zurew

Thank you ?!

That kind of argument could be used to any field of science and I am skeptical that you would use this reason in all cases. So for example, in the case of vaccines, would you be willing to say you know better which vaccine is bad or good compared to what the consensus says, just because the social gathering is not applied to you? You know this very well , because you have made a ton of different kind of videos on this topic , that your mind is subjected to a lot of distortions and biases as well and if no one holds you accountable then you won't really see whats the issue with your approach/method. Now when it comes to institutions and psychologist they at least have the training and methods to keep each other accountable and to ground their things in stats and in numbers. Now given that you probably don't have any training in psychology (how to contextualize stats and how to make sense of the research on this subject) why do you think that you have an upper hand on what the current research shows, given that you also have your own biases yourself and given that your knowledge about the subject is much more limited compared to the combination of people's knowledge in a given field? Disagree. I would be surprised if you would have the capability to use your consciousness in a way where you would make some breakthrough in a given field, that you are only studying in a layman way (outside of philosophy) . especially because you would have to ground that insight in a tangible way and you would have to connect it to our current knowledge or at the very least you would have to be able to show the path how you get to the conclusion. I would be surprised if you could ground any of your intuitions or insights about a subject anywhere near as rigorously as scientists can. Or worse - if you can't ground your insights in any way, then the next problem is that in those cases we arent talking about critical thinking anymore, we are only talking about big logical jumps or about jumping to and trusting your intuitions. Now you could claim that logic is limited , but abandoning logic means abandoning critical thinking and I don't know if we would want to abandon critical thinking when it comes to science, but if you can make a case for it , go ahead. Grounding is important ,because that is what makes it so that your claim or knowledge can be falsified. You could claim here that the very notion of falsification is limited - and thats fine - but in that case how would you know if the insight that you gathered is true or not (obviously in the context of science - so we are talking about the relative world)? They are not making any metaphysical claim, they are making claims about the 'relative world' as you would say it. How is the knowledge of you knowing that science is imaginary , would be relevant in any way making progress in the "relative world"? Can you give me an example that would demonstrate this?

Yes. Do you think what I wrote is not applicable to this thread or what is the reason for your question?

"wtf, someone is holding me accountable for the gravity of my claims, oh no". You told me that you have read about it, and used that to strengthen your original claim about the subject and now you want to make it look like im asking for too much. - don't make confident positive claims about something you haven't investigated and don't use books or research as a defense for your claim if you are not prepared to show the evidence. It kind of makes it look like you haven't done any research on the subject you just used that point to make it look like your position is more justified compared to others who haven't claimed they are educated on the subject. Ohh so you are aware that you shouldn't have commented on the reasons why Ayham has the kink he has. Kind of a bad move to psychoanalyze and then to judge people from your home with lack of knowledge about their life and with lack of training, huh? Cool you can have this position after you make a confession that your intitial claim was phrased in a way too black and white way.

You can explain most of these things by following the money. The basic idea is that the more engagement your profile get the more money you will earn and there will be more ways to earn money. Starting from that basis - what makes people to engage with your posts more? The answer is to make outrageous claims that will make people angry or simply make misleading claims so that people will have a strong urge to correct you about things. Also if I can make a profile that will cater to a very specific audience (for instance to toxic feminists) then I can create a lot of fights between redpill and feminists under my posts and that will generate a lot of money for me. One of the most effective ways right now is to become a populist (speak in the name of the oppressed people) that way you will be able to gather a large audience that will agree with you and also you will be able to create fights under your posts with the opposite side. Obviously this isn't applicable exclusively to toxic feminism this is also applicable to toxic masculinity and to radical redpill kind of takes as well or to any kind of other populist kind of stuff.

We have already had a convo about this in the past (I don't want to derail Carl's thread into making this whole thread about an epistemology debate) so I will just ask a few questions and I will let you have the last say in this and then we can potentially pick this debate up later in a different thread. 1) Do you think relying purely on your own critical thinking and experience is more reliable in general than the current research on the given subject? So for example would you be willing to take a position like your own evaluation of psychology stuff (using your limited knowledge and given all you biases that you are not aware of) will be much more reliable compared to multiple institutions evaluating the same thing and providing evidence? if your answer is yes, then my next question is how do you know that / how do you evaluate that? Just for clarity sake, notice Im not asking whether they could be corrupt or whether they could be biased or not, Im asking - whether their evaluation is less reliable than yours in general (accounting for bias, incentive and knowledge), so not talking about being wrong a few times, but being consistently more wrong about a given subject compared to you.

@StarStruck Dude its so obvious the rhetoric game that you play here - You can't provide evidence for your initial claim and you feel a strong need to pivot to a different conversation by focusing on me. First provide evidence for you claim or if you can't then tell everyone that you are relying on your intuition. After that I will answer your question, but I won't let you get sneakily out from the responsibility from actually owning a position and providing evidence. Its a redflag that you avoid providing evidence. It might be because you have some repressed trauma that you are not aware of and thats what shaping your inutition and opinion on kinks. Or it might be the case that you yourself actually have a femdom kink and by talking down on @Ayham is your way to cope with it. - see its so easy to psychoanalyze from your armchair and to play these stupid 'red flag' and 'gotcha' games.

Thats wasn't your initial position or at the very least it wasnt the implication of your first claim (where you fished for evidence to confirm your original belief about the subject and seemingly excluded all other possibilities). If your position is that it could be caused by trauma - thats different from saying it is definitely caused by trauma and also different from saying it is caused by trauma in most cases. - which one will you go with? The reason why Im coming after you right now, is because you kind of made a character attack of @Ayham (implying that there is something must be wrong with him) without knowing for sure whether your suspicion is true about him or not. - so there was literally no reason to psychoanalyze the dude and leading him into a 'gotcha'.

I know where my defensiveness comes from. It comes from reading confident and unsubstantiated claims (that are mostly ideologically driven for instance by redpill) without providing any evidence . There is literally nothing more triggering than reading about claims made by smug people who haven't done an ounce of research on the subject - they just claim they did. Maybe you did a good amount of research on this topic , so you can prove it right now. Feel free to provide a definitive evidence for your claim - or if you can't - then drop the claim or tell everyone that you are almost purely relying on your intuitions. --------------- Btw an interesting observation: you have an interesting defense mechanism going for you: If someone disagrees with you about a subject, then your first and initial thought every time is about "it must be because they are affected about the subject" and there is not much room for you to be wrong. Also all of these things can be flipped back on you: "the reason why you so desperately want this to be related to trauma, because you are affected by it and you can't stomach the fact that someone could have such a kink without being related to trauma"

'Can be' is different from saying it must have been caused by trauma. - which was you initial implication. You are really confident and smug when it comes to this issue and try to appeal to the literature, when in reality the research on kinks is very fucking bad and there is a lot more to do and discover.

Yeah its really cringe when people kink-shame people or when people have to trace back every kind of kink that they themselves wouldn't be confident with to some kind of trauma as if they would have any idea whatsoever how kink develops or works. The irony is that the same redpill people who use these talking points to shame guys who have kinks they despise or kinks they wouldn't be confident with, these very same guys will shit on feminists who tell each other that "no no no, what that guy did to you in the past wasn't okay , it was very very bad, regardless of how you lived through that experience" so they sort of trigger a trauma response in their friends and recontextualize their whole history in a way, to trigger an actual trauma response. - the very same dynamic can be seen in this case coming from insecure redpillers.

Whats your take on teaching scientists at least philosophy of science? - Because I think thats very much relevant to the development of their field.

Oh yeah I know about this guy. He is really good at explaining complex ideas in a very comprehensible and easily graspable way. Love his channel.

Sounds like you are quite confident about making positive claims about the story (that you clearly haven't done much research on), without waiting for the end details about his case, while also calling out others for not showing you evidence for their claims. Btw if you would have done research on this you would know, that there is indeed plenty of evidence against him, thats why he was charged with multiple things. Your skepticism regarding him being a pimp is really fascinating, knowing that he had a phd (pimping hoes degree) course on his own website and there are leaked logs from the war room such as: Sounds perfectly like an open invitation to become part of their webcam business right? There is no such thing that would be perfectly applicable to the definition of sex trafficking using the lover-boy method right? This is just about a regular webcam business offer where both party knows beforehand what they are getting into and there are no false premises here, right? Also how convenient that that dude talks about "get our name tattooed on her", because there are multiple women who has a tattoo with a label of "owned by Tate" which doesn't sound anything what a sex trafficking pimp would do at all.

@Bobby_2021 I think there is a slight miscommunication here.I use the term 'belief' the same way people use it in philosophy circles (attitude or stance towards a proposition). This is important because this is different from a knowledge claim. (knowledge is used here as 'justified true belief') For example taking your math example - someone can believe that 2+3 = 10 but thats different from them saying that 2+3 is actually 10. I can believe in things without any proper justification. Well, have you read about the problem of induction?

Yeah and even more specifically semantics. I want to dive into semantics, because its interesting and can be really valuable regardless of what you do. Anything that improves your ability to express yourself or to understand others and the world better is very valuable imo.

Both of those claims are false. 1) You can be agnostic about things even after you "computed" them or in other words, even after you have deeply investigated them - its just happens to be the case , that neither side were more compelling or persuasive from your pov,compared to the other. Or it happens to be the case, that you haven't yet found the answer that would be required to take a position on something - but that doesn't mean,that you are not interested in finding out that truth or answer; it just means you haven't found it yet. 2)This ties back to point 1. Just because you haven't taken a position regarding a proposition ,from that doesn't follow that you don't value finding out the truth value of that proposition.

No. You can be agnostic about things. That just means you haven't formed an opinion on the matter and it doesn't mean the negation of something. In other words it means "I don't have a belief about x". - notice , that this way you don't make any explicit or implicit positive or negative claims about the subject matter , you only make a claim about the current status of that specific belief .

In that case, I will pick your brain for some insights about neuroscience in the future . The dual n-back stuff is interesting. I have seen some claims about it having the potential to improve fluid intelligence. Is that actually true based on your research on the subject?

Thats sounds like someone who is contemplating about quitting doing psychology. Are you contemplating about changing majors? Btw, I know this is worthless to mention(because its almost obvious), but there has to be some good philosophy of science material that at least attempts to address the replication crisis and maybe more specifically the issue, that you've brought up. Thats a very interesting insight into this problem.

Is that your video? edit: nevermind. The reason why I asked is because I misread the subscriber count and thought why would you link a video from a channel that has like 500 subscribers, but now that I checked again, its clear that it has 500K+ subscribers .

@Carl-Richard Thank you for the breakdown. I see too much people who are very easily dismissive of things without knowing anything about those things.

@Bobby_2021 The depth of your research on this topic, is impressive.

The first 7 site literally suggest 7 different numbers - its completely useless. Ranging from 10 mil to 900 mil. lmao

Actually, not just his actions , but his own current words strengthening your argument as well. He is still denying the things he did, and he still cant bite the bullet on his past actions. He is undeniably a sociopath. (its timestamped)