zurew

Which specific protocol was not followed? Not flipping anything. Again very basic stuff - you make a statement with an incredibly high conviction , bring evidence that substantiates that high conviction - if you can't, then dial way down your conviction and be honest that you don't have any tangible evidence for your speculation. Notice you are using weasel words like "can". Do you think the standard when it comes to any medicine should be "0% chance of killing anyone"? If your answer is yes, then you are living in lala-land and you would actually cause much more harm on a global scale by that standard than good. If your answer is no, then tell me what do you think in contrast has a higher chance to kill people, the vaccine or catching covid?

This is nothing new - this was acknowledged yeears ago. Notice the tactics that are being used and how non-tangible and sneaky the claim is in the video - "It can cause blood clots and that can be lethal". That can can mean anything from 0.00000000000000001% to 100% - so why be such a weasel with words and why not put some numbers behind it? Well, the answer is because then it suddenly loses the power behind it and it ain't that news worthy anymore. Yes of course and there are very clear and good reasons why. Making a statement without having any strong evidence for that claim is nothing other than speculation, so why should anyone take your claim seriously? We can probably generate a 100 hypothesis for any given pattern that needs to be explained ,but that doesn't mean that each of those have the exact same probability to them and also doesn't mean that you can provide evidence for your hypothesis. Once you provide strong tangible evidence, then your hypothesis will be taken seriously or what you can do is - dial way down the conviction in your hypothesis up until it is explored and investigated. The question isn't about you having luck and stumbling your way (in reality being the victim of your biases) to a conclusion that might end up to be true in the future, the question is what reasons with the combination of evidence you have in a particular given time (in this case 2-3 years ago) to prove that your hypothesis about a particular thing is true.

That depends on how much harm a particular wrong theory can produce. If you are not advocating for your theory, you just live your life by it and you don't do any direct harm to anyone then Im generally okay with it (but thats rarely if ever the case). I agree in general, that trying relentlessly to persuade or to attack a person's idea (just because we disagree) is not really a mature way to go about things (especially if the disagreement is about some random thing that don't really have any weight to it), however I think there are contexts where it is appropriate to do so. I would even go to say that in some cases you letting certain ideas to just float around without any pushback - is the unethical thing to do, because you let other people to get potientially mislead by wrong or not well evidenced ideas and that can directly lead to physical and material harm and that will be kind of on your hands as well, because you didn't do anything about it.

@tvaeli So the TL;DR is that ethics should be the relevant symettry breaker (the thing that differentiates two or more things - in this case 2 scientific paradigms from each other) ? - So in other words, if you have 2 scientific paradigms that are equally fit in terms of theoretical virtues ( testability, empirical accuracy, simplicity, etc), then we should choose the one that is more ethical?

Im familiar with Dr K, but I havent watched too much HealthyGamerGG content, but I will check out some of his videos that are specifically related to this topic.

I think the research can be conducted without any need for the direct involvement of the big tech company itself. For example - you gather a large sample size of people and then start to monitor how their behavior and life is affected once they start to use tiktok.

The only part (from what you have listed) that im unsure about is the "how to properly limit" part. I havent looked up any empirical research on this, so this is only based on my intuition, but Im unsure how you can limit supernormal stimuli (I would consider tiktok to have supernormal stimuli to it). Because it seems to me, that you can't really productively fight against it (once you receive it - it is extremely predictable how you are going to react to it and it seems to be mostly an unconscious reaction rather than an agency driven choice.) .

@DocWatts Do you agree with his arguments?

I think most of us here sometimes forget about the importance of beauty and fun. We are hardcore focused on growth so much so, that sometimes we narrowly define whats important and because of that we lose the ability to see anything outside of that frame - in this case, we forget to appreciate beauty for its own sake and forget to appreciate the importance of play / having fun. The growth frame is good, but sometimes breaking that frame to recognize whats outside of it can be important. Heroes of Might and Magic 3

As Daniel Schmachtenberger once said - our capacity for abstraction is a pretty new phenomena (on an evolutionary time scale). We take that capacity completely for granted, but we probably can't even imagine what it would be like if we wouldn't have this capacity at all. Now think about how much things your capacity for abstraction makes avalaible for you (to understand and to grasp). The ability to do math The ability to establish deductive proofs (where you don't need to prove by exhaustion) The ability to grasp time (you can think about the past and the future) The ability to categorize things The ability to do science The ability to grasp sets that have infinite members in them and the ability to grasp that there are bigger and smaller infinites. The ability to recognize things both on a micro and macro scale and in between. The ability to recognize limitation - the ability to go big picture and examine your own thoughts and thought processes and so much more Now, there are probably other things that are as if not more radical (in terms of scaling up how much you can understand and grasp and make sense of) for aliens as the capacity for abstraction is for us.

are you sure 100% that it is fibromyalgia? How many doctors have you visited who independently come to this conclusion?

😂

We have no empirical data to back up either side, so we can't really make any strong case for what the real effect of block or no block . I do think though, that giving medical advice is very irresponsible, so even if we go with the no block option - there I would agree with cheering that person up and making them feel better (by being kind and being empathetic), and telling them to go get professional help but not with giving them medical advice. If you want to categorize the saying of "go get professional help" as medical advice, fine. My position on that is that unless you can show that your advice is more reliable than what profesionnals can offer right now - you shouldn't give medical advice and let professionals to do their jobs. We do have empirics on what success rate profesionnals have in general - which you can say that it is bad , but the idea that any normie layman can reasionably do a better job is based on nothing so far other than baseless assumption(s). So the real contrast here is not gambling vs gambling - the real contrast is professional help based on empirical evidence vs gambling.

Maybe we won't necessarily need pioneers in the future - if aliens actually show up and let us to study their cognition.

I think there can be done more than guesswork unless you want to take the position where you say that cognitive science is purely just a guess-work and not grounded in anything tangible. I agree that we have a lot more to learn, but I disagree that cognitive science can't be grounded. Will that mean that we will have a perfect theory that will be able to make sense of alien minds in a perfect manner? Probably not, but it won't mean either that we will have 0 clue about them. The more we can study them , the better grip we can get on whats going on.

Thats stupid. I made arguments in favour of not trying to treat these people, for the exact reason is because we are not educated and we have no clue how to treat them. To be clear, Its you who are trying to play a kind of doctor (who doesn't need to take any responsbility for their advice), not me. I already admitted that it is possible that blocking certain people from the forum can lead to negative effects , but the alternative where we play doctors is more irresponsible.

What are you talking about dude, which statement of mine implies that Im an expert or that Im a doctor?

You are being bad faith there. Im not saying what you should do, we are having a debate about which approach is better and which approach has more downsides. I never claimed to be a doctor or an expert and never implied it.

Hence why you shouldn't give advice about certain things, that you are not educated or sure about (especially when it comes to medical advice). Thats possible, but I think its still better than letting that person seek medical advice from people who are not educated on the topic, and who are explicitly stateing that they won't take any responsbility when their advice do more harm than good. Thats being framed like that person was boxed in based on little info or framed like there was a strong sign that her relationship to the forum was getting better. People here triggered her and she triggered some people - if you want to manage that, that requires a lot of care - will you take responsibility for monitoring and moderating all discussions like that? And yes, certain people can't take as much responsibility because their ability to take responsbility is undermined. Treating some people as if they could take as much responsibility for their decisions as you is one assumption that you should question, because that base assumption can lead to harm. That supposed to be an argument in favour of what exactly?

This is not about open mindedness, this is about responsibility. You treat this forum as a place where you can experiment on these people ,while you don't want to take any responsbility if your advice have a negative effect on them. This place is not a place for doing experiments or research on these people.

Sounds like a very responsible approach - I will try to help them, but if I fuck them up its not on me.

Yeah right. Im sure you have a well thought out response to this: If you have more than 1 mentally ill members on the forum, which one are you going to optimize the whole forum around?

If your criticism is that we put some members in the mental illness box too quickly or we do it based on not enough info - I disagree, because that specific member had a consistent pattern of behavior and not just a random or a few outbursts once in while. Regarding you saying that its more about degree rather than kind - I disagree. If you have a certain mental illness your brain actually works quite differently compared to people who don't have that specific illness. - and this is not about to feel better or superior than those people, this about recognizing that difference so that they can actually be treated differently if the situation requires it do so. Recognizing correctly who has what seems to be essential to maximize the ability to help and sometimes helping means that you need to let certain people go. Or can be harmful. There is a hell of a lot research need to be done on this topic, before we can play around any holistic approach. I know you didn't imply this - but I don't think its responsible to treat some members here as experiments for certain approaches

What do you mean? Maybe. But , im not sure I see the relevance of that point. Do you think a spiritual teacher is qualified to treat patients with mental illness?

I would be extremely careful with letting "conscious" people telling her what to do. Being enlightened will have almost nothing to do with knowing how to help someone who is dealing with a mental illness (especially as severe as BPD). The likelihood that a know-it-all user here will be able to help her is much less likely than that same person telling her something that will affect her negatively. There is also a case to be made - that if you allow her to stay you will contribute to her stress, because she will get triggered repeatedly by other forum members.