According to video
According to video
I never realized how many idiots there were until I logged on to the Internet. -- Edsger Dijkstra, Dutch Computer Scientist and pioneer in network communication (possibly apocryphal)
I basically agree.
The problem (as the video says) is that the internet as a system is concerned with the quantity of information, and not with its quality . Knowledge and information are not the same thing either, information is just data, knowledge is something you can apply and even learn and grow from.
I'd like to add more, but I suspect it would be redundant and my point is made.
I never realized how many idiots there were until I logged on to the Internet. -- Edsger Dijkstra, Dutch Computer Scientist and pioneer in network communication (possibly apocryphal)
By this logic, books were a mistake. Probably the neocortex, too.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Is the problem with the internet supposed to be the amount of deceptive information available? Because creatures have been misrepresenting themselves (putting out false information) since the dawn of life. Your job, as someone in the fray of life, is to see through the deception.
Or is the problem that people tend to cherry pick information from the internet which reinforces their prejudices? If so, this probably dates back to early herding behavior. "I like these cows. They're just like me. Not like those bad crocodiles or lions."
Or is the problem with the internet the fact that some people use it to extend their social lives, rather than interacting directly with others face-to-face? If you go out to dinner with a bunch of random people, you will find about half of them staring at their phones instead of talking to the person in front of them. I don't think the internet is responsible for this behavior. It may facilitate it, but it didn't cause it.
Personally, I see the internet as a fantastic tool for information gathering and exchange. I was born back in the Pterodactyl days when all we had was dirt and the internet didn't exist, and I can tell you with some confidence, life is better with it than without it.
Here is one small example. In 1968, there were three national TV stations (ABC, CBS, and NBC) and three national news magazines, and all of them were telling the American people that the Vietnam war was going well and we were winning. A respected news reader, Walter Cronkite, shockingly stated on air that he had been there and things were not going well at all. This was the beginning of the end for the war advocates.
If the flow of information had not been only through these news outlets, there might not have been a war in the first place. IDK if you've noticed, but it's getting harder for the military-industrial complex to start random wars. Which is not to say that they respond to the will of the majority of Americans. They do not. But wars are getting harder for them to start.
Another example is that I've probably gotten the equivalent of three college degrees from the internet, and I didn't have to give some rent-extracting school the cash equivalent of three houses for that information.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 08-12-2018 at 11:16 PM.
up front, I agree the internet is a net good
but godamn adam strange's reasoning triggers me
first of all, people are on their phones primarily because they're connected to the internet. if you take away the internet what are smart phones? its actually impossible to separate them, if you imagine a smart phone without the existence of the internet, its not a phone as we know them today minus its connection, its an entirely different world and the phone wouldn't have aps or the ability to transmit pictures or whatever because those are all products of the internet
in any case, lets take for granted that all the ills of the internet are just products of human nature, and so maybe the internet extends the negatives but don't cause them per se. this is really just to say the internet makes things worse, which is enough to say something is a mistake. it doesn't have to be the root cause of the ill for it to still be bad, in theory
finally, all that shit about vietnam. wow where to begin. well essentially you attribute the beginning of the end of vietnam to walter kronkite (a dubious post hoc ergo propter hoc take on causation). but first, this presupposes the end of Vietnam is a good thing, which in reality if you understood that the US really was winning vietnam it sort of upends this theory. even if you say the end of war justifies itself, it forgets that the way vietnam ended actually inspired many more wars than it finished, because it showed hostile powers they could successfully win an asymmetric conflict with the US (thanks walter). it has been a rallying cry for generations. second, your whole example hinges on a example of a supposedly happy ending without the internet and simply says it would have come about sooner (to the point of perhaps never occurring at all) had we the internet . which essentially begs the question on the whole shebang start to finish. depending on which questions you beg you get a whole matrix of absurdities, like yeah if we had the internet maybe we could have had our negative result sooner. or we could have easily prevented this good outcome ... you conclude with a statement of wars being harder to start, which is like, as far as I can tell, made up too
at best wars don't start the way they used to, in part because the internet has transformed the medium of information exchange, but that doesn't mean they're harder to start, it only means they look different. which of course a person such as yourself would mistake such a difference as a substantial shift rather than the simple gloss over human nature, oddly, which is the road you acknowledged by starting down in the beginning but seemed to have arbitrarily shifted stance once it came time to conclude. in reality it made wars harder to start, for some people, and easier for others. in any case, the internet seems to be doing a pretty good job of fanning the flames of war when you consider the amount of propaganda power it has via bot armies and so forth, but all we can really do is speculate on what the actual consequences in re war will be if any (the answer is probably "few" since the idea that the internet of all things will pacify human nature seems unlikely, since it is just as easily used to incite as tranquilize). not to mention the fact that the internet streamlines all sorts of very real logistical impediments to war, which militates toward it becoming a more, not less, viable option
all this is really just an issue with how you got to the end. I agree that free and open communication that spans vast distances instantly is a net good for the world, despite its frequent abuse. I think it has fuckall to do with vietnam or smartphones though, or more precisely, whether vietnam and smart phone addiction qualify as use or abuse of the internet is just a matter of perspective. the main thing is we get to have this discussion. we are exposed to the other points of view or at least the option exists. this is actually good whether it leads to war or not, because its human development itself that is spurred via information exchange
 one begins to wonder how that would work, as if walter kronkite could have somehow got in front of vietnam and prevented it from occuring if we merely had more channels of information exchange. this is precisely the kind of anti war punditry that exists today, but is balanced by an equal and opposite, if not stronger, propaganda machine on the other side. further it presupposes vietnam was unjustified to begin with, which what if because of this punditry we just went in harder and ended it quicker via overwhelming force. the justification for ending vietnam was in the toll it was exacting on our troops, you can get around this via other means besides pacifism, not all pleasant. you don't get to just chop up the time line and cherry pick outcomes in order to support other conclusions
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-13-2018 at 12:41 AM.
This forum was a mistake.
Thanks to the internet we know Socionics.
Noone is denying there are benefits from having the internet, the question, I think, is more like "do the benefits outweigh the drawbacks on a big picture scale".The internet was not a mistake. It saved me from isolation in a really bad locale.
Last edited by Uncle Ave; 08-13-2018 at 09:21 AM.
Peterson on why the internet has displaced TV and how its revolutionized popular discourse
Well, all I can do is summarize José Ortegy y Gasset's book The Revolt of the Masses in just one sentence:
The masses were a mistake.
All other post-modern mistakes find their origin in this error. Apparently Evolution fucks up occasionally.
both good and bad.
good- spread of knowledge
bad- the convenience makes people lazy as shit, take things for granted
"Behold, I have placed before you an open door that no one can shut" Rev. 3:8
Well there are definitely lots of heartless misunderstandings between people on the internet, which is understandable if you think about it as realistically it's kind of like snapping your fingers and instantly there's some person with conflicting values as you that plops in your living room with you... somebody irl you would never invite over or would help or get along with or anything. Instead of coming to a greater understanding, it just makes you realize how much you hate each other even more. It's a boundary invasion, especially if you spew your opinion on more mainstream sites. Not like real life is any better mind you, but at least there's tone of voice and body language cues that better understand the meaning/intent behind what people say. As there are people on the internet who I first thought were too harsh, but further watching their videos they more or less come across as some adorable fag that just wants to pet kittens. Likewise, people can use text to manipulate well and be sugary sweet but on video they come across as abrasive, selfish and narcissistic. In meat space it's more obvious when somebody is being this way or something, and less of a delay to realize they are really are all about. The full picture is too skewered.
Then there is of course the situation where a spade really is just a spade, and that makes it all the more confusing. Who to trust? Dogs pick up what other dogs are about by smelling their buttholes- which sounds gross and uncouth but you can't really do that effectively on the internet- because there is no 'smell.' And that is kind of creepy when you think about it, you are just letting somebody's ego projections of themselves effect you too much. And the sad part is- that people high up in positions of power fall for the ruse more than any of us.
My answer to the question "Internet – good or bad thing"
Let me quote W. Shakespeare
"...nothing is really good or bad in itself — it’s all what a person thinks about it."
Information warfare and people too ignorant to know they are in it because their brains are already destroyed with something masquerading as knowledge ftw
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I don't really think it's a matter of quantity vs. quality of information, as if because a medium can propagate information without bounds we're suddenly at risk of becoming less or too aware. It goes both ways. IMO it's more about understanding the value of information itself, with regard to more basic material concerns, such that the interdependence makes one aware of a trajectory, where things are evaluated in terms of a more basic value, instead of whether or not they make people lazy in the short term or incite conflict that can't immediately be resolved, etc. In other words, it's more about a movement of consciousness—if the internet was a mistake, it was probably just a more abrupt way of arriving at a result that was bound to come about to begin with.
There is something both inherently pure and inherently unnatural about the internet. The internet erases the ability for individuals in society to have a safe private existence. Everything that they do, everything that they think, could end up on the internet. You walk outside and trip on something wet, and you may end up on youtube. On the other side of it, I think the internet is a place where people see the true face of humanity. Some choose to believe that the internet corrupts, but I don't buy that. I believe the seed is already inside of the person, and the internet offers a gateway. The internet as a result has become a dumping ground for all the weird psychological baggage that humanity holds. The internet holds a place for individuals to attempt to break the perimeter, and they do so in a variety of ways. We're going to tear our society apart(I mean it probably needs to be) in an attempt to break through the threshold. It is all about the self's desire to reach transcendence.I think the typical person in society feels trapped, and the internet both has increased that sensation and simultaneously offered a way to explore what lies beneath. It has been quite the catalyst in bringing society to its eventual psychotic catharsis.
Model X Will Save Us!
People have been shaming, socially coercing each other, and controlling the flow of information since the dawn of time, and you can bet your arse there've been times before when it was as bad or almost as bad as it is now. Just imagine living in the middle ages and never having a clue what happens a couple hundred miles from you because the precious crops you rent from your lord will die if you ever take the time to GET OUT and TRAVEL THERE on foot or horseback. We just didn't see this Facebook or censorship shit in the 80s and 90s because the internet wasn't advanced enough or mainstream society just didn't take notice of it. Back then all the fat busybody soccer moms had to use television and print media to screech about how ebil bideo gaymes are putting the devil in our children's cereal or whatever retardation they wanted us to hear them out on. Now that the web's big enough, all the cancerous normies have migrated here and you have teratomae like BuzzFeed. The problem isn't owed to technology, it's amplified by technology, like every tyrant's power is amplified by the infrastructure he controls. It just so happens that most of our lives also turn to cat turd the less of this tech we have. If it isn't technology that's centralized and monopolized by the vultures that rule us, trust me, it'll always be something else.
The problem is human authoritarianism, greed, and social coercion. Never technology.
Fuck these luddites who'd sabotage the desalination plant I drink from. Fun fact: I haven't used Facebook a day in my life! Another fun fact: I've consumed less and less lolrandumb mind-masturbatory factoids from the zaaaaaaaniest corner of the Web ever since that all-consuming depression wrecked my cognitive abilities! But one utility I HAVEN'T lost from the internet, from my Windows 98 days as a child up to this imaginary e-Fascist fairy tale world you love to complain about, is as a reference source, for Googling whatever the hell precious little I feel like knowing at the moment. And it sure as hell feels better than having to root through a dusty silverfish nest and pages of irrelevant tripe to find the one kernel of knowledge I want.
So to all you Ray Bradbury whiners out there: instead of taking your dumb, arrogant, self-righteous, busybody fears of a cataclysmic social decay out on your fellow men who are benefiting from this machine, why don't you just unplug your OWN device, scurry back to your happy analog world with all your analog chad friends you have the pleasure of tolerating you, and leave us and our opiates in peace. Not all of us have the luxury of just going out on the street and making some friends. Some of us were born ungodly hags, who have no choice but to cower in the shadows and live on whatever scraps come our way.
There is this prevailing notion that American society is the only one that is undergoing stress and extreme polarization of social philosophy. That notion is false.
Model X Will Save Us!
I mean no disrespect by the way, I only stand here to say the myopic view is real and tenable, from an outsider's perspective. Globalization seems to create this illusion of shared humanity/society which is patently wrong, which is why I tweaked that sentence to reflect what I believe is closer to the truth of it.
Red Vs Blue, as a demonstrating example of polarization, doesn;t exists everywhere and I encourage you to travel outside of the States to experience this for yourself.
yeah I think you see that same kind of amerocentrism in socionics itself where there's (if you go by the forums) apparently a 16 way split in hollywood incorporating an almost even distribution of all the types. people don't realize the full possible scope of human and cultural difference present in the world. when people say the earth is flat , its more like we can flatten out any dimension of human experience in order to focus on others, so you have this kind of flattering of humanitarian aspects in order to facilitate a social expansion (to entertain eachother on forums, necessitates a flattening of world view to keep things upbeat and accessible). in essence socionics points out how every type flattens something, and then you can see people expanding or compressing certain elements in how they go about behaving. its sort of the E! Hollywood version of world politics and psychology once certain types make it their conversation subject. you see this happen over and over, but in virtue of relative numbers, at that particular place, it seems like perhaps this is the way the world really is, but its just a bubble, and that's precisely the point. this principle of how social life can distort reality happens top to bottom and can be leveled at any rung of abstraction
interestingly enough this roving group subjectivity becomes sufficient to call some people "overly subjective" when they don't present things properly pre-digested for social acceptance, and then socionics is in turn used against them, in order to label it symptomatic of a "polr" of some kind. that socionics has been corrupted top to bottom never occurs to them, because this is what it was obviously made to do! the limits of comprehensible reality are thus rubber stamped by socionics and both socionics and the world itself retreats into this bubble of social niceties, cliches, stereotypes, gossip and hearsay
 imagine an ancient person who lives their life as if the world is geometrically flat; for their time and place it may not facilitate their ends one whit to believe otherwise, hence the earth is flat as a psychological feature of their worldview, because they focus their psychic energy on other domains. they can compress that "issue" with no loss to their other aims, in fact it may even promote them by making things simple. it is a revelation to realize everyone does this with respect to something and it does not instantly make them "wrong" but neither does it make their other focus instantly "correct" because it can leverage its strong sides to bulldoze anyone who might break out the aforementioned ignored element. trump is a decent example with "alternate facts" being apparently ok as long as his base is strong enough to keep him in office. the question is what are the long term effects of making real world managerial decisions on the basis of a facts pre-formed to appeal socially to a particular view. I suppose the long term economic effects will be illustrative on this point
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-18-2018 at 07:20 PM.
Then this one apeared... it happens too often with you Bert... xDinterestingly enough this roving group subjectivity becomes sufficient to call some people "overly subjective" when they don't present things properly pre-digested for social acceptance, and then socionics is in turn used against them, in order to label it symptomatic of a "polr" of some kind. that socionics has been corrupted top to bottom never occurs to them, because this is what it was made to do! the limits of comprehensible reality are thus rubber stamped by socionics and both socionics and the world itself retreats into this bubble of social niceties, cliches, stereotypes, and gossip
 imagine an ancient person who lives their life as if its geometrically flat, for their time and place it may not facilitate their ends one whit to believe otherwise, hence the earth is flat as a psychological feature of their worldview, because they focus their psychic energy on other domains. they can compress that "issue" with no loss to their other aims, in fact it may even promote them by making things simple. it is a revelation to realize everyone does this with respect to something and it does not instantly make them "wrong" but neither does it make their other focus instantly "correct" because it can leverage its strong sides to bulldoze anyone who might break out the aforementioned ignored element
Seriously though, I think the idea of expanding or compressing is interesting. It could sound similar to valuing, but value means next to nothing to me, while expansion and compression have sense.
Interpretation is a bitch. -w-b
hah yeah Im not saying the earth is literally flat, Im just saying people will flatten things out psychologically, and the abstract dimensions of the globe are one of those things people could flatten, because it wasn't a part of their "mission" to deal with. but the fact that in large numbers enough people believing this made proving it to be otherwise difficult, beyond all reason really, or to put it differently, think of someone like galileo.. its a problem that emerges out of the consolidation of perspective aimed at holding certain territory, but if that territory covers some weak aspects and it lacks the self awareness or humility to acknowledge this, it hurts the development of those aspects. it in fact hurts everyone on a long enough timeline, because its a substitution of reality, a kind of deal with the devil, a loan taken out on the future, because it is an element of untruth being cashed in on upfront. these "socials" suffer from a kind of "garbage in garbage out" problem because they instinctively defend the ideas they find themselves surrounded by, and if the researchers aren't around to keep them in good standing with their relationship to ideas, you get this kind of court intrigue which is "battletyping" not across the intellectual level but the social one, and all sorts of other cheap power plays that add no real new information, but simply try to leverage whatever misinformation is already present in the form of repeating stereotypes, cliches, folk wisdom, group consensus, etc. in short echoing garbage in order to preserve the status quo (to stabilize immediate conditions across a certain plane but a willingness to go into the negative of that plane to do so), because they find their purpose in court intrigue itself. that socionics might offer more than that is literally outside their reality. this is why there is always a battle for the soul of socionics, because it all too easily slides into nothing but pop MBTI madness (at a slightly higher reading level)
in regard to expansion/compression, one could think about dimensionality in the technical socionics sense, with clubs being precisely these areas being "blown up" and delved into in depth and detail, by certain personalities
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-18-2018 at 08:01 PM.
The flat earth thing was a joke, @Bertrand
We can link heaven and hell to this life we live. Heaven is freedom of mind and hell is remorse, guilt, fear... considering everyone has commited awful stuff, hurt others, been egotistical, why do some reach some heavenly peace while others dwell in hell?
Anything can be a convenient excuse for both peace of mind and self torture. At the end of the day, it is what we do with what we have that matters, and we can't force anyone to "see the light". We can only hope that existing is enough to help another on their path to better.
It is said that the most difficult duty of a master is to let their student down. It is the only way for the student to learn to trust themself and grow past depending on someone else. There's a similar process with children becoming adults. It is a painful thing to watch happening.
It's a problem I have with typology, most of the words used don't mean shit to me... ono
Sometimes I come across something that helps me make sense of this stuff but I'm still bad at it. -w-b
I know it was a joke (hence the "ha"), but people are guillible, look at how much literalism prevails here, so it needs to be addressed because it was put forward and Im not sure people won't get sidetracked onto the merits of that position, precisely because of how I describe people taking up ideas based on whats in front of them, so it needs to be headed off in order to put the focus where it belongs. you say it was a joke and next thing you know people are in here like haha bertrand got tricked. its like, how obtuse, but it nevertheless undermines anything I might go on to say, because people can understand being tricked, especially if it happens to them a lot, much easier than they can grasp an idea of sufficient complexity that shifts their worldview, so they will preferentially grasp that interpretation of events as a kind of innate "conservation of movement".. best to focus on the trickery than be tricked, but that this nevertheless plays them anyway is a bridge too far to bring into conscious light. it is precisely at that point we move from one strata to another, the psychological. and people don't want to concede it exists, even as they talk about it. in fact they talk about in such a way so as to never have to concede it exists, you could say that is the real underlying psychological goal and dynamic at work. to feel safe in the arms of the all conquering power of language itself, which stills ideas and controls reality so as to never feel threatened again by phantoms and demons and tricksters of every kind. the willingness to believe other people are likewise threatened is a form of projection that produces a kind of overbearing benevolence, a "this is for your own good" kind of psychiatry and everything else, that just dominates anything it gets its hands on, and is self satisfied beyond belief in doing so. an atheistic and scientismic reaching after fact and "reason" taken to bloated excess. the life of a boring fat person with a big mouth and a small brain who goes around sucking blood like a tick, as if gorging on society is all there is to life. in truth they provide a service because society itself needs a little bloodletting from time to time. the tick who views themselves as beautiful necessarily distorts reality in order to fulfill its purpose, or perhaps its just an irrational form of some higher reality, wherein insects are the true Gods and Masters. to insect eyes even the highest humans are probably quite ugly, perhaps the ugliest of all. "what would they do without me" is the watchword of this type, as they continually position themselves to control the life support and resources of anyone who comes near. mastery comes from below not from above for these people. in the negative they are full of resentment but if they can learn to truly love they stand a chance of transcending their ugliness
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-18-2018 at 09:11 PM.
"Ha" is not clear. It was clear from the comment I quoted earlier that you don't believe the earth is flat, that it was a metaphor...
If people really think you were "tricked" by this, they are stupid.
In all honestly, my head is elsewhere right now. Perhaps I should not have replied, or should have waited. Too late, seems we are in different places about this right now. That's okay.
I don't have much else to say, I kind of want to nap.
I think it provided the basis for an excellent example, I trust that you and I are on a level, its the public perception that worries me
it matters because socionics has nuggets of truth to it, but if people are allowed to freely distort it only so as to role play a type and in doing so achieve some measure of comfort and a basis for social interaction, it reduces that truth to a farce and acts as a barrier for anyone with the right motives to ever finding it and when you aggregate that you eventually end up with a worse world where good and evil are just tribal perspectives  based on whatever suits the party boss. ultimately it just results in a kind of anarchy bound together in nothing but loose associations of convenience and the whole time people suffer for differences of political opinions that never touch reality as truth, instead they are dominated by a form of reality as immediate force. in this way the truth is not something that helps people as a single group, it simply helps whoever has power and those loyal to them. it replaces God with a man. humanity descends into nothing but an endless competition for power, which is what it is anyway, but lacks all self awareness of itself. in the final analysis it is the beginning of the end of psychology: once you let public perception dictate the underlying reality and there is no deeper principle, such as the individual psyche, to counter balance a one way slide into mass hysteria and tribalism. its the disintegration of the individual in favor of the mass but in a way that does not do equal justice to both. it uses personality as a concept to proceed in the wrong direction
 in other words, the relative lay of the land on the level of ethical intuition is nothing but an expression of temporary greed, manipulated to facilitate political aims. this kind of selfishness which is now codified as genuinely being at the root of everything makes moral development out to be nothing but a scam, when its only a scam in the mouths of some and not all. if we adopt this position as the fundamental structure it fails to justify its own right to exist except inasmuch as it can provide a concrete benefit. but what if life is more than concrete benefits?, and even if its not, what if some concrete benefits can only come about by not seeking them directly and at the earliest available opportunity (forbearance)? socionics incorporates all these ideas that would otherwise be flattened out in order to sell. its like selling a child for their organs. you never know what it could have been if you succumb to greed at the earliest available opportunity. socionics is in its infancy and people are quick to strangle it in the crib for an easy payout. its all-too-human, because most humans don't want to be psychological. people think if you just divert these urges into their proper channel it can promote public welfare, when the truth is it ultimately exhausts itself in a hellscape of porn ads and ponzi schemes. at which point a healthier view becomes necessary and not just optional. because the bubble inevitably collapses. people can enjoy the decline at the expense of something else. I don't view socionics as something to be used up and discarded in that way. a kind of meaningless distraction with only shallow entertainment value
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-18-2018 at 10:12 PM.
The Internet is kind of like the introduction of money: it has made us progress a lot faster and it has made us more productive, but it has also alienated us from the society further.
Every tools that we invent are a double-edged sword. The very thing that benefit us from the Internet is the very thing that would disadvantage us: instantaneous transfer of information to anywhere in the world, at a cost of cutting down the information of seeing each other face-to-face (at least for now).
We have evolved to be equal and sympathetic to each other by reading the others' body languages, facial expressions, tones of voice, etc. But we can't do that if we can't see each other. We normally don't care about the poverty or the war torn places in the other side of the world. We are more likely to donate to a cause if we can see their faces.
The introduction of money has cut us off from the more "traditional" roles of society, such as that you should be fair, you should share your resources with the other members, you should not try to excel others (because doing so guaranteed our survival). But this has also made the society less fair, and it has created the wealth disparity and the class divide. The Internet it seems, has made us less sympathetic because we can't see each other face-to-face, and hence why there are frequently insults and flames thrown around, there are trolls, there are behaviors that we find difficult to imagine if we were seeing each other face-to-face. I don't necessarily think it's because we're anonymous and therefore have no consequences, but it's more likely because we can't see each other and hence can't be sympathetic to each other.
Interestingly, our biological tendency to be fair, or that we get pleasures out of being fair, hasn't been gone:
Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences
This experiment shows that while we get pleasures out of making money, we get even more pleasure, as much as 5 times the pleasure, if we gave away the money to be equal and fair.
But here's the catch: This only happens only if we can see each other face-to-face.
What we call "socialism" is just our "natural" human tendency to be want to be fair, and to correct the errors of an unfair society (also is it any wonder that people like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet give away their money? They likely get enormous pleasures out of it). And so every tools that we invent are a double-edged sword. For every solutions to a problem, there's going to be a new problem. And people do eventually find the solutions to those problems. It's just a matter of finding how.
people are unlikely to be unfair in the presence of other human beings who can overpower them if they wanted; seeing their happiness only comes after the decision was made up front, for a reason. its not like these types go around wanting nothing more than to spread happiness, but they just can't see it. it presupposes the emotional response was the aim, when its only the byproduct of doing the right thing in this case , because they had good reason to. like many studies it slices up the time component in a way that begs the question. this is the essence of context setting being one half of intuition (it assumes they're being pulled not pushed). my theory accounts for why being in the room matters. by your theory, singu, skype video conferencing should suffice to offset the entire "problem" the internet created. but hey, you have Adam Strange's support, and that tells us something. it makes sense a person who has no abstract capacity for understanding other people exist gets a huge payoff when an involuntary investment of the kind studied ends up being realized. the 5x emotional payout I'm sure is calibrated to the individual and the amount of positive emotion his presence usually engenders. its like discovering being liked for the first time
 we actually don't even know what the "right thing" is in this case, since equal division of resources is not automatically best. thus even if the thesis is true it tells us very little about how humans ought to act or how we ought to consider technology, since even deeper in the "internet is bad for this reason theory" is a nested judgement of how equal division is good. to be able to make a judgement independent of these particular factors is actually probably ideal, (or to account for all this and more) since what are outward signs of happiness anyway. people cheer at executions and nazi rallies. it really doesn't solve the problem of being lead around by one's nose into tribal madness, in fact it exacerbates it
in any case even if for some people there is something mysterious about being in the exact room, it says something like people with tribal mindsets should be limited to handling resources within the scope of a tribal community. in other words, these people should only be entrusted to make decisions governing resources in a concrete and immediate context, since their ability to handle abstractions involving people is limited to the point of being a form of cognitive blindness, i.e.: an incapacity. although the reverse effect would be them handing out stuff willy nilly to any sympathetic body to pass by. for these people, perhaps the concept of bailment is really beyond them
Last edited by Bertrand; 08-19-2018 at 04:03 AM.
I know someone who told me they do good deads to get a "thank you" and when they don't get it, they are frustrated. "Your smile is my salary" is cute in a way, but makes me cringe...
My reason for being not a generous, giving person is that people tend to get all happy and grateful, sometimes even tear-y and it creeps me the fuck out. I would hide if it wasn't so much more trouble.
Also, comes the fucking dilemma of "the fuck really is fucking fair, for fuck's sake" which keeps me up at night sonetimes...
There were unfairness before money as what is unfair or fair is about what is felt not some objective... rules or something...
It is technically unequal that some people have more money than others, but if one does not want more money to equal the other, can it be called unfair?
Some people are frugal, others extravagant.
Everthing in this life has its ups and downs, advantages and disadvantages... all we can do is try to make the best of what we have and adapt.
I fucking wish there were fairness objective rules... but there aren't.
the definition of fairness flows from whatever a person's God is as far as I can tell. that's why there's no agreement on the matter these days and everyone thinks its something different
Fairness is and has always been a matter of beliefs, I have no doubt about that.
It isn't new. Nothing is new to me actually...
I spend a lot of time with people who have very different views than I do.
All views matter, and as socionics put it, every type has good and bad sides to it and should be regarded as equaly important and... "good"... couldn't find a better word... in a way to learn from one other, use one strenght and let others take care of what befalls in their stronger points.
I wish objectivity was more of a thing than it is... yet that would kill the human experience... I can always build a cult on physics or something. -w-b
Some people think fairness is everyone having the same piece of the pie, for others, it is keeping what you earn, even if it means some people have a bigger piece of the pie.
While I think this can in part be explained by emotional biases (see Haidt's theory of moral sentiments), I think these differences in perspective actually stem from a different vision of humanity.
From the Marxian standpoint, it doesn't make sense that some people earn more than others, since Marx's view of humanity was that we are all part of historical forces anyways, and historical forces depend on material ones to him. And it is true that if you look at humanity from a purely materialistic pov, we're all basically equal in our capacity to push buttons and pull levers (unless you have a physical handicap of some sort).
From the Objectivist standpoint, we're not all equal since to Ayn Rand, what to creates wealth was not historical forces but the mind, and few people would argue we are all equal in terms of our mind's capacity: most people don't have the mind of Steve Jobs or Elon Musk.
So considering humans from a different viewpoint will change one's view of what outcomes are fair or unfair. I find that Christians (since you mention God) believe different things, protestants have the view that hardwork is good and thus capitalism rewards hard work (see Max Weber) whereas catholics see money as evil, catholic countries like France and Italy have a harder time accepting capitalism than anglo-saxon countries, at least accepting it on a moral level.
It will depend on your basic philosophy, what you consider fundamental in believing what makes humanity what it is that will infleunce what you consider to be fair or not fair. It's possibly even more fundamental than emotional prejudice, and yet, who would deny people choose their philosophical outlook based on its implications? So maybe Haidt's theory is correct after all...I don't know, maybe it's a chicken and egg thing (did our philosophy come first, or our emotional biases)? Yeah, I think our emotional bias comes first...I'll stop here.
Last edited by Uncle Ave; 08-19-2018 at 10:56 AM.