naitche

No. Thats what I meant by a definitive answer at this time relies on faith.

Eventually, yes.

Yeah, mostly. There have been a quite a few hickups too .

Tho' a definitive answer either way relies on faith. For a no, In the impartiality and perspective of the scientific community.

I prefer scientific tests given credibility by peer review have found no evidence there is some thing. I'd go with that.

Not really. The gist I took from the Russian experiments, and backed else where, is that probability indicates there is some thing to it, but its unreliable and without knowing whats going on theres no way to know why or how that might be changed. There was burn out and fatigue in the subjects, whos mental state should be positively confident . Results of remote viewing could be remarkably accurate, but missing essential detail and rarely complete. Not much that can be relied on. Not much use. or with any real control, though no doubt many individuals prefer to fool themselves otherwise. I think its mistake to assume theres nothing there because its not what you think 'it' is.

Aside from politics, the populations are becoming far more fractured. That can't continue with out coming apart eventually. Govt. I think is a reflection of that, not the cause. What can rise to the top can only do so if conditions are favourable. I don't think censorship is the answer either, rather much less of it and better communication skills . Does Canada still have speech and debate competitions from elementary school with the expectation all students take part in the 1st round? Are our schools still teaching that 'survival of the fittest' drives evolution? Because thats the wrong message for any identity dependent on its environment. We have to work with what we've got, not beat it down to nothing.

Quite likely. Motivation for his response could be directed by 'Incel ', if he felt that group defined his identity and so his response. But the OP was general, not subjective. I was addressing generalities. I was born and have lived in Canada. Yes, it has a lot going for it. Not least a strong cultural focus on personal responsibility that I hope is not being diminished by the politics of cultural identities.

Ten oz So far, I mostly agree. It seems to me tho' that some of the anger and frustration is from a sense of being powerless at an individual level, that identity politics fosters. Identity politics doesn't give the power of responsibility to individuals, or teach the meaning of personal responsibility. It does assign responsibility to cultural identities, and discredit responsibility on a personal level. The polarisation seems to be increasing and it makes sense that the opposition felt will too.

I didn't say it was evidence, or that i trusted its veracity. Just that akeena may find it of interest. But I recall there were limited results from what I saw as pretty minor stuff , and unreliable results if the goal was to frighten. Still interesting, if your expectations are realistic (as opposed to some kind of occult super powers) It would be extremely hard, if you value credibility with your peers, for any serious, well regarded scientist to openly undertake and then publish paranormal research with any positive results in this climate. Little incentive for real research, by real scientists who want recognition for that.

Not a new thing, no. Nor violence as a result. Not caused by cultural identity, thats pretty harmless in itself. There is a kind of inevitability to it though when the cultural of an identity encourages a sense of moral superiority or 'rightness of way' in opposition. Hard to share the space of a common human environment , with an exclusive mentality.

I think identity politics encourages people to blame society for their short comings and discredits the power of personal responsibility, yes. identity is the environment for all it contains, unified by 'self' belief. Usually based on past experience and self defined by rejection of what can't or won't accept that definition. identity is limited by definition. The human identity is fractured by identity politics. It discredits the belief in humanity needed to define what is humane.

I recall a book published around 20 yrs ago re; remote viewing etc in Russian experiments and research. I can't comment on the veracity of any of it, or details of the author. Too long ago. I agree akeena, that its premature to discredit or discount ESP or other so called paranormal phenomena. I think science is done a disservice when personal prejudice and disbelief do so prematurely. Its not been disproved. As for evolutionary advantage, We have had witch hunts that still occur in some parts of the world.I think any 'ability' would have to be accepted and reliable before there were any evolutionary advantage.

I figure life is an ability to respond. So the 'meaning' of life to me, is to respond, or take that response -ability. Not" Why am I here? What is my purpose?" But "I am here. How do I respond?" How I/we respond to conditions decides any 'meaning' to them.

50/50 from me. Raider5678s quote jumps out here, "do you know my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?" I'll add, 'With what little understanding people act" Not quite the same, but pedigree Dog Breeders are a good example of values lost in the quest for 'improvement".

Identification?

And the more inclusive that identity, the more malleable to external/changing conditions.

Seems to me differences in cultures are more 'defined' by their beliefs of limitation. ie; If a human culture is viewed as an identity in its own right, in opposition to humanity in general, it must be defined by what it excludes in that definition of its 'self'. By the amount of diversity it allows its identified space.

Or is a computer program an identified organic structure?

At its heart, its the same question as ; Do we shape the environment or does it shape us? Without an environment, there is no "us", But without us, that space has no definition. We define it.

No, not well put. I am agreeing with you. Tho' I would argue that changing behaviour does change conditions. Most examples I can think of Legislation changing culture occurs subtly, and more often goes unnoticed.

Legislation seeks to open or limit environmental conditions. If your response does not support those conditions, you risk a personal cost that may out weigh the benefits of ignoring them. It can create an environmental expectation that those conditions will be upheld, or reliably hold. You can legislate for better gun control, and you can legislate for better culture but neither will work unless the environment created by doing so is supported. Successful legislation more often either reflects growing support for, or expectation of, specified conditions, or demonstrates conditions that create other or more favourable expectations.

The O.p can be read ; What ability exactly defines a person able to gain White collar work, from a Blue collar worker dissatisfied with that position. Exactly nothing. The Working environment is a single unit. Those parts are so far, interdependent. The value is subjective. Any number of conditions can direct a person to the area they will contribute. But nothing exact in a shared environment. It depends on subjective conditions. What exactly defines a person who is able to gain Blue Collar work from those who are unable to and forced to engage in White Collar work instead? Assigning interdependent but opposing values won't work without demonstrating opposition to the lesser valued.

Erm, yes, I see what you mean. You could class understanding as responsibility though couldn't you?- Excersizing and maximizing your own abilities to respond?

Yep. Acceptance. Because thats the condition you have and to reject the condition you have would only increase the limitations it imposes. Accepting that condition for what it is lets you see its limitations, and how to reduce or overcome them. Lots of feelings don't add to inner peace or happiness. While I accept that, I will respond more effectively to them. They are parts of my condition. Only I can respond effectively to my condition. Environment does not respond. Its a space . Its form depends on what it holds. It will either hold a thing, or not. Depending on its condition. The space doesn't decide its condition, its condition is given by what it holds. By how it responds to the space it has. Every thing beyond my 'self' is my environment. @dimreepr Would you say that self belief and the ability to respond ( responsibility) are equal to acceptance here then? Or maybe belief in potential, more than belief in self. Since that potential can be credited to a God .