dimreepr

An expanding population had to invent money, and there's nothing more seductive to a wishful thinker. I think this is where we diverged from a natural evolutionary path.

In poker it's known as a donk bet. Donk betting carries risks: It can reveal information about the bettor’s hand, making it harder to balance a range. Acting out of position generally puts the bettor at an informational disadvantage. Overuse can make the player exploitable, especially in heads-up pots.

I understand that there's a natural evolutionary process that leads to some sort of wishful thinking, I'm thinking that politics has suprcharged and monetised the trait due to our ever expanding populous and the proximity that results. Much like how religion's use it to bring peace to people and politics corrupts religion's to bring fear.

TBH I was hoping for a little more footfall to help me clarify and order my thought's. What I'm suggesting is, the pace of human progress/growth is outstripping that of our ability to evolve naturally into the role, much like the mice plague in Australia. There's loads of anecdotes out there that suggests the problem's found in cities don't really exist in villages.

Unfortunately, I'm not smart enough to design an experiment that would gather any evidence, from the noise of the politicos...

I liken my hypothesis to the demise of the African 'tusker', very quickly the females no longer find them attractive. I think our natural evolution got us ready for a village, conceptually the size of a city is like trying to imagine the size of space.

Of what, poverty or our inate sense of fairness? This is political, evidence is tertiary. What I'm suggesting is a feedback loop.

It means you don't speak the language, so how do you know that you're not talking bulls...? I love to imagine the universe and how it work's, but every time I have an epiphany, I post it on this site and the good folk's, who do speak the language, explain why I'm not quite the Einstein of my imagination. It hurts but I got over it... ;)

It's happening far to quickly to be a natural evolutionary trend, most of the motivation to actually reason out a solution is born of poverty and a sense of fairness.

And then, one flew over the cuckoos nest...

Fair enough, but can you see why it also fits in politics, given your OP and subsequent answers?

So why not in politics?

I think pack hunters of some sort would be a leading contender, to develope motivated reasoning of some sort. No (have I missed the joke, again?).

Squirrels often fake burying their nuts, just in case their being spied on, if they turned that tool on themselves, they'd never bury a nut. It's the same for humans, we only use deceit on other's, self deceit is why we have therapists.

Not at all, but is it unreasonable for me to question the premise 'of the start point'?

I'm unsure what the difference is, in this thread/topic But as a matter of interest, is the null hypothesis, not just contentment? Unless we're getting into a Hari Seldon situation.

Politically, there's always an issue.

Survival, motivated by fear of being eaten. This is a different question (political), the motivation is still fear though. Reasoning is a byproduct of intelligence, our ability to apply it effectively, as with all life, lies on a spectrum...

Indeed, also @Otto Kretschmer what is motivated doing in the title?

If you know everthing, how do you know your teacher wasn't lying? I thought you wanted to talk in riddles, was that one to difficult? Does that mean I'm smarter than you?

If you know everthing, how do you know your teacher wasn't lying?

You can't be an atheist and believe that Hitler was born evil... Almost worth a topic of it's own.

I understand that I can be annoying and have annoyed a lot of the great member's on this site; how annoying is the child that simply asks, why do you think that is true? But isn't satisfied with bc I said so. Just to reiterate my point and get back on topic, I'm a human and so my freedom is limitated to that of a human (a bee would give a different answer), therefore anything that a human is capable of, from Hitler to Jesus, is generally dictated by my circumstances/context.

Nor is that... I'm trying to discuss a topic, why are you angry with that approach? If you're correct and I'm wrong, then show me how; but don't mock me bc I'm disabled and you might face a cancellation... ;) I've only mocked your arguments, I don't know you...

Mocking my answer's is not an argument, at best it's a logical fallacy, or are you being deliberately obtuse? I note, with interest, that you've yet to answer 'how can one judge one's level of freedom from within one's prison'? No it isn't, it's a description of nirvana AKA no place. "You can't step on the same river twice" is analogous to humanity, every one of us is entirely unique, but we can't help being swept along by the same river, however hard we wish it isn't true... ;)