Great quote. He’s not going to be invited to any of the shrink parties now though!
Ive been saying this for a 15 years. But not before I dumped alot of $$ on these kikes for therapy and antidepressants.
They sell hopium. They really make you believe that they can fix your flaws. This guy puts it very well. I think its a religion. A shamanistic religion. They give you lots of different “magic herbs” to heal you, but none of them actually do. I really was a true believer because I knew it was based on Science™, and we all know smart people teust science.
There are things about human behaviors and illnesses they are correct about and sometimes they are helpful, but all those things can be said of several other religions and some other disciplines like TCM and Aryuvedic medicine. Their model of personality is useful but so are the 7 deadly sins. How does personality arise from the brain? Why are there 5 dimensions of personality and not 4 or 6? Why is a behavior like personality disorder a disease and not a strategy for survival?
Psychotherapy/ Psychiatry is the state religion. These people’s beliefs are treated as fact in a court of law. They serve the same role our clergy once did, and about as well. A couple hundred years from now future humans will laugh their asses off that we just blindly accepted the explanations of psychology as true. Recall fads like multiple personality disorder and ESP— both embraced heavily by the psychology community. Obviously theyve covered themselves in shame with the trans fad and their non-binary buffoonery.
These people need to take a vow of poverty before they take any more $$ from people.
There was a study recently that announced that out in the field of psychology no scientific studies could be repeated and get the same results. The core foundation of scientific research is repeatability. It’s not science if you can’t repeat the experiment and get the same result.
Of course. . Their definitions of pathologies are flakey and incomplete. Their diagnoses are not biologically rigorous. They might as well conclude people are possessed with evil spirits. And then they will produce a study to test whether CBT works on people possessed with evil spirits. And then they analyze the results statistically—what could be more ridiculous? And yet this is “science” because they performed a randomized study and did a little statistical analysis on pure voodoo.
The medieval chirch was the same. They believed their theology was truly the way the universe worked. Like the church, I think psychology is often right but for the wrong reasons.
Are you assuming there is a reliable biological theory that explains human behavior? There isn't one.
They might as well conclude people are possessed with evil spirits.
There is something called folk psychology. Churchland famously noted in the 20th century that for all of the so-called advances in cognitive science that had so far been achieved, nothing in the philosophy of mind had been able to produce a better theory (in terms of explanatory and behaviorally predictive power) than folk psychology. In the absence of a complete and satisfying theory of human beings, it could be that a possession model turns out - in the practical sense - to do a pretty robust job. Now, that's not the same as claiming that the Church's modus operandi is ideal. We might think things like exorcisms shouldn't be first-line strategies for dealing with abnormal behavior; rather, we're concerned about the efficacy of the model. Forget the theological language for a moment, and think about it more abstractly. The 'Church model' treats the human being holistically, as a soul within a body. This results in a non-reductive approach. As a result, the threat which corrupts the person must have a proportionate nature, i.e., being a person of another sort (demonic or what have you). The point is that the Church will tend to analyze bad human outcomes at the level of human beings, rather than at the level of chemical composites, states, or patterns. Naturally, this will cause the Church to theorize about threats to the soul as occurring at the level of human beings 'and upward'. So, they'll go the completely other direction. They'll look at influences from human relationships, societies and cultures, and transcendent principles of good and evil, without reducing the person beyond (rather, beneath) the level of the soul.
Coming back to the theoretical distinctions between folk psychology and professional psychology, how does this difference in model affect the worldviews we develop as a result? It could very well be that the folk psychological model simply is the better theory - again, on the basis of explanation and prediction. For example, such a model as the 'Church model' might predict certain things will happen if an individual becomes isolated, socialy withdrawn, and engages in so-called evil things, say, drugs or whatever. Now, a reductive theory, like modern psychitary or even your own favored genetic theories, simply cannot categorize any of these things (at the behavioral level) as good or bad. They lack the theoretical machinery to do that. You don't get a moral theory out of the genes. They'll require some reductive explanation for the drug-seeking behavior, which can't actually categorize the drug behavior as intrinsically bad or evil. It will come down to the particular person, with the particular genetic makeup in a particular set of circumstances, that makes these things bad. It won't always be bad, relatively speaking, to be socially isolated and/or to do drugs. There will be a specific pattern, fine-grained down to the level of individual persons only, that can make any particular confluence of things bad.
Which is going to be a more effective deterrent to these adverse behaviors in the end? I'll tell you right now, it won't be any reductive theory. They can never explain anything above the level of an individual person, which is why, in today's modern world, you aren't permitted to make the sweeping kinds of categorical claims people used to make all the time. For example, homosexuality per se cannot be bad, because nothing is bad intrinsically. Things can be extrinsically bad when the right set of conditions as a whole lowers the utility of that behavior for this one individual - this leads to theories that extrinsic factors like discrimination are what lead to harmful homosexual expression. "No, that behavior was bad for that person at that time and in those circumstances". The counterfactual possibilities are endless in modernity. A situation bad for one person could be great for another, by the modern's lights anyway.
Whether we are reducing the person to brain chemistry or nucleic acid chemistry makes no difference. It's just moving the biological goalposts.
They believed their theology was truly the way the universe worked
It isn't clear that they're wrong.
To be sure, it isn't clear that they're right either. But neither is it the case that, absent a theology, a purely physical theory of the universe is adequate. We can be skeptical about particular claims perhaps, e.g. God has such and such a nature, and God relates to humans thus and so, but the general claim that the universe has an intelligent creator is quite a bit stronger than the counterclaim (there is no creator).
They might as well conclude people are possessed with evil spirits. And then they will produce a study to test whether CBT works on people possessed with evil spirits. And then they analyze the results statistically—what could be more ridiculous? And yet this is “science” because they performed a randomized study and did a little statistical analysis on pure voodoo.
A 'rigorous' population-genetic explanation for human behaviors would necessarily be statistical. It's a statistical science.
Ok, it’s been a couple of days since you made this comment. I confess I was putting it off because I have to read your comments a couple of times to really comprehend them completely, and if I plan on answering you, I usually have to take notes and think out my response —and all this is a bit more daunting that my daily roll in the mud with dangus. It usually takes a half hour to an hour, or maybe more. So I was procrastinating. I just hope that I didnt wait so long that you went on another 5 month voat hiatus and it’s December as you’re reading this.
Are you assuming there is a reliable biological theory that explains human behavior? There isn't one.
There is. It’s called Evolution. If it’s interpreted correctly it absolutely is holistic.
I think that there is a gray area where it’s debatable whether or not a person is suffering from a true pathology or just an innate behavior which has been deemed subjectively maladaptive.
For instance, someone might suffer from schizophrenia because an infection or an immune response to that infection damaged the brain at a critical juncture in brain development. Folk psychology will never be able to solve this problem. Sadly, many people were attacked and these illnesses were attributed to evil spirits, which was not constructive. “Reductive” disciplines are going to eventually repair or at least prevent these types of pathologies.
But let’s take another case: personality disorder. A person like big fat dangus is usually diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. This problem is probably genetic and it’s debatable whether it’s a pathology at all or rather a more aggressive strategy for competition, reproduction. Evolution recognizes that people with these behaviors will arise in a population and if we want a society free of exploitive, opportunistic individuals we need to prevent people with NPD from reproducing.
Folk psychology like Christianity says that if Dangus devotes his life to Jesus and confesses his sins, he can stop being a narcissist. This is very unlikely. And it doesnt deal with the problem of such a person reproducing more narcissists. In this case, Christianity is too reductive. It claims that everyone needs to be treated as a blank slate with an equal potential to be a good person via free will. But if BFD has a kid, it will have a much higher potential to be a narcissist. Behavior problems are clearly genetic as is demonstrated by blacks. When we make a racial policy ( no blacks allowed ) its genetic but not individualistic. Some folk psychology other than Christianity might deal with this problem more practically but will misunderstand the underlying mechanisms for such “evil”.
I dont understand why you claim a purely scientific, physical, non-supernatural model can’t be holistic? You are taking an aspect of modern medicine (de-humanizing, factory-like assembly line healthcare) and somehow making it an integral feature of any scientific approach! That’s absurd.
For example, such a model as the 'Church model' might predict certain things will happen if an individual becomes isolated, socialy withdrawn, and engages in so-called evil things, say, drugs or whatever. Now, a reductive theory, like modern psychitary or even your own favored genetic theories, simply cannot categorize any of these things (at the behavioral level) as good or bad. They lack the theoretical machinery to do that.
Even psychology will say that spending too much time alone doing drugs is bad. They will say “bad for mental health “ and not “evil”.
But Evolution does explain why being a useless drug addict is evil. It can categorize things as good and evil when you understand what good and evil actually are in an evolutionary context.
You think good and evil and morals are all somehow separate from evolution and supernatural or non-physical. They arent. They are instincts which are strongly genetically based. And a cultural policy among a group of highly related individuals is also heavily gene based. These genes help us coordinate our behavior at the group level. They cant be analyzed fully in a single individual— they must be assessed for their effect on the entire group. Isnt that holistic? Good is what’s good for the group. Evil is what is bad for the group.
I can also argue why, although concepts of good and evil vary from group to group, some of these values are better than others. As animals evolve from the simple to the complex and from the insensate to the intelligent, we can deduce a trend: with each itereation of evolution, organisms are able to process greater and greater amounts of information about the universe. A snail understands more about the universe than the amoeba. A dog comprehends more than a snail. And so forth.
Let us hypothesize then that the purpose of life is to ascertain true information about the universe. If this hypothesis is correct, than we should promote individuals and behaviors that will do so more capably and demote individuals that do so poorly. This is not just a simple IQ test. The largest acquisition of information has been achived through high levels of group cohesion with individuals sharing true information freely with each other for mutual benefit.
Unfortunately survival/reproductive strategies often include high levels of competition within species, where individuals predate upon each other. This is highly inefficient behavior that favors individuals over group well being (niggers stealing bikes) and reduces trust, disincentivizing the sharing of true information.
Societies that favor group selection strategies over individual selection will have better information processing capabilities. Economically self-sustainable groups (like Japanese) will process information better than groups that are parasitic (like the jews, who favor group selection but have an inefficient strategy, producing nothing and using disinformation to exploit other groups) .
This is why we can say that the most economically efficient, self-sustaining groups will exhibit the most useful information processing abilities as a group. In real life, this looks like a strict moral society that promotes usefulness, efficiency and egalitarianism and prevents the success of exploitive, inefficient, and deceptive behaviors that only serve the individual and his personal reproductive advantage at the expense of the group. Jews, while intelligent, promote deception for their own benefit, including self deception. Any (genetic) strategy that seeks to exploit others within the breeding population (humans) rather than through true productivity will always be regressive, promoting deception and destruction over cooperativity. In other words, some notions of good are better than others.
Swedish people do represent an improvement over niggers just as a dog is an improvement over an amoeba. Its a reversal of entropy, if you will. Some theoretical group will one day exist that is better than the Swedes or the Japanese, suffering from fewer faults than those groups do.
I don’t know if you are likely to buy into all of my stuff about information theory being critical to the objective of all life, but you can’t deny that highly efficient groups like the Scandis or Japanese have a better sense of good and evil than blacks and jews who devour other people’s productivity, disincentivizing all cooperativity and productivity. They will argue welfare is good, but the greater good is never to subsidize reproduction of unproductive people at the expense of more productive people with stable, sustainable group strategies.
Competition amongst survival strategies is at the heart of the true nature of good and evil. Their supernatural nature is an illusion. Each group has its own sense of good and bad based on what has worked for them economically in the past. But some of these strategies are truly better than others because they incentivize the acquisition of true knowlege and understanding.
Once we have established in an evolutionary context for why Sweden is better than Nigeria, we can establish why an ideology, a moral regime which defines good and evil , complements Evolution and is not incompatible with it. In such a moral regime, such as a non-theistic non-supernatural religion or culture, a “holistic” group policy which deals with drug use will naturally be informed the people’s instinct to ban it, appreciating that impulse as protective of the group and not “superstitious moral panic” as secular leftists claim. The moral instincts of more efficient and stable societies (including religious ones) are the cause of that efficiency.
That includes the proscription of homosexuality, which appears to be a completely wasteful and destructive burden to any society. Why can’t a secular evolutionist ban homosexuality since it can clearly lead to the extinction of his people? Isn’t that an evil to be avoided? Everybody’s got to pitch in. We cant all be gay prostitutes and hair dressers high on poppers and spreading AIDS. They are dead weight. And the condition is arguably contagious. You are telling me a secular ideology cant account for that and make a sensible policy on it? Because it doesnt have enough hocus pocus?
The real reason to avoid sin is it makes us stronger and more useful as groups, not because God hates it. My morality is not situational. It is indeed holistic. Systematic. And key to improving our lot is understanding why tolerating “bad” or evil behavior is exploitive of the group, disincentivizing cooperative behavior and dysgenic, because morals are driven by genes.
I realize Ive gotten a bit off the topic of why a spiritual approach to our behavioral problems is/isnt superior to psychotherapy.
Ideally I envision practicioners similar to therapists that could council people with their problems who are trained in a moral ideology informed by evolution.
In a way, therapists are already doing that. But their ideology has a warped notion of good and evil which is destructive.
We can be skeptical about particular claims perhaps, e.g. God has such and such a nature, and God relates to humans thus and so, but the general claim that the universe has an intelligent creator is quite a bit stronger than the counterclaim (there is no creator).
Dont agree with that last bit. But my theory explains why people disagree about the nature of God. He is just the anthropomorphism of our instinctual moral impulses.
Well, I doubt we will agree here. But even after the procrastination, I did get into the groove of the subject and enjoyed producing the rant above. Hope I was able to provide a clear picture of my ideas without sounding too spergy. Im more interested in that than converting you to Helena’s Evolution Religion, which I judge to be a long shot.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 10 monthsJul 10, 2023 22:38:06 ago (+1/-0)
I just read this. This was an excellent response. Likewise, I need time to see how I want to approach it. So, I doubt I will be responding this evening.
I found it remarkable that your religion can be shortened to the acronym HER.
Oh good. I was hoping that you hadnt gon into hibernation again. I have been looking for a catchy name for my ideology which is more descriptive than “evolution”. Unlike a traditional understanding of evolution, it takes a viewpoint that some strategies are better than others.
Sorry for the length, Helena. I don't expect a comprehensive response to the entirety of this post. You can read it if you get bored.
There is. It's called Evolution. If it's interpreted correctly it absolutely is holistic.
This term 'interpretation' is going to introduce all of the ambiguity you'll ever need - how does evolution determine who interprets evolution correctly?
Heritability estimates are practically useless for establishing any general rules. But I should also probably distinguish between classes of behaviors in terms of their susceptibility for genetic interpretation; this is one difficulty with the philosophy of biology, right? It's hard to know where to carve up the 'joints' (read as: which categories are the real ones). For example, we could differentiate between temperament, personality, and particular behaviors. I think the evidence better supports genetic involvement in the case of temperament, but not in the case of particular behaviors. But, it's hard to talk as if all three of these terms can be subsumed under the heading of 'behavior'. . .I mean, temperament is 'kind of' behavioral. That is, it has an influence on behavior, but it doesn't seem like it is 'behavior', in itself.
So let's just say we make something called a temperamental predicate, e.g. 'X has Y temperament if X is predisposed to sympathetic nervous system responses that correspond with flight reactions, compared with X having Z temperament if, for the same stimulus, X is less likely to engage in flight.' (This is just for purposes of argument.) We could imagine assessing the meaning of this temperamental predicate in a baby. We decide on some standard stimulus, i.e., a door being shut with some determined force. We test a slew of babies to see what their physiological responses are to the sight/sound of the door closing abruptly. A baby has Y temperament if blood pressure increases, or cortisol spikes, or whatever. A baby has Z temperament if, on those same measurements, its results for the same measurements are below a certain threshold. Assume we hold all control variables constant (having to do with the room, the door, the time after stimulus for taking measurements, the measurement methods, etc.)
I think you're going to have a much stronger case for genes explaining the variance in BP and cortisol, therefore, in this quality we're calling 'temperament'. For genetic reasons primarily, some babies are just more prone to anxious and avoidant responses than other babies.
I'm going to predict that the reliability of genetic explanation drops drastically for personality, and it goes to almost nothing at the level of particular behaviors. For example, take something like sexual orientation and particular sexual choices. We might (it's a stretch) call sexual orientation an aspect of personality (arguably, it could be called temperamental). GWA studies have had very little success in demonstrating a genetic explanation for sexual orientation. Since orientation is a more general property than particular sexual choices ("I'm sleeping with him/her today"), we can expect that genes are going to 'go to zero' in terms of their explanatory utility at that level.
So, it might come down to what kinds of behaviors you want to explain, and how general you are trying to be. I get the impression you are trying to go all the way to the level of culture, understood roughly as a group's collective 'evolutionary strategy' (its 'shot', if you will). But that's on the far end of the spectrum, well past the level of particular behaviors. It is what emerges socially from the interaction of individuals engaging in particular behaviors. Granted, this is all insanely complex, because we know culture itself becomes 'an environment' that can influence the developing individual organism at the genetic level (a young adolescent is being genetically influenced by his/her culture).
With me, the touchy spot is going to be freedom. At some point in the entire picture, either freedom of choice emerges or it doesn't. I often want to locate that emergence at the level of the individual. That is, the individual experiences influence from the lower end (genes) and from the higher end (culture, environment), but ultimately we never get a better deterministic explanation than a non-deterministic one, i.e., one where we treat the individual as free to choose within a sphere of influence from both ends. You see, if that is something I am committed to, it'll have impacts on my whole theory. We could debate how free will is being situated here and whether or not it ought to come into the analysis at all. I just wanted to point out the impact that commitment has on my worldview. It seems to me that your theory, in order to be coherent, is going to involve sheer determinism. None of us are free (in the meaningful sense) to make choices; some calculus is going on at the level of the genes, where this combination of proteins from this set of genes 'wins' out over the combinatorial products of another competing set of genes: there's no choice in the matter. In other words, with all of the right information available, for any individual human you could compute the choice they would make in any possible context. Have you considered this potential consequence of your theory?
I understand the reason why we would be tempted to look at group-lvl behaviors, to note trends for distinct ethnic groups, and then to assume: "Well, the thing they all have in common is genes, and moreover, very similar genomes due to common inheritance. Ergo, the explanation for their similar behaviors is probably their shared genome." My thing is, if we can 'tie this knot' between the molecular level and the cultural level, it's a straight jog right through human individuality, and you're going to lose any semblance of free choice (further, of a concept called rationality) in people. There is no rationality anymore. There is just matching of genetic sequences with environments and the outcomes that result.
schizophrenia, infection Folk psychology will never be able to solve this problem. gray area where it's debatable whether or not a person is suffering from a true pathology or just an innate behavior
What is the difference? At the end of the day, the presence of a pathogen is not what's doing the work here. The pathogen's presence is just another environmental fact. If the pathogen is involved, it is just to the extent that it makes some key molecule present or absent, either expressing genes or silencing them. It still comes down to coding sequences.
I see your point. In clinical terms, it would be good to know that this or that pathogen has such an effect, and if it is adverse on the structure of the brain, it will be good to prevent that sort of infection (or treat existing ones). I don't disagree at all. That's all well and good, and within the boundaries of objective science. But neither does that mean we require reducing the moral unit of value here - the individual - to a particular brain region (or the coding sequence we think is the 'blueprint' for that brain region). We simply have to recognize that a person is limited in important ways by their brain structure. This is not the same as equating the person with the brain. The difference in these two views is enormous.
And if it turns out that some (or most) of mental pathologies have an infectious vector as their cause, then you are right that folk psychology won't play a role in treating these conditions. But neither do we have evidence that this is likely. So that if there is even one existing mental pathology we know is caused by bacterial infection, it does not demonstrate that all mental pathologies are. We cannot reduce the person to a molecular description.
This problem is probably genetic and it’s debatable whether it’s a pathology at all or rather a more aggressive strategy for competition
Correct. There are no genetic facts that pertain to 'strategy' or 'competition'. That's a different level of analysis. You require assumptions that don't have a basis in biochemistry to even begin saying 'what' 'these' 'are'. Some people are going to call it a pathology because in the 'throb' of our complex lives, a certain pattern of behavior has caused us social problems. What causes 'pathology' to be mutually exclusive from 'aggressive strategy'?
Folk psychology like Christianity says that if Dangus devotes his life to Jesus and confesses his sins, he can stop being a narcissist. This is very unlikely.
Why? Suppose it's possible for it to occur, but only possible. What's our detection limit? Sensitivity and specificity? What constitutes a true positive, or a false positive? A false negative or a true negative?
If Dangus stopped the behavior (it would be interesting to know whether you even think it would be possible for Dangus to change his behavior), would he still be a narcissist since he has all of the genes? And if he stops the behavior, what does that do for your theory?
If Dangus became a Christian and stopped acting like a narcissist, is the only explanation that some 'functional unit' of a linear chain of molecules became silenced? Do we get a false positive if Dangus stops displaying narcissistic behaviors without a corresponding change in his genome, or is that just not a logical possibility in your theory?
You think good and evil and morals are all somehow separate from evolution and supernatural or non-physical. They aren't. They are instincts which are strongly genetically based.
What is 'good', and how do you explain it genetically?
If you say survival, you're up shit creek. There's nothing in the genes that says it's good that they survive. It just happens to be the case that some did, and that some still happen to. That's all.
Good is what’s good for the group. Evil is what is bad for the group.
So that which is good is contingent on something that promotes WHAT for the group?
Why are groups good?
Let us hypothesize then that the purpose of life is to ascertain true information about the universe.
You're being funny now.
The largest acquisition of information has been achieved through high levels of group cohesion with individuals sharing true information freely with each other for mutual benefit.
Who cares?
Any (genetic) strategy that seeks to exploit others within the breeding population (humans) rather than through true productivity will always be regressive, promoting deception and destruction over cooperativity. In other words, some notions of good are better than others.
There is nothing genetic or evolutionary that can support that, at all. Why is not good for a highly efficient pattern of behavior that exploits others to differentially compete, accrue all of the resources, cause the breakdown and eventual dissolution of the lifeforms?
These things like 'deception'; you can only read those out of the throb of life, from your experience of being in this 'river'. Either those concepts have an objective basis in reality - not simply your feelings, no matter how ubiquitous they are within your group - or they are meaningless. Evolution and genetics could just as easily be said to have the 'purpose' of destroying life. That is, that self-replication of biomolecules in cells is an aberration in the natural order of the universe, and evolution favors the emergence of parasitic/exploitative intelligence to self-correct the universe from producing cellular life. In fact, if I go with that theory, I might even have more support for it, given the a posteriori fact that we don't know of any other intelligent life in the whole universe. My 'evolution as extermination of life' theory would cause that evidence (or lack thereof rather) to be an expectation.
Their (good and evil) supernatural nature is an illusion.
Your theory makes their 'natural' nature an illusion also. Possibly a useful fiction, at best, a conceptual instrument for an arrangement of chemicals (called a human) that just so happens to seek on carrying out its life and making more of itself.
Why can’t a secular evolutionist ban homosexuality since it can clearly lead to the extinction of his people? Isn’t that an evil to be avoided? Everybody’s got to pitch in. We can't all be gay prostitutes and hairdressers high on poppers and spreading AIDS. They are dead weight.
This example is similar to the drug-use example. I'll just make a really easy analogy. Let's say that a road would be useful for a group of people to have, to get from A to B. But there are certain conditions that are necessary to meet for there to be a road that behaves like a road. Importantly, I want you to note the contingency of the road concept. What makes a road, essentially, is not just a path, but a path that solves a particular human problem, meaning that between 'nothing' and 'a road', the bridge is the condition of usability. A necessary condition for there to be a road, then, is for at least the majority of the people using it to keep their speed under 80 mph. If the majority of people do over 80 mph, the road becomes unusable because of a buildup of accidents.
All you get with evolution and genetics is, if enough people drive under 80 mph, you get a road. If not enough people drive under 80 mph, there is no road. That's it. That's all you get. If for whatever reason the population becomes aware of this 'covering law' that governs their ability to have roads, they don't get an objective moral theory that says driving over 80 mph is wrong. They get a theory of general utility. It's a pain in the ass for people to drive over 80 mph, because every person who does increases the potential risk for the overall burden of 80+_drivers to eventually ruin the road.
So now your theory of good and evil depends upon this appeal (and this alone): "Why? Because it's good for the group!"
And every individual driver who is deciding about how to behave can say: "Who cares!? Not everyone has to drive under 80 mph for the road to work. So, if some people can drive over 80 mph, and the road will still work, then WHY SHOULDN'T I GET TO BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE!?"
And how will you answer why he or she doesn't get to be one of those people? You'll have no answer. You'll have a statistic. It's similar with gays, and with drugs. Suppose you call one of these behaviors 'contagious'. WHenever one person does it, then by mimesis or whatever, he increases the likelihood another person will do it. Now the group says, "Alright, we have to take steps to prohibit mimesis of this behavior." You'll establish a police force or something to monitor the roads. If someone drives over 80 mph, you punish them. Problem solved, right?
Other than a potential to be caught and punished, you've not established a single good reason for someone thinking it is bad to drive over 80 mph. Why? Let's now say that your driving speed is analogous to the aggression of your competitive strategy. Categorically, you can't decouple driving 55 mph from 80 mph in terms of their both being intrinsically a competitive strategy against others. That's all evolution and genetics will give us. So, the extent to which driving 80+ mph is wrong is just the extent to which the rest of the group thinks that degree of aggression in competition falls outside of what's deemed acceptable for everyone to remain competing. But evolution can't tell us (a) that any effective competition is inherently wrong or (b) that competition which ends the game itself is wrong, either. You can't get to other conclusions without stepping outside of genetics and evolution.
Reasonably, if the window for competing at 80 mph exists for some people, then there will be those that fill that opportunity gap. Therefore, there will be a carrying capacity for some individuals to 'live better' than others, which can't be wrong since evolution only motivates us to compete to promulgate our own genes. All other motivations to compete to lesser degrees for the sake of *all competition per se, cannot come from evolution/genetics.
So, you wind up with someone asking (quite reasonably): "Well, if there are going to be some people who do drive 80+ mph, why shouldn't that be me? Those people won't be punished for it. Why should I sacrifice what they aren't?"
And you'll not have an answer for their question, perhaps other than to say: "Well, it would be great if you didn't since, if enough people do it, then a (possible) future version of our population will be less likely to have gathered more information about the universe."
To which that person says: "Um, alright," and then hits the gas, because who gives a shit? A counterfactual future possibility about one's group is not likely to motivate anybody if, in and of itself, all that exists is an evolutionary reason why that's important. I doubt you'll populate an army of soldiers by telling them that the fundamental explanation for their differential sacrifice is going to be that, by doing all of this, possibly giving their lives, they're supporting a chemical composite of biological tissue to have gathered and arranged more info about the universe at a future time.
Don't agree with that last bit. But my theory explains why people disagree about the nature of God. He is just the anthropomorphism of our instinctual moral impulses.
I would say this belief is going to undermine the fact that your theory includes any meaningful moral facts. If humans require an anthropic projection of their moral beliefs to a cosmic/transcendental scale, this is surely going to be because they realize the inherent lack of justice in the world under your view (see the road example above). Therefore, they project some ideal observer who is supposed to be taking account of who is making the sacrifices and who isn't, presumably to dole out justice in the afterlife, or something. But if that's true, then your view gives you neither (i) God nor (ii) a coherent set of moral principles. The moral facts that require there to be a God in the minds of moral agents (to justify their moral behavior) aren't actually going to be moral facts, since nothing evolutionary/genetic can ground them - a fiction is required.
Fact is a pretty hard word to define. You probably mean something like 'what is actually the case'; a theory is just a claim that attempts to say what is actually the case without any pretention to the logical fact that it might be wrong, needing either revision or replacement. Theory shouldn't be a word you avoid, unless you think everything you know consists only of certainties.
They pathologize normal behavior, particularly of men.
If you tell any kind of a doctor you're having a hard time, they'll medicate you rather than tell you to freaking do something for yourself. I don't even mean something hard like starting your own business; I mean working out or walking your dog or eating right. All that shit is way more powerful than an antidepressant.
Back in the day, I'd swear white people didn't do as many drugs as jews. Jews have an attraction to them. However, nowadays you see many whites hooked on dope and speed.
One thing scientologists do get right is that Freud was a bunch of nonsense. And you look at a lot of other Jewish propaganda spreaders and you realize quite a few of them were related to freud. And it's not an accident that the founder of Scientologist who may or may not be a total freaking idiot depending on what you believe but he actually knew Sigmund Freud so he knew it was all bullshit.
A broken clock is right twice a day. While Freud was a degenerate kike, scientology is just as retarded, if not more. It is a complete scam, so much so, that after reaching a certain level they tell the member that it is all a scam to get them to that level so they can reach the next one, which is another scam.
Oh Hubbard knew exactly what he was doing. He said so many times. That makes him exactly as bad as all the other people that did the same thing; however you feel about them.
I wish I were able to do it, tbh. It's just an industry.
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:09:18 ago (+1/-0)
Worthless therapists, yes. However, the role of a therapist is effectively that of a troubleshooter. They're supposed to be skilled in identifying glitches in your software and helping you correct them.
Few actually reach that capability, and many have other goals.
It's so much worse it has been infected with jews at a rate beyond belief. I think 34% of the psychological field is Jewish while only less thrn 2% of the population?
Psychology also has the replication crisis non of there cures works in anything close to a scientific way. They can't reproduce any of their results.
Psychologist psychiatrist what ever one you go to admit they won't treat a narricist because they can't be treated! Ffs one of the worst problems this country is facing maybe the world is the explosion of narricism in women it is leading to the destruction of the family structure I guarantee narricism is behind the rise of single mothers. They leave perfectly fine situations because their narricism haves them believing total bullshit and their flying monkeys around them support the bullshit.
Many a man has been gaslit by his narc wife who literaly is crazy then goes more crazy once a month.
I need to write a book about this rather then rant on here
Psychologist psychiatrist what ever one you go to admit they won't treat a narricist because they can't be treated!
Theyll treat anyone with money. But narcissism is difficult to treat because its not a disease but a style which is genetically predisposed.
I wont say that environment is never a factor in developing a narcissistic style, but it is more genetic than anything else. And btw men are far more likely to be diagnosed with it than women. There is not an explosion of narcissism in women so much as an explosion is jews promoting ego driven women or portrayals of ego driven women. Its not the same thing. Women in the “cluster B” category are more likely to trend toward the histrionic personality disorder rather than narcissistic.
They leave perfectly fine situations because their narricism haves them believing total bullshit
Thats a delusion you have because you listen to too much MGTOW propaganda around this place. Couples have real problems and women are leaving more because they are in a better position to leave.
When did we start seeing a massive increase in divorce? The 50s, 60s, and 70s. Why? Because men were suddenly able to walk out on “perfectly fine” situations to marry somebody else they met at the office. Was it an outbreak of narcissistic men? No, the laws simply permitted men to do what they hadnt been allowed to before, and the culture started encouraging it. Women are now in the same position because they have more cash. They are just doing what men have been doing for 70 years. Its not an outbreak of narcissism.
[ - ] Name 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:35:44 ago (+1/-0)*
Everything went to shit after the Civil War. Divorce rates increased 50% during World War I. During the 1950s divorce rates dropped. And then shit hit the fan in the 1960s.
[ - ] oldvoat 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 18:14:34 ago (+1/-0)
It has to be someone who has a certification from the State that agrees on pain of losing their main license that they will snitch everything they learn about a client to authorities every chance they get.
Ain't that the truth. Never trust a psychologist, especially one required by a court. The US courts are evil and there's plenty of great people locked up because the gov doesn't like them, If most people really knew how bad they are the system would crash from the utter lack of faith.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 11 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 07:20:22 ago (+12/-1)
Ive been saying this for a 15 years. But not before I dumped alot of $$ on these kikes for therapy and antidepressants.
They sell hopium. They really make you believe that they can fix your flaws. This guy puts it very well. I think its a religion. A shamanistic religion. They give you lots of different “magic herbs” to heal you, but none of them actually do. I really was a true believer because I knew it was based on Science™, and we all know smart people teust science.
There are things about human behaviors and illnesses they are correct about and sometimes they are helpful, but all those things can be said of several other religions and some other disciplines like TCM and Aryuvedic medicine. Their model of personality is useful but so are the 7 deadly sins. How does personality arise from the brain? Why are there 5 dimensions of personality and not 4 or 6? Why is a behavior like personality disorder a disease and not a strategy for survival?
Psychotherapy/ Psychiatry is the state religion. These people’s beliefs are treated as fact in a court of law. They serve the same role our clergy once did, and about as well. A couple hundred years from now future humans will laugh their asses off that we just blindly accepted the explanations of psychology as true. Recall fads like multiple personality disorder and ESP— both embraced heavily by the psychology community. Obviously theyve covered themselves in shame with the trans fad and their non-binary buffoonery.
These people need to take a vow of poverty before they take any more $$ from people.
[ + ] Portmanure
[ - ] Portmanure 3 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 07:36:40 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 07:50:17 ago (+1/-0)
The medieval chirch was the same. They believed their theology was truly the way the universe worked. Like the church, I think psychology is often right but for the wrong reasons.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 2 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 10:08:37 ago (+2/-0)*
Are you assuming there is a reliable biological theory that explains human behavior? There isn't one.
There is something called folk psychology. Churchland famously noted in the 20th century that for all of the so-called advances in cognitive science that had so far been achieved, nothing in the philosophy of mind had been able to produce a better theory (in terms of explanatory and behaviorally predictive power) than folk psychology. In the absence of a complete and satisfying theory of human beings, it could be that a possession model turns out - in the practical sense - to do a pretty robust job. Now, that's not the same as claiming that the Church's modus operandi is ideal. We might think things like exorcisms shouldn't be first-line strategies for dealing with abnormal behavior; rather, we're concerned about the efficacy of the model. Forget the theological language for a moment, and think about it more abstractly. The 'Church model' treats the human being holistically, as a soul within a body. This results in a non-reductive approach. As a result, the threat which corrupts the person must have a proportionate nature, i.e., being a person of another sort (demonic or what have you). The point is that the Church will tend to analyze bad human outcomes at the level of human beings, rather than at the level of chemical composites, states, or patterns. Naturally, this will cause the Church to theorize about threats to the soul as occurring at the level of human beings 'and upward'. So, they'll go the completely other direction. They'll look at influences from human relationships, societies and cultures, and transcendent principles of good and evil, without reducing the person beyond (rather, beneath) the level of the soul.
Coming back to the theoretical distinctions between folk psychology and professional psychology, how does this difference in model affect the worldviews we develop as a result? It could very well be that the folk psychological model simply is the better theory - again, on the basis of explanation and prediction. For example, such a model as the 'Church model' might predict certain things will happen if an individual becomes isolated, socialy withdrawn, and engages in so-called evil things, say, drugs or whatever. Now, a reductive theory, like modern psychitary or even your own favored genetic theories, simply cannot categorize any of these things (at the behavioral level) as good or bad. They lack the theoretical machinery to do that. You don't get a moral theory out of the genes. They'll require some reductive explanation for the drug-seeking behavior, which can't actually categorize the drug behavior as intrinsically bad or evil. It will come down to the particular person, with the particular genetic makeup in a particular set of circumstances, that makes these things bad. It won't always be bad, relatively speaking, to be socially isolated and/or to do drugs. There will be a specific pattern, fine-grained down to the level of individual persons only, that can make any particular confluence of things bad.
Which is going to be a more effective deterrent to these adverse behaviors in the end? I'll tell you right now, it won't be any reductive theory. They can never explain anything above the level of an individual person, which is why, in today's modern world, you aren't permitted to make the sweeping kinds of categorical claims people used to make all the time. For example, homosexuality per se cannot be bad, because nothing is bad intrinsically. Things can be extrinsically bad when the right set of conditions as a whole lowers the utility of that behavior for this one individual - this leads to theories that extrinsic factors like discrimination are what lead to harmful homosexual expression. "No, that behavior was bad for that person at that time and in those circumstances". The counterfactual possibilities are endless in modernity. A situation bad for one person could be great for another, by the modern's lights anyway.
Whether we are reducing the person to brain chemistry or nucleic acid chemistry makes no difference. It's just moving the biological goalposts.
It isn't clear that they're wrong.
To be sure, it isn't clear that they're right either. But neither is it the case that, absent a theology, a purely physical theory of the universe is adequate. We can be skeptical about particular claims perhaps, e.g. God has such and such a nature, and God relates to humans thus and so, but the general claim that the universe has an intelligent creator is quite a bit stronger than the counterclaim (there is no creator).
A 'rigorous' population-genetic explanation for human behaviors would necessarily be statistical. It's a statistical science.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 10 monthsJul 10, 2023 19:42:02 ago (+1/-0)
There is. It’s called Evolution. If it’s interpreted correctly it absolutely is holistic.
I think that there is a gray area where it’s debatable whether or not a person is suffering from a true pathology or just an innate behavior which has been deemed subjectively maladaptive.
For instance, someone might suffer from schizophrenia because an infection or an immune response to that infection damaged the brain at a critical juncture in brain development. Folk psychology will never be able to solve this problem. Sadly, many people were attacked and these illnesses were attributed to evil spirits, which was not constructive. “Reductive” disciplines are going to eventually repair or at least prevent these types of pathologies.
But let’s take another case: personality disorder. A person like big fat dangus is usually diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder. This problem is probably genetic and it’s debatable whether it’s a pathology at all or rather a more aggressive strategy for competition, reproduction. Evolution recognizes that people with these behaviors will arise in a population and if we want a society free of exploitive, opportunistic individuals we need to prevent people with NPD from reproducing.
Folk psychology like Christianity says that if Dangus devotes his life to Jesus and confesses his sins, he can stop being a narcissist. This is very unlikely. And it doesnt deal with the problem of such a person reproducing more narcissists. In this case, Christianity is too reductive. It claims that everyone needs to be treated as a blank slate with an equal potential to be a good person via free will. But if BFD has a kid, it will have a much higher potential to be a narcissist. Behavior problems are clearly genetic as is demonstrated by blacks. When we make a racial policy ( no blacks allowed ) its genetic but not individualistic. Some folk psychology other than Christianity might deal with this problem more practically but will misunderstand the underlying mechanisms for such “evil”.
I dont understand why you claim a purely scientific, physical, non-supernatural model can’t be holistic? You are taking an aspect of modern medicine (de-humanizing, factory-like assembly line healthcare) and somehow making it an integral feature of any scientific approach! That’s absurd.
Even psychology will say that spending too much time alone doing drugs is bad. They will say “bad for mental health “ and not “evil”.
But Evolution does explain why being a useless drug addict is evil. It can categorize things as good and evil when you understand what good and evil actually are in an evolutionary context.
You think good and evil and morals are all somehow separate from evolution and supernatural or non-physical. They arent. They are instincts which are strongly genetically based. And a cultural policy among a group of highly related individuals is also heavily gene based. These genes help us coordinate our behavior at the group level. They cant be analyzed fully in a single individual— they must be assessed for their effect on the entire group. Isnt that holistic? Good is what’s good for the group. Evil is what is bad for the group.
I can also argue why, although concepts of good and evil vary from group to group, some of these values are better than others. As animals evolve from the simple to the complex and from the insensate to the intelligent, we can deduce a trend: with each itereation of evolution, organisms are able to process greater and greater amounts of information about the universe. A snail understands more about the universe than the amoeba. A dog comprehends more than a snail. And so forth.
Let us hypothesize then that the purpose of life is to ascertain true information about the universe. If this hypothesis is correct, than we should promote individuals and behaviors that will do so more capably and demote individuals that do so poorly. This is not just a simple IQ test. The largest acquisition of information has been achived through high levels of group cohesion with individuals sharing true information freely with each other for mutual benefit.
Unfortunately survival/reproductive strategies often include high levels of competition within species, where individuals predate upon each other. This is highly inefficient behavior that favors individuals over group well being (niggers stealing bikes) and reduces trust, disincentivizing the sharing of true information.
Societies that favor group selection strategies over individual selection will have better information processing capabilities. Economically self-sustainable groups (like Japanese) will process information better than groups that are parasitic (like the jews, who favor group selection but have an inefficient strategy, producing nothing and using disinformation to exploit other groups) .
This is why we can say that the most economically efficient, self-sustaining groups will exhibit the most useful information processing abilities as a group. In real life, this looks like a strict moral society that promotes usefulness, efficiency and egalitarianism and prevents the success of exploitive, inefficient, and deceptive behaviors that only serve the individual and his personal reproductive advantage at the expense of the group. Jews, while intelligent, promote deception for their own benefit, including self deception. Any (genetic) strategy that seeks to exploit others within the breeding population (humans) rather than through true productivity will always be regressive, promoting deception and destruction over cooperativity. In other words, some notions of good are better than others.
Swedish people do represent an improvement over niggers just as a dog is an improvement over an amoeba. Its a reversal of entropy, if you will. Some theoretical group will one day exist that is better than the Swedes or the Japanese, suffering from fewer faults than those groups do.
I don’t know if you are likely to buy into all of my stuff about information theory being critical to the objective of all life, but you can’t deny that highly efficient groups like the Scandis or Japanese have a better sense of good and evil than blacks and jews who devour other people’s productivity, disincentivizing all cooperativity and productivity. They will argue welfare is good, but the greater good is never to subsidize reproduction of unproductive people at the expense of more productive people with stable, sustainable group strategies.
Competition amongst survival strategies is at the heart of the true nature of good and evil. Their supernatural nature is an illusion. Each group has its own sense of good and bad based on what has worked for them economically in the past. But some of these strategies are truly better than others because they incentivize the acquisition of true knowlege and understanding.
Once we have established in an evolutionary context for why Sweden is better than Nigeria, we can establish why an ideology, a moral regime which defines good and evil , complements Evolution and is not incompatible with it. In such a moral regime, such as a non-theistic non-supernatural religion or culture, a “holistic” group policy which deals with drug use will naturally be informed the people’s instinct to ban it, appreciating that impulse as protective of the group and not “superstitious moral panic” as secular leftists claim. The moral instincts of more efficient and stable societies (including religious ones) are the cause of that efficiency.
That includes the proscription of homosexuality, which appears to be a completely wasteful and destructive burden to any society. Why can’t a secular evolutionist ban homosexuality since it can clearly lead to the extinction of his people? Isn’t that an evil to be avoided? Everybody’s got to pitch in. We cant all be gay prostitutes and hair dressers high on poppers and spreading AIDS. They are dead weight. And the condition is arguably contagious. You are telling me a secular ideology cant account for that and make a sensible policy on it? Because it doesnt have enough hocus pocus?
The real reason to avoid sin is it makes us stronger and more useful as groups, not because God hates it. My morality is not situational. It is indeed holistic. Systematic. And key to improving our lot is understanding why tolerating “bad” or evil behavior is exploitive of the group, disincentivizing cooperative behavior and dysgenic, because morals are driven by genes.
I realize Ive gotten a bit off the topic of why a spiritual approach to our behavioral problems is/isnt superior to psychotherapy.
Ideally I envision practicioners similar to therapists that could council people with their problems who are trained in a moral ideology informed by evolution.
In a way, therapists are already doing that. But their ideology has a warped notion of good and evil which is destructive.
Dont agree with that last bit. But my theory explains why people disagree about the nature of God. He is just the anthropomorphism of our instinctual moral impulses.
Well, I doubt we will agree here. But even after the procrastination, I did get into the groove of the subject and enjoyed producing the rant above. Hope I was able to provide a clear picture of my ideas without sounding too spergy. Im more interested in that than converting you to Helena’s Evolution Religion, which I judge to be a long shot.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 10 monthsJul 10, 2023 22:38:06 ago (+1/-0)
I found it remarkable that your religion can be shortened to the acronym HER.
That figures :).
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 09:28:10 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 10 monthsJul 11, 2023 13:33:35 ago (+0/-0)*
This term 'interpretation' is going to introduce all of the ambiguity you'll ever need - how does evolution determine who interprets evolution correctly?
Heritability estimates are practically useless for establishing any general rules. But I should also probably distinguish between classes of behaviors in terms of their susceptibility for genetic interpretation; this is one difficulty with the philosophy of biology, right? It's hard to know where to carve up the 'joints' (read as: which categories are the real ones). For example, we could differentiate between temperament, personality, and particular behaviors. I think the evidence better supports genetic involvement in the case of temperament, but not in the case of particular behaviors. But, it's hard to talk as if all three of these terms can be subsumed under the heading of 'behavior'. . .I mean, temperament is 'kind of' behavioral. That is, it has an influence on behavior, but it doesn't seem like it is 'behavior', in itself.
So let's just say we make something called a temperamental predicate, e.g. 'X has Y temperament if X is predisposed to sympathetic nervous system responses that correspond with flight reactions, compared with X having Z temperament if, for the same stimulus, X is less likely to engage in flight.' (This is just for purposes of argument.) We could imagine assessing the meaning of this temperamental predicate in a baby. We decide on some standard stimulus, i.e., a door being shut with some determined force. We test a slew of babies to see what their physiological responses are to the sight/sound of the door closing abruptly. A baby has Y temperament if blood pressure increases, or cortisol spikes, or whatever. A baby has Z temperament if, on those same measurements, its results for the same measurements are below a certain threshold. Assume we hold all control variables constant (having to do with the room, the door, the time after stimulus for taking measurements, the measurement methods, etc.)
I think you're going to have a much stronger case for genes explaining the variance in BP and cortisol, therefore, in this quality we're calling 'temperament'. For genetic reasons primarily, some babies are just more prone to anxious and avoidant responses than other babies.
I'm going to predict that the reliability of genetic explanation drops drastically for personality, and it goes to almost nothing at the level of particular behaviors. For example, take something like sexual orientation and particular sexual choices. We might (it's a stretch) call sexual orientation an aspect of personality (arguably, it could be called temperamental). GWA studies have had very little success in demonstrating a genetic explanation for sexual orientation. Since orientation is a more general property than particular sexual choices ("I'm sleeping with him/her today"), we can expect that genes are going to 'go to zero' in terms of their explanatory utility at that level.
So, it might come down to what kinds of behaviors you want to explain, and how general you are trying to be. I get the impression you are trying to go all the way to the level of culture, understood roughly as a group's collective 'evolutionary strategy' (its 'shot', if you will). But that's on the far end of the spectrum, well past the level of particular behaviors. It is what emerges socially from the interaction of individuals engaging in particular behaviors. Granted, this is all insanely complex, because we know culture itself becomes 'an environment' that can influence the developing individual organism at the genetic level (a young adolescent is being genetically influenced by his/her culture).
With me, the touchy spot is going to be freedom. At some point in the entire picture, either freedom of choice emerges or it doesn't. I often want to locate that emergence at the level of the individual. That is, the individual experiences influence from the lower end (genes) and from the higher end (culture, environment), but ultimately we never get a better deterministic explanation than a non-deterministic one, i.e., one where we treat the individual as free to choose within a sphere of influence from both ends. You see, if that is something I am committed to, it'll have impacts on my whole theory. We could debate how free will is being situated here and whether or not it ought to come into the analysis at all. I just wanted to point out the impact that commitment has on my worldview. It seems to me that your theory, in order to be coherent, is going to involve sheer determinism. None of us are free (in the meaningful sense) to make choices; some calculus is going on at the level of the genes, where this combination of proteins from this set of genes 'wins' out over the combinatorial products of another competing set of genes: there's no choice in the matter. In other words, with all of the right information available, for any individual human you could compute the choice they would make in any possible context. Have you considered this potential consequence of your theory?
I understand the reason why we would be tempted to look at group-lvl behaviors, to note trends for distinct ethnic groups, and then to assume: "Well, the thing they all have in common is genes, and moreover, very similar genomes due to common inheritance. Ergo, the explanation for their similar behaviors is probably their shared genome." My thing is, if we can 'tie this knot' between the molecular level and the cultural level, it's a straight jog right through human individuality, and you're going to lose any semblance of free choice (further, of a concept called rationality) in people. There is no rationality anymore. There is just matching of genetic sequences with environments and the outcomes that result.
Folk psychology will never be able to solve this problem.
gray area where it's debatable whether or not a person is suffering from a true pathology or just an innate behavior
What is the difference? At the end of the day, the presence of a pathogen is not what's doing the work here. The pathogen's presence is just another environmental fact. If the pathogen is involved, it is just to the extent that it makes some key molecule present or absent, either expressing genes or silencing them. It still comes down to coding sequences.
I see your point. In clinical terms, it would be good to know that this or that pathogen has such an effect, and if it is adverse on the structure of the brain, it will be good to prevent that sort of infection (or treat existing ones). I don't disagree at all. That's all well and good, and within the boundaries of objective science. But neither does that mean we require reducing the moral unit of value here - the individual - to a particular brain region (or the coding sequence we think is the 'blueprint' for that brain region). We simply have to recognize that a person is limited in important ways by their brain structure. This is not the same as equating the person with the brain. The difference in these two views is enormous.
And if it turns out that some (or most) of mental pathologies have an infectious vector as their cause, then you are right that folk psychology won't play a role in treating these conditions. But neither do we have evidence that this is likely. So that if there is even one existing mental pathology we know is caused by bacterial infection, it does not demonstrate that all mental pathologies are. We cannot reduce the person to a molecular description.
Correct. There are no genetic facts that pertain to 'strategy' or 'competition'. That's a different level of analysis. You require assumptions that don't have a basis in biochemistry to even begin saying 'what' 'these' 'are'. Some people are going to call it a pathology because in the 'throb' of our complex lives, a certain pattern of behavior has caused us social problems. What causes 'pathology' to be mutually exclusive from 'aggressive strategy'?
Why? Suppose it's possible for it to occur, but only possible. What's our detection limit? Sensitivity and specificity? What constitutes a true positive, or a false positive? A false negative or a true negative?
If Dangus stopped the behavior (it would be interesting to know whether you even think it would be possible for Dangus to change his behavior), would he still be a narcissist since he has all of the genes? And if he stops the behavior, what does that do for your theory?
If Dangus became a Christian and stopped acting like a narcissist, is the only explanation that some 'functional unit' of a linear chain of molecules became silenced? Do we get a false positive if Dangus stops displaying narcissistic behaviors without a corresponding change in his genome, or is that just not a logical possibility in your theory?
What is 'good', and how do you explain it genetically?
If you say survival, you're up shit creek. There's nothing in the genes that says it's good that they survive. It just happens to be the case that some did, and that some still happen to. That's all.
So that which is good is contingent on something that promotes WHAT for the group?
Why are groups good?
You're being funny now.
Who cares?
There is nothing genetic or evolutionary that can support that, at all. Why is not good for a highly efficient pattern of behavior that exploits others to differentially compete, accrue all of the resources, cause the breakdown and eventual dissolution of the lifeforms?
These things like 'deception'; you can only read those out of the throb of life, from your experience of being in this 'river'. Either those concepts have an objective basis in reality - not simply your feelings, no matter how ubiquitous they are within your group - or they are meaningless. Evolution and genetics could just as easily be said to have the 'purpose' of destroying life. That is, that self-replication of biomolecules in cells is an aberration in the natural order of the universe, and evolution favors the emergence of parasitic/exploitative intelligence to self-correct the universe from producing cellular life. In fact, if I go with that theory, I might even have more support for it, given the a posteriori fact that we don't know of any other intelligent life in the whole universe. My 'evolution as extermination of life' theory would cause that evidence (or lack thereof rather) to be an expectation.
Your theory makes their 'natural' nature an illusion also. Possibly a useful fiction, at best, a conceptual instrument for an arrangement of chemicals (called a human) that just so happens to seek on carrying out its life and making more of itself.
This example is similar to the drug-use example. I'll just make a really easy analogy. Let's say that a road would be useful for a group of people to have, to get from A to B. But there are certain conditions that are necessary to meet for there to be a road that behaves like a road. Importantly, I want you to note the contingency of the road concept. What makes a road, essentially, is not just a path, but a path that solves a particular human problem, meaning that between 'nothing' and 'a road', the bridge is the condition of usability. A necessary condition for there to be a road, then, is for at least the majority of the people using it to keep their speed under 80 mph. If the majority of people do over 80 mph, the road becomes unusable because of a buildup of accidents.
All you get with evolution and genetics is, if enough people drive under 80 mph, you get a road. If not enough people drive under 80 mph, there is no road. That's it. That's all you get. If for whatever reason the population becomes aware of this 'covering law' that governs their ability to have roads, they don't get an objective moral theory that says driving over 80 mph is wrong. They get a theory of general utility. It's a pain in the ass for people to drive over 80 mph, because every person who does increases the potential risk for the overall burden of 80+_drivers to eventually ruin the road.
So now your theory of good and evil depends upon this appeal (and this alone): "Why? Because it's good for the group!"
And every individual driver who is deciding about how to behave can say: "Who cares!? Not everyone has to drive under 80 mph for the road to work. So, if some people can drive over 80 mph, and the road will still work, then WHY SHOULDN'T I GET TO BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE!?"
And how will you answer why he or she doesn't get to be one of those people? You'll have no answer. You'll have a statistic. It's similar with gays, and with drugs. Suppose you call one of these behaviors 'contagious'. WHenever one person does it, then by mimesis or whatever, he increases the likelihood another person will do it. Now the group says, "Alright, we have to take steps to prohibit mimesis of this behavior." You'll establish a police force or something to monitor the roads. If someone drives over 80 mph, you punish them. Problem solved, right?
Other than a potential to be caught and punished, you've not established a single good reason for someone thinking it is bad to drive over 80 mph. Why? Let's now say that your driving speed is analogous to the aggression of your competitive strategy. Categorically, you can't decouple driving 55 mph from 80 mph in terms of their both being intrinsically a competitive strategy against others. That's all evolution and genetics will give us. So, the extent to which driving 80+ mph is wrong is just the extent to which the rest of the group thinks that degree of aggression in competition falls outside of what's deemed acceptable for everyone to remain competing. But evolution can't tell us (a) that any effective competition is inherently wrong or (b) that competition which ends the game itself is wrong, either. You can't get to other conclusions without stepping outside of genetics and evolution.
Reasonably, if the window for competing at 80 mph exists for some people, then there will be those that fill that opportunity gap. Therefore, there will be a carrying capacity for some individuals to 'live better' than others, which can't be wrong since evolution only motivates us to compete to promulgate our own genes. All other motivations to compete to lesser degrees for the sake of *all competition per se, cannot come from evolution/genetics.
So, you wind up with someone asking (quite reasonably): "Well, if there are going to be some people who do drive 80+ mph, why shouldn't that be me? Those people won't be punished for it. Why should I sacrifice what they aren't?"
And you'll not have an answer for their question, perhaps other than to say: "Well, it would be great if you didn't since, if enough people do it, then a (possible) future version of our population will be less likely to have gathered more information about the universe."
To which that person says: "Um, alright," and then hits the gas, because who gives a shit? A counterfactual future possibility about one's group is not likely to motivate anybody if, in and of itself, all that exists is an evolutionary reason why that's important. I doubt you'll populate an army of soldiers by telling them that the fundamental explanation for their differential sacrifice is going to be that, by doing all of this, possibly giving their lives, they're supporting a chemical composite of biological tissue to have gathered and arranged more info about the universe at a future time.
I would say this belief is going to undermine the fact that your theory includes any meaningful moral facts. If humans require an anthropic projection of their moral beliefs to a cosmic/transcendental scale, this is surely going to be because they realize the inherent lack of justice in the world under your view (see the road example above). Therefore, they project some ideal observer who is supposed to be taking account of who is making the sacrifices and who isn't, presumably to dole out justice in the afterlife, or something. But if that's true, then your view gives you neither (i) God nor (ii) a coherent set of moral principles. The moral facts that require there to be a God in the minds of moral agents (to justify their moral behavior) aren't actually going to be moral facts, since nothing evolutionary/genetic can ground them - a fiction is required.
[ + ] Leveraction
[ - ] Leveraction 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:44:06 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 19:59:53 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 09:27:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 10:58:19 ago (+1/-0)
That sounds like an ultimate truth claim :).
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 13:23:05 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 13:40:45 ago (+1/-0)*
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 16:43:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 16:42:57 ago (+1/-0)
If you tell any kind of a doctor you're having a hard time, they'll medicate you rather than tell you to freaking do something for yourself. I don't even mean something hard like starting your own business; I mean working out or walking your dog or eating right. All that shit is way more powerful than an antidepressant.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 17:09:45 ago (+0/-0)
Theyd probably get sued for hate speech
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 21:46:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 7 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 04:08:45 ago (+7/-0)
[ + ] shitface9000
[ - ] shitface9000 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 19:13:36 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Crackinjokes
[ - ] Crackinjokes 5 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 03:23:32 ago (+6/-1)
One thing scientologists do get right is that Freud was a bunch of nonsense. And you look at a lot of other Jewish propaganda spreaders and you realize quite a few of them were related to freud. And it's not an accident that the founder of Scientologist who may or may not be a total freaking idiot depending on what you believe but he actually knew Sigmund Freud so he knew it was all bullshit.
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 3 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 06:07:50 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 4 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 06:52:50 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] Inward
[ - ] Inward 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 16:00:02 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 16:44:16 ago (+1/-0)
I wish I were able to do it, tbh. It's just an industry.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 17:11:45 ago (+0/-0)
Those people are psychos. They have no conscience.
[ + ] bonghits4jeebus
[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 19:36:21 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 2 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 13:51:46 ago (+2/-0)
Maybe sometimes this can balance out negative gaslighting but the risk is that you produce hubris in a person rather than authentic pride.
[ + ] Sector7
[ - ] Sector7 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:09:18 ago (+1/-0)
Few actually reach that capability, and many have other goals.
[ + ] Leveraction
[ - ] Leveraction 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:46:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 17:15:19 ago (+0/-0)
Well he raped my wallet anyway.
[ + ] Doglegwarrior
[ - ] Doglegwarrior 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 12:40:21 ago (+1/-0)
Psychology also has the replication crisis non of there cures works in anything close to a scientific way. They can't reproduce any of their results.
Psychologist psychiatrist what ever one you go to admit they won't treat a narricist because they can't be treated! Ffs one of the worst problems this country is facing maybe the world is the explosion of narricism in women it is leading to the destruction of the family structure I guarantee narricism is behind the rise of single mothers. They leave perfectly fine situations because their narricism haves them believing total bullshit and their flying monkeys around them support the bullshit.
Many a man has been gaslit by his narc wife who literaly is crazy then goes more crazy once a month.
I need to write a book about this rather then rant on here
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 13:40:52 ago (+1/-0)
I wont say that environment is never a factor in developing a narcissistic style, but it is more genetic than anything else. And btw men are far more likely to be diagnosed with it than women. There is not an explosion of narcissism in women so much as an explosion is jews promoting ego driven women or portrayals of ego driven women. Its not the same thing. Women in the “cluster B” category are more likely to trend toward the histrionic personality disorder rather than narcissistic.
Thats a delusion you have because you listen to too much MGTOW propaganda around this place. Couples have real problems and women are leaving more because they are in a better position to leave.
When did we start seeing a massive increase in divorce? The 50s, 60s, and 70s. Why? Because men were suddenly able to walk out on “perfectly fine” situations to marry somebody else they met at the office. Was it an outbreak of narcissistic men? No, the laws simply permitted men to do what they hadnt been allowed to before, and the culture started encouraging it. Women are now in the same position because they have more cash. They are just doing what men have been doing for 70 years. Its not an outbreak of narcissism.
[ + ] Name
[ - ] Name 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 15:35:44 ago (+1/-0)*
https://www.insider.com/divorce-rate-changes-over-time-2019-1
Here is a really shitty article on it. Check out that first photo!
EDT; And divorces peaked in about 1983? The current divorce rate is just about 1/2 of what it was then?
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 16:06:25 ago (+0/-0)
But the marriage rate was much higher in 1983. Now people are just shacking up or maybe having kids without even living together.
A unicorn couple for 1940. But thats how kikes try to edit reality
[ + ] RedBarchetta
[ - ] RedBarchetta 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 11:09:08 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] The_Reunto
[ - ] The_Reunto 2 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 13:54:04 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] voatisajewishheaven
[ - ] voatisajewishheaven 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 10:52:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 17:13:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] KingsPawn
[ - ] KingsPawn 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 07:50:21 ago (+1/-0)
• depression,
• drug dependency,
• financial ruin.
Make friends, sunbathe, exercises and get out of it.
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 10:28:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] oldvoat
[ - ] oldvoat 1 point 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 18:14:34 ago (+1/-0)
Ain't that the truth. Never trust a psychologist, especially one required by a court. The US courts are evil and there's plenty of great people locked up because the gov doesn't like them, If most people really knew how bad they are the system would crash from the utter lack of faith.
[ + ] the_old_ones
[ - ] the_old_ones 0 points 10 monthsJul 8, 2023 09:36:34 ago (+0/-0)