Carl-Richard

Place a group of individuals in a pool of lava and you'll see how the equation truly works. I recommend getting familiar with the theory behind what we're talking about. Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is a good start: https://iteducationlearning.com/bronfenbrenner-theory/ Your analysis is biased towards the center.

I would assume you did that as a privileged person from a stable neighborhood/family. We'll have to fix the neighborhoods and wait and see. Again, start on-the-ground.

I'm going to assume that this is not a metatheoretical observation of human nature, but rather of "those people". I'm going to argue for the former: that when it comes down to the fundamentals of sensemaking, it doesn't help to point the finger. What you're reacting to is not the naive adherence to authority. It's rather the ramifications of collective responsibility. This can be demonstrated very simply: What do you mean by "studying the evidence with an independent mind"? You mean reading news outlets? Academic papers? Scientific theory? Are these not authorities? Are you the sole source of that information? From whom did you learn how to interpret that information? The truth is that no one is independent, neither epistemologically nor socially. That is the psychosis of radical individualism. One is always reliant on authority, and this doesn't suddenly change just because you watch one youtube channel over another. What you're really opposed to is recognizing your duty as a member of a society; to see how your individuality is intrinsically tied to the collective, how absolute freedom is not a given, how spreading disease is not a point of pride, and how threatening people's right to survive is not an exercise of individuality. If society is dying, you're dying. No society, no individuality. Is this me arguing against independent thinking as an ideal? Nope. I'm just saying that in practice, it's not something as straightforward as making a choice. If people could just "reclaim their minds" and instantly become objective, independent, sober dispellers of untruth, would we have any disagreements in the world? Polarization is a fact of life. The ability to worry about weighing petty issues like polarization over human life is a good showcase of the levels of social privilege that is granted by a stable collective.

Is this really what is happening? Where are the well-funded schools and stable neighborhoods that don't take advantage of them? You're getting lost in hypotheticals here. We're talking about on-the-ground issues.

@BadHippie If you've followed the threads closely like I have, you would know what I'm referring to. It's mainly a point about the format in which points are presented, not the ideology behind them.

Plato and Aristotle were also ingenious innovators for their time period. That doesn't mean their theories are cutting edge today.

Do you have a specific example of what you would like me to say in this case?

To your question: I didn't watch the video. From the little I've heard from him, Aubrey Marcus seems like a reasonable guy, but let's not forget that a lot of reasonable people have gotten lost in the skeptic rabbit hole. One example is Bret Weinstein. That is not to say that these guys should be burned at the stake. It's more subtle than that.

Haha thank you! ? I can relate to this very much as I used to have anxiety around people just like that myself, but after my meditation experiences, that anxiety is no longer there. It's kinda like you're saying that people are like rocks sometimes

I think this adds evidence to my theory that meditation works (at least partially) through a mechanism of memory reconsolidation, which is how therapies like medicinal PTSD therapy and systematic desensitization therapy for anxiety seem to work, how sleep reduces stress etc. In other words, thoughts are recontextualized in a calm context, which creates a lasting impact and fuels therapeutic progression.

Haha I was about to deploy the broken clock meme again but I figured that would be too accommodating. Again, the trap here is to get stuck on low resolution value judgements like "good" vs. "bad". The overarching point is that society, like technology, is always evolving. Technology is an external expression of internal ingenuity, and they build on top of each other: ingenuity creates technology, and technology inspires more ingenuity. Combine this with the fact that knowledge is passed down through generations and you have the dialectical movements of society. We're evolving towards more complexity and intelligence. This also creates new challenges, and that requires more complex and intelligent solutions. As challenges are overcome, we cultivate collective resilience. You can call that strength. As society evolves, it cycles between individualist and collectivist stages. The individualist stages like to look at the collectivist ones (especially the higher, more inclusive and compassionate ones) and call them weak, and the collectivist ones like to look down on them and call them stupid, because that is what absolutists do. It's also easy to get carried away with everyday speech and concede to using these absolutist terms while also recognizing that the accurate terms indeed are "complex" vs. "simple" and "individual" vs. "group." That is just the nature of language and communication (which are simply social means to social ends; social pragmatism).

You're about all about union and coming together while you spit in the face of collective responsibility . Here I think the poorly named Obama-Trudeau effect actually applies:

Only if you're a Hegelian @Space Lizard Btw, cycles do not contradict progress. That is why we have spiral models (SD, Integral Theory, Cook-Greuter, MHC etc.). These models actually describe the cycles that the right-wingers are talking about, only they don't use the same absolutistic "good/bad, strong/weak" caveman language.

I mean the internet as we know it today (World Wide Web), invented by boomer Tim Berners-Lee in 1989.

Without baby boomers, you wouldn't have the internet. Technology puts a lever on intelligence and power. Who is the stronger man: the man with or without internet?

Cycles are everywhere, but when right-wingers roll up on their tricycles and claim that it supports their worldview, that is when we put a foot on the brakes. We can't not let shit like this go without criticism: Besides, Ibn Khaldun lived in the 14th century. Update your models.

I'm not saying anything about the video. I'm just saying that these threads attract anti-vaxxers like moths to a candle flame, and they usually don't have anything new to say.

@sir meowski Ok enough Neo-Advaitan fortune cookie quotes.

It's not necessarily insulting (it depends on the person), but it's insensitive in the sense that it's potentially very insulting. Regardless, a privileged white kid telling a kid from the slums to take personal responsibility and not grow up as a criminal is anyway socially repulsive. I'm not sure what your fruit analogy is about. We're still talking about why the meme is garbage. We're just getting into the underlying reasons, which is a general lack of perspective and social unawareness. Besides, didn't you think that the thread had run its course?

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

What can I say – I'm an utopian. There is an obvious role, but it's not the only solution. You need structural change as well. Analytic thinking has to be combined with holistic thinking: you need both individual and collective responsibility. The right-wing is helplessly stuck on the former without even knowing it. No, Ms. Newman. I said right-wingers derive those values from their contracted ideology rather than a metatheoretical, conscious, inclusive, holistic, systemic view.

Not ideologues who are enslaved by their small perspective. Lack of awareness is the epitome of weakness. Preaching personal responsibility to victims of structural violence is insensitive and one-dimensional. When I say principles outside ideology, I mean things like epistemology, scientific literacy and inclusive empathy. Discipline and accountability is baked into their ideology. It doesn't come from a sober systems view.

It's official: strong men poison themselves and other people with chemicals ?

I used your answer to my question to demonstrate my point. Consider yourself used ?

My point is that people will project whatever random definitions and examples they have in their head because the concepts are too vague. This is what people criticize astrology for. This showcases why the right-wing lacks any sort of principles outside ideology.