so do i. intelligent people creating technologies that a majority of people don't know how to use effectively. is not the same as saying the smarter you get the more harm you cause. as obviously that if everyone were at the same level we would not be seeing these breakdowns.I was trying to quote your post on the "the more intelligent the more harm we cause" and I thoroughly disagree
which is nonsensical and wrong.that's I mentioned Skinner, he thought everyone is dumb and every animal is dumb and everything is dumb until proven on the contrary.
agreed. the more intelligent you are the more compassionate you are.In fact, often the kindest and the most compassionate people are the most intelligent and creative.
this goes into concepts of morality and objectivity which i find interesting of their own merits. but that would take a whole other thread to parse. however, i agree that "killing is wrong all the time" is fundamentally illogical. sometimes it is not wrong. and sometimes it is. and those situations are dependant.The book Behave by Sapolsky asks us what would we do if we could, in fact, murder Hitler. Would we do it? Do we have a moral compass that dictates otherwise? Or would we save the course of past history and go against our own "I will never murder anything and I'm buying my meat packaged in the supermarket"?
i agree with this. but i would also go a step further and say that most major mental illnesses do have the potential of casing harm.There are hundreds of psychiatrists against the normative of disordered hence diseased, there are several who are very vocal about the true illness being causing harm
indeed. and which is precisely what i meant. they are intelligent in terms of they are capable of exercizing general intelligent behaviors. but they know less things (how to think critically. how to examine information. how to know what is true and false.) because of what ever reason that is. either they have less education. or their brains are less logical. or whatever.I agree that the vaccines 5g folks are not "that type of intelligent" but most of them live without access to good education, with smartphones and internet and Whatsapp groups.
agreed. there is nothing fundamentally anything wrong with being disordered. it is just a state that humans are sometimes in. what the "there is no disorder it's all just normal" people start to break down at. is that these are things which can cause harm. immense pain and suffering and trauma and harm. and i don't think it's appropreate to normalize that, either.Disorder just means out of order
every person regardless of their origin or culture or personal identity benefits from being able to tell the difference between what is true and what is false. the reasons why they have difficulties doing this are up for debate.This does not mean that they "need education as we do"
and having been there my self many times it is equally as irresponsible to assume that a person who is incapable of determining whether or not they are in danger. is not a risk to themselves. because they are. and we can call that whatever we like.That's what I mean, if there is an injured person who thinks they can die at any minute due to past terror, which is the right word, maybe calling this person a sick person is not the right or compassionate, or intelligent way to go :)
If you were talking to me? That’s not what I said.i don't truly know the answer to that. that if any person no matter their neurology was put through a specific set of circumstances would they develop ptsd?
***Instead of something one is born with, an acquired adaptivity “anyone” is able to shift into (anyone = all kinds of preexisting disorders & none, as opposed to everyone), the entire range personalities/skill sets?
It would make no sense for it to be, evolutionarily speaking. Having an entire species equally affected by a single thing quickly spells death to that species, should that single thing occur.how ever i am also not 100% convinced that after a certain point ptsd is inevetable.
Well... 60,000 years of known humanity (200,000 of less well known human existence), and over 10,000 years of civilization (as defined by building cities capable of sustaining 10’s to 100’s of thousands of people in a relatively closed/sustainable system) -vs- the last century? I’d say long run wins. But even in the last century we’ve had wars, genocides, plagues, famines, and natural disasters affect hundreds of millions of people; often for decades up to their entire lives. Whole generations born into crisis.so this isn't adaptive in the long run. because our lives exist as they are now. and not in caves beating each other over the head with bats. or fighting mammoths.
You’re mixing up 2 very different things; Individual & Species.there is no evolutionery benefit to depression or anxiety or ptsd or anything else because it results in disordered behavior
hi friday, i am confused! because i do not think i was talking to you. but i might have been, because i am not always sure of what is going on sometimes, but i do think i was.... talking to sietz, and simon-If you were talking to me? That’s not what I said.
this is true and i mix stuff up all the time. because my brain is not good at that type of processing! so i apologize. but that was more or less what i was getting at, for what i felt like other people might be doing. that explanations of behavior on a general level, mean something on a species level, which i am not convinced that is true.You’re mixing up 2 very different things; Individual & Species.
Yes and no. While I do agree that Skinner was horrific, thinking of Skinner in such bad terms is quite the dominant tendency of most behaviourists, more especially amongst animal specialists. It’s true that for things going from animal behaviour to psychology/psychiatry to social sciences to general knowledge, a certain time is required but I don’t think that in the academic world Skinner perspectives are still given a lot of credit. I don’t know the field of social sciences enough to have a clear cut-vision of what’s the dominant view or at least in the majority of currents. You also quoted Sapolsky so I guess that you might already know quite a lot of the following.Quite intensely so, the ideas of behaviorism that we study and think are true in the social sciences are based on Pavlov and Skinner
? Just curious.archeology keeps bumping itself with astrology
archeology keeps bumping itself with astrology
<laughing> I’m relatively certain @Sietz ((correct me if I’m wrong!)) is referencing “post-processional” “archeologists” ... who have decided that archeology shouldn’t be a science that deals in facts but should make up STORIES!!! about “what” things are, and “why” people did them, even though there is noooooooo way on the planet to know the what’s & why’s without the people there, themselves, to ask.? Just curious.