is obvious… that it’s a matter of degrees of blankness is asinine.
We can give rats a pleasure button and a food button and observe how they exclusively push the pleasure button, until they starves to death.
Would you say the rats learned to value the pleasure button over the food button? If so then how how did we teach it to them?
I’d think the more reasonable conclusion is that we’re observing their natural priorities on display when placed in this artificial environment where such buttons are made available.
I don’t see why it’s not also the more reasonable conclusion when observing the behavior of humans differing in different environments and compounding the effect on a societal level…
Imagine a species of animal that has an instinct to change color so as to fit into its environment and that this species lives in large flocks.
What you’d expect to see, if they lived densely together, is that their color becomes more and more distinct from the natural environment, because they are adapting to the color of their neighbors and the group coloration is abstracting away from the natural environment, we might call this a cultural color… and observe how different flocks have different colors even in the same natural environment and that their color is always changing.
The existence of this cultural color, can only be explained by referring to the color adaptation instinct of the species; their nature.
I don’t know why I expected a more thoughtful reply…
First of all, genetics is what makes us human in the first place, as opposed to say a mouse… I think we can afford to give genetics a bit more credit for why we think as we do.
The charitable interpretation is that you meant to say there is very little variability between human minds, due to genetics… which may well be true, but I’d very much like to see your evidence for that.
Anyway, going back to human nature…
Imagine humanity without, let’s say hunger… what lived experience would allow us to feel starvation?
What value does knowledge or wisdom have to someone who doesn’t wish to act in the world? What is a “good life” to someone who feels nothing?
What could be considered “necessary” if you don’t care about anything, even survival?
We can’t learn to value things without already valuing things.
The notion that sexual attraction and consequently selection (a motive fundamental to the survival of all our ancestors for the past billion years and then some), could be nothing more than a learned value dictated by culture, is the sort of nonsensical ignorance at the root of pseudoscience bullshit like gay conversion therapy… I’m unaccustomed to hearing it’s validity championed by anyone not motivated by iron age superstitions, but I suppose there’s a first time for everything.
But ‘medicated’ may also mean self medicated, that is having a desired state of mind acquired by perscription or prescription . The difference is subtle, but in natural selection, so is the qualitative difference between what brings it on(arousal) and what set’s it apart ( dissemination)…*
The drug cam be based on self induced image or a mystique of participatory contrivance but effecting indistinguishable from.
So , the differential may be insignificant and elusive and that is where we are today.
The success of the power of positive thinking need not entail any source not intrinsically available to any ‘patient’ as that criteria is widening as we speak.
- more exposure versus suppression really may work as qualitatively inversivel, as a re-integrated set within a zero sum.
I’ve no idea why you would want to change the goal posts so much.
You are just missing the topic my a mile.
You might as well talk about angora jumpers and their role in Hitler’s Germany to explain the expansion of the universe.
Meno says:
Referring to the systemic uncertainty of balance between the entangled sub structures and the corresponding lack of definite accountability of diagnostic criteria ; the gap is widening .
The medicated patient , for instance can not progressively gain understanding as to what ails him, in overmedicated states.
But ‘medicated’ may also mean self medicated, that is having a desired state of mind acquired through more affective indigenous methods even with people of limited insight.
Sculptor says:
“I’ve no idea why you would want to change the goal posts so much.
You are just missing the topic my a mile.
You might as well talk about angora jumpers and their role in Hitler’s Germany to explain the expansion of the universe.”
[/quote]
meno says:
I understand the predicament I noosed myself into. The correction between pre and per scripting has been made to explain how it is at the crux of the argument.
If it’s a prescribed rx.which defines something like a current definitive state of mind; then the memetic influence can only attribute a minimal factor in evolutionary psychology because states of mind may be reductivelu applied to very slowly progressing rate of change in respect to it’s inception.
I know how odd this may sound, but if states of mind are mostly ‘generic’ structurally; as St James would put system logic under a microscope, then the perimeters would incline toward identifiable structural differences as minimal in evaluation , as belonging to the same genera.
And alternatively prescriptive analysis is where as things stand on behavior modification: the symptoms of the times are effected drastically so the intrinsic values effecting bio-social change are the factors which minimize processes of development.
Is it an either or zero sum situation where newer meds can be effective in pulling people out of the dulldrums of misidentification per lack of specific sampled paradigmn and the effects of long term overmedication.
It is not the cure that is lacking but the specifics. De-humanizing symptoms into regimented cures ironically and ultimately will disaffect the illness into lower, mor accessible identifiable categories, which will redefine illness on basis of the ‘most probable’ even lowering or changing definitional identification of types of morbidities.
The down to earth view of this happening is the creation of fallacious contradiction. The mad dictator is not crazy; and his supporters can not accept that because then it’s like admitting to their own loss of mind x and this extreme maybe belittle actual real life examples with misidentification .But at the same time this argument invigorates the view held by followers of Levi Bruhl ; of the need to sustain magic and lore among those who are forced into procedural l regimens.
Needless to say, that kind of argument doesn’t justify very backward uses of treatment in and through negative reinfircement.
I really believe, no baby is born as is defective, and to defy a natural cure by the use of artificially introduced agents into children’s bodies even at a very early age will be counter productive on the long run to enhance a balanced , normal developemental psychology.
On the other hand, if a behavioral model is used in conjunction to naturally acquired forms of bio-chemical support , a pardigmn systemic menu can be augmented, it seems to me
Simon says do this…
“Get relevant”
…and they all agree ; it’s very tougher to be many visible…
But not to worry rotplucS. It may merely be an omen ; invisible.
Onem, please keep taking the noitacidem.
I can only add a superfluous, yet unoffensive comment here; but it’s quite hard to think of one that would not have adverse effects; and since I voted you in, I’ll stick to my guns.
But on second though such inversive coded messages are fun, as much ias they do have devolutionary rings to it.