This is the natural outcome of an atheistic, moral relativist culture. Why be serious about anything if nothing matters?Originally Posted by coeruleum
And yes, there is a lot to learn from black culture in this regard.
America, From Exceptionalism to Nihilism
This is pretty much the same topic as Love in the Time of Capital. Cool.
Typing is stereotyping:
Stereotypes are energy-saving devices associated with an automatic, unintentional, and unconscious process [21]; they guide expectations, inferences, and impressions, and shape interpretations and memory retrieval.https://www.researchgate.net/publica...nitive_ToolboxStereotypes and Judgment Processes
The essence of the cognitive approach is that stereotyping is a functional, adaptive process that plays a central role in human social cognition. As Fiske (1989, p. 253) described, "stereotypers categorize because it requires too much mental effort to individuate." It was unclear from previous research whether this tendency simply reflects the mental sloth of social perceivers or their adaptive deployment of a sufficiently effective shortcut strategy. As Sherman and Corty (1984) emphasized, the many heuristic strategies of the social perceiver are likely to persist only insofar as they permit greater efficiency at acceptable levels of incurred costs. Most writings on the subject of stereotyping have understandably been focused on the costs incurred by the targets of social stereotyping, rather than the costs accruing to the stereotyping perceiver. It is likely that such costs are minimal under common, everyday conditions. Although there are clearly cases in which those who stereotype do pay a penalty (e.g., failing to hire the best job applicant because of gender stereotypes), the act of stereotyping may typically produce errors that are more costly to others than to the perceiver him or herself. The present research has documented the benefits that perceivers may gain by the process of stereotyping—benefits that may often outweigh perceivers' own costs.
Evolution of Stereotypical Thinking
Assuming, if we may, that stereotypical thinking is a fundamental property of human inferential systems, then some challenging theoretical questions can be raised. The most basic of these concerns the origins and maintenance of an inferential system that actively sustains stereotype-based modes of thought. If stereotypic judgments are predominantly inaccurate and irrational, why do we continue to make them? The present results, together with related theorizing, provide insight into this puzzle.
This might explain why The Typed are often more annoyed than The Typer, for it benefits The Typer by the means of saving cognitive energy via stereotyping, while The Typed has to pay the cost of being inaccurately assessed.
Stereotyping, no matter how accurate, will inevitably lead into error, since stereotyping is about summarizing and omitting certain data.
I think we need to get rid of species in biology while we're at it. God forbid we offend spiders and dogs and trees and what-have-you by making errors categorizing them. We must repent of our errors now while we still live.
At least we don't say that the total numbers of types of dogs is X, and no more. Besides you can't compare humans to things like animals and plants, they're totally different. Plants and animals are fixed and only have fixed behavior, while humans don't.
See, people often deride "emotional thinking" for making hasty generalizations, while they make hasty generalizations by separating into thinking and feeling categories.
The point is that they're both wrong.
Anyway you missed the point of that article, the point is that it benefits the stereotyper, but it costs the stereotyped.
My point is that it's impossible not to stereotype. Just because people care and spiders don't doesn't mean you don't use the same process if you're categorizing both.
That's why we use rationality to discern whether the stereotype is accurate or not.
The theory of personality typology is that types are an accurate way to describe personalities. Are you seriously begging the question saying personality typology is not rational? Where's the "Hate" button when you need it? I'd need to press an "Unconstructive" button too.
...When did people ever say that personality typologies are "accurate"? It's just pop psychology and it's hardly ever taken seriously.
Go to google and search how many tests are done on applicants for different jobs. It’s not conclusive in most cases but the research is still being carried out. I have taken a few tests at work at the request of HR. It’s widely used in business. It wasn’t MBTI though, something else that only reflected how you prefer to work within a team.
Why do all of these people write exactly the same? (that's rhetorical, I know why, but it's annoying)
At the very high levels, it makes a lot of sense as to why this is occurring. In pure math, for example, to even understand a single paper in a field you need to understand an immense amount of literature that came before it. Undergraduate degrees don't even begin to cover all this specialized material since the field has gotten to the level of depth to where analogies are so hard. Grothendieck was known for his ability to "see analogies between analogies", allowing him to make such deep reformulations of old fields and develop completely new ones. While I'm no where near the upper echelon's of these subjects, I can see the immense difficulty that is to come with the attempt.
At low levels, I agree that this is a big problem. I think it's partially because students are taught to memorize in most institutions rather than deduce from principles or use their imagination. They're given the same physics problems rather than being forced to imagine the physical circumstance and then apply their knowledge of formulas by figuring out the useful parameters of the system. Or they're given the same style essay topics instead of actually being allowed to develop their own ideas and interpretations of the story, which would force them to read critically and interpret substructures, which develops logical and imaginative thinking skills.
My high school physics teacher forced us to do this and I can testify that I learned a lot about physics, and about myself, in the process, and so I think you nailed that aspect. For instance, I realized that my thinking style is incredibly visual. If I can visualize it, then I can solve it - and it doesn't have to be a concrete visualization. For subjects like economics or mathematics, using analogies to visualize often makes things much easier for me. But naturally, my interests stray towards visual subjects like physics, engineering, and computer science, which helped me figure out possible career prospects. Moreover, giving students challenging problems makes them appreciate the subject more since it isn't just about passing a class but realizing the depth of knowledge humans have uncovered. Learning how things work and what it can be used for at a principle level teaches students how to think.
Of course the problem is feasibility for this. How do we change the education system properly? I haven't investigated that system enough to tell, but I think it's important to reform that system for a number of reasons.
----- FarDraft, 2020
@squark @FarDraft The issue isn't that knowledge takes a lot of work to acquire, but that people are extremely skeptical of humanism nowadays. 54% of Republicans think colleges are harmful(!) and people complain about humanities departments. I took a philosophy class as an elective my first year and the only textbook was a 100-page summary of contemporary analytic philosophers with a few references to Plato and Descartes thrown in here and there. It kept explicitly saying things like "therefore, we can be certain God does not exist, there is no meaning to life, the brain is a computer, trees are actually invisible, and also we might live in a simulation that started on last Tuesday." I admire their willingness to put forth conclusions to arguments, but a full philosophy paper on any one of those topics would be at least 40 pages and less emotive about all the implications of what they've concluded, and would probably also completely toss out ideas like we can't see trees and probably live in a simulation that started last Tuesday. That's just schizophrenic, at least as long as you have no concrete reason to believe that and no way to falsify it. I could read that book in a couple of hours in one day and that's exactly what I did do. That's one semester of work. The idea that it takes so much time and work to learn anything at all is a joke. Some things are genuinely difficult but almost nothing is as difficult as most people make it out to be.
I think the connection between the contents of the book and the idea of how hard it is to be a philosopher, or mathematician (this is one of the easiest things to be an amateur at too, you don't need to buy any equipment or risk any sort of personal harm, though it's better to have mathematician friends to get special secret books with new problems and proofs in them passed around to you) or anything else should be pretty obvious. No one wants you to be any good at anything because people are bad and if people are good at things, the Devil is good at things basically, even if they don't believe in the Devil. Notice how moralistically everyone talks nowadays too, but it's all about avoiding things. My morality freaks them out because it tells you to avoid nothing if you have a good reason to do something and negative consequences are inevitable.
Don't watch CNN for news. I think public news is mostly trash as a rule of thumb (except maybe NPR and stations with cult followings, but NPR at least is mostly for old people, and I'm not counting YouTube news even if it's sometimes wildly inaccurate like Young Turks telling everyone Bernie's going to win in 2016.) Do you want the "elites" with their agendas telling you what is and isn't true in the world? This is old but it's an example of how bad CNN's coverage is. A bored 16-year-old kid and an edgy comedian got jailed for making fun of the Charlie Hebdo attacks when that was going on in France. "Free speech" my ass.
Fascist France: Jail Time For ‘Ironic Comments’
If there's ever an actual 16t gift exchange give me all the cool British collectors' coins. That and the Shakespeare coins from a couple of years back are awesome.
If anyone wants to know how the "elites" in America got their status, that's what this article is about despite the fact that the title makes it sound like it's going to be a newspaper piece moaning about hippies. I don't think the "new achievers" at the end of the article are doing anything to help anyone though, just imitators trying to put themselves into the same broken system where everything is about who has the biggest money wad in their pants and the idea of love, education, good looks, or whatever as anything besides something to be bought, used up, and replaced when something better comes around like a new Tesla Model X.
How Baby Boomers Broke America
Oh, and here's one about the national debt and what that's really about besides too much military spending:
USED AND ABUSED: HOW BABY BOOMERS ARE RUINING THEIR CHILDREN’S LIVES
Britain mostly sucks too. I knew it.
Baby boomers, you have already robbed your children of their future. Don't make it worse by voting for Brexit
On parental estrangement:
When the Missing Reasons Aren't Missing
Pay attention to the mothers' character (technically, lack thereof) rather than just analyzing some vague pattern of abuse. Notice that it basically comes down to 1. the daughter is far more mature than the mother and 2. even though the daughter is financially independent, the mother has enough money to blow it on gifts for someone who doesn't want them at all and try to use them to pull strings.
So, if you are in an "estranged" situation, it doesn't seem proper to attribute it to simple misfortune or parents being narcissists or the like. It is a moral issue and reflection on society, and as long as you're not petty and resentful you're the good guy. Try to have good relationships with your grandparents/relatives (since this isn't about some sort of "hereditary mental illness" like schizophrenia that's fairly amoral) or a wider community. The issue is "my parents are big babies who like their money more than me" not "my parents have mental health issues" (even if they might also, low stress tolerance often leads to that) so no major stigma and nothing creepily unexplained.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote