Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

142 Excellent

About MonDie

  • Rank
    Formerly "Mondays Assignment: Die"

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think a speech regulation paradigm that revolves around limiting a person's air-time could incorporate that. Nobody should have more freedom to speak than anybody else does, and one potential solution could be that listening to a person's speech should always be a consensual choice. This would also increase the dialectical quality of speech by limiting most one-way proselytizing scenarios. I do think any regulation of speech should be democratic rather than authoritative, but the systems that are supposed to enact the democratic will will always be manipulated from the outside in ways that virtually guarantee the desired outcomes of the powers that be. Thus I have to fall back on individualistic libertarianism in this case. I just don't trust the antagonist, ruthless, power-hungry people. I do think socialist principles are generally aligned with progress in social justice, and that there are certain things which should not be comodified. Forced child marriages in exchange for dowry payments was an awful idea, and so was slavery and so is wage slavery. Natural resources aren't the same as mass produced commodities. Moreover, I think a case could be made that speech shouldn't be commodified either. Look at the Festinger and Carlsmith peg turning experiments for example. In that case it was a good outcome, because the people who were paid had an out that reduced the experience of cognitive dissonance. Alas, maybe there are other cases where this might manifest as moral wrecklessness. I didn't kill those people who died from what I said; I was paid to say those things and therefore I am not responsible. > I.e. everyone should be an honest actor who is responsible for the effects of what they say.
  2. Does the message strike anyone else as psychotic? I suppose some people, with schizotypal and paranoid personality disorder, do have some baseline level of psychosis that does not worsen with time. Maybe asking them to explain how they got into it could help them get out: schizophrenics, schizotypals and paranoids all have lower than average theory of mind skill, which is related to self-monitoring skill and emotional intelligence et cetera—Think gorillas looking at themselves in mirrors. In any case, the conspiracy theory might already be about to get some "oxygen". I've switched to Majority Report recently (R.I.P. Michael Brooks). Majority Report had two recent callers who were worried about QAnon. I don't know how pervasive QAnon belief actually is, but Michael Flynn posted a video endorsing QAnon a few months ago, and now a few Republicans who have voiced support for it have won their primaries. The candidates Marjorie Greene and Lauren Boebert are expected to win the general election. It is hard to say whether this family of conspiracy theories is propelling itself or is something being peddled by neoconservatives, but having those candidates in congress will increase whatever aura of credibility it already had, and that could be the point. Both parties deserve scrutiny and both constituencies have an obligation to scrutinize their nominees. The whole of congress has been taken over by corporatism, and I can't wait to watch the conspiracy theories jump the partisan divide too. P.S. Trump definitely colluded with the Russians. We understandably have a hard time proving something so difficult to prove, but it's there, we just know it. Who is Guccifer 2.0!? Who is she!?
  3. As much as I love empiricism and science, these mass delusions show that we are social first and empirical second, and that even what we call "history" is a record of what people believed at the time as it includes, by extension, what people knew and/or believed about whatever was really happening at the time as it happened. In social contexts we largely do whatever the crowd is doing, say whatever the crowd is saying, and simply assume all of it to be reasonable by proxy of being popular. This makes us all too easy to manipulate because it creates a positive feedback loop, and the problem can be expected to worsen as the size of the crowd increases, e.g. the massive crowd sizes seen in modern contexts. This undoubtedly interacts with the social psychological phenomena that researchers call deindividuation, diffusion of responsibility, and the false consensus effect + pluralistic ignorance, to name a few. We are, intentionally or unintentionally, negligently or maliciously, being repeatedly gaslit by our own sources of information. Thus we are all compromised agents, the victims of gaslighting, unless we can cautiously contemplate whatever the simpler alternatives to whatever the prevailing wisdom might be might be. A perversion of the simplicity principle is actually one of the virtues of a lie, a lie which is false enough to achieve the ends of the liar but still true enough to seem functionally 'good enough' to the dupe... sorta like Rutherford's atomic model / nuclear model of the atom. Alas, that is in an idealized model of how we should operate, not how we actually operate. In truth, it is tautologically true that we don't know how we operate when we aren't paying attention to how we are operating, and that we may not be able to know what a lack of scrutiny looks like if a lack of scrutiny cannot be properly scrutinized. One thing social psychology told me was that how we really think is very different from how a philosopher might think a person should think, and that we may be optimized for group behavior at the expense of critical thinking functions. Moreover, I think groupthink might be a bigger problem now than it ever was for our hunter-gatherer ancestors two-hundred-thousand years ago.
  4. I was expecting Biden's latest gaffes (and now the new accuser) to quickly squash the momentum Biden seemed to have on Super Tuesday. Between March 3rd and March 10th, the state-by-state composition shifted from mostly blue to mostly red, and yet Bernie still made gains in the popular vote. Unfortunately the popular vote gains were masked by the red-blue balance and red superdelegates, and maybe even red state voter suppression (Alabama & Mississippi epitomize the red skew). Then the popular vote shifted when the pandemic hit, which could be a real change in turnout or some kind of malfeasance, like what happened in Iowa, enabled by the shortage of staff. I don't like the idea of voting amidst a pandemic, but I also think the pandemic was well timed to give the illusion of Biden-mentum rather than a Biden burnout. I am seriously considering whether the wealthy megadonors keeping Biden afloat really want a Biden presidency. The campaign almost seems designed to implode: Biden campaign will float through the primaries on superficial name recognition and then implode during the general election, imploding because (A) any cognitive decline will only become more apparent and (B) it will become apparent that the media was protecting Biden (albeit during the primaries) after it is already accused of an anti-Trump bias (despite being pro-corruption in a way that coincidentally benefits Trump). 11:06AM 3/28 Lastly, the new research that challenged Bernie's electability was awfully well timed, and its verification would require a roughly five times larger sample size. They compared each candidate to Trump separately because they thought Bernie supporters were intentionally skewing the results by lying, lying that they would ONLY support Bernie against Trump and nobody else. My response to their research is the above paragraph. 11:17 AM
  5. I have actually arrived at an even more interesting issue, that a self-ingratiating tendency can warp a person's reality in ways that may go uncorrected. The person with impulse control problems recognizes the failure afterward, but some self-ingratiating tendencies might correct themselves with a much larger delay, or never. The result is sustained self-fulfilling expectations and self-fulfilling perceptions/investigations/interactions that resemble an economic bubble except that the purchased is a perception of reality rather than a real thing. These what I'll call self-serving (bias) narrative bubbles might be more difficult to correct if there is no standardize measure of worth like the standardization of economic value. This is a problem because some people actually do profit from an economic bubble if they sell their stock sooner, and some people might profit from these narrative bubbles too. Ironically, these bubbles might actually be preying on pro-nepotistic processes that might otherwise promote positive family relations, and doing it in a way that temporarily exacerbates the negative side-effects of narcissistic, self-esteem-based reward systems. If the repetitions of the pattern are not recognizable, we might be in for a round of these bubbles. The good part is that the bubble depends on wide-spread participation to create a more satisfying illusion of reality. If the process of awakening is accelerated, a domino effect could result. December 14th 1:50 PM CST
  6. Here's a couple politically incisive shorts that I am thinking of. Secular Talk: British People SHOCKED By American Healthcare Prices Al Jazeera: Guterres warns UN may not have money to pay staff next month PS, Kyle Kulinski is apprehensive about a dilution of the potential charges, others progressives think Trump is (regardless) screwed. Mission (partially) accomplished... Secular Talk: Trump Keep Admitting War Crimes on Camera I should have spotted my double plural. Keeps!
  7. The problem is that both homosexuality and heterosexuality tend toward an exclusivity of preference. Your hypothesis would imply a normal distribution or a skewed distribution, but penile plethysmographs show a U-shaped distribution. I read Gould's paper years ago, but reviewing it I picked up the possible reference to Secret Mark via "St. Mark's Chapel". If the structuralistic concept of a spandrel is theologically relevant, it might contradict the religiously conservative denial of the naturalness of homosexuality. For you see, one could argue that Gould's structural approach emphasizes an opposite logical principle, namely the positive rather than the inverse (A so B, rather than not A so not B), which might give God a role in establishing these structuralistic principles which involve natural facilitators of organic structure (i.e. with any luck, A so B, B so C, C so D, ...) rather than a universal mechanism for overcoming the limitations (with natural selection and the anthropic principle, not A so not B becomes B so A). Moreover, I would imagine that some structures which become contraining dead ends would be removed through group selection (A+...+D so no E (Dead End)). If homosexuality and other trans-gender variations are a byproduct of human structure and human sexual dimorphism, then either these were part of God's perfect human plan or else the human plan was imperfect or even a dead end. That is, if homosexuality is an inevitable manifestation of the human structural "plan", then either homosexuality is part of God's perfect plan or else the plan was imperfect or even a dead end. In any case, I actually posted because I forgot to include a third interesting observation, which is that phermonal attraction is genetically synonymous with immune function (the major histocompatibility complex) and inflammation is exceptionally strongly correlated with the male-biased autistic disorder (https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS771US795&ei=fJ7uXcyhCJX_-gSxiKlg&q=inflammation+in+autistic+disorder+site%3Anih.gov). I suppose trans-gender variations could maybe potentially be the byproduct of some kind of anti-autistic, anti-inflammatory adaption that coincidentally tends to flip the sexual preference. I don't know, it's food for thought. 1:30 PM CST **synonymous or homophonic, or just, being literal, pleiotropy.** Another consideration is that we humans are accumulating mutations in genes involved in odor detection, but the waning adaptiveness of odor detection would not render heterosexuality non-adaptive. If anything, it is the reverse that waning heterosexuality would mean waning phermonal functioning to the extent that sexual preference depended on it, ... if it depended on it. 2:00
  8. I really wanted to note: I recently learned that birds and mammals independently evolved their sex-linked chromosome systems. Mammalian gender is only as old as mammalia and the mammary glands that distinguish mammals (if they're female). That was a bombshell IMHO. Anyway, I know about the sexually antagonistic selection and kin selection hypotheses, but the presentation does seem slightly PC. I guess it's that they are trying to show that homosexual genes could be equally adaptive rather than being these subpar genes that still lead to a sufficient, though reduced, level of fecundity that allows the genes to persist in the gene pool at a stable, but low, gene frequency. Moreover, there might be an assumption that homosexuality is 100% genetic/heritable, but it might be closer to two-thirds or three-quarters heritable. AFAIK the best measure of sexual orientation is the penile plethysmography, which rarely identifies middle-of-the-road bisexuals but does seem to often show some, umm, measurement unreliable and/or low-level bisexuality. This is speculation, but if the gay gene(s) don't always result in homosexualiy, then the non-homosexual counterparts might have their own advantages. I read that both women and gay men are diagnosed with borderline personality disorder at a higher rate, and both women and BPD patients do statistically score slightly higher on the Reading The Mind In The Eyes Test, which I know isn't supposed to be a personality trait. We also have the historical evidence of castrated men who lived into their eighties or so (and I wish the same for BPD sufferers). Anyway, if the non-homosexual counterparts were healthier, more social, or even more appealing, then it could be another explanation for the persistence of these genes. Out. Spandrels are an interesting concept in this regard. But I might be proposing some kind of adaptively conflicted phenotype rather than a spandrel. After all, that is why we have diversity, unless you're into eugenics.
  9. MonDie

    Eye witnesses?

    Although I appreciate this topic's importance, I worry that a wrong approach could do more harm than good. The Damage Report: Florida Officer Caught Planting Evidence (planting drugs in cars with impunity) The Young Turks: Why Aren't People Outraged at This NYPD Cop Planting Weed? (and so on and so forth...) Perhaps it is the witnesses who really need to know how this works, if the cops already know, and I would be excited to find that a witness outwitted a lying cop. I know that you, Moontanman have been critical of religion, and I am realizing how religion is intertwined with power. Some kind of ancestral spirituality seems natural, but throughout history people have claimed to be god-kings or to have divine mandate, which is one alternative to a more democratic concept of legitimacy that involves a grass-roots or bottom-up consensus. Is it any coincidence then that both our spiritual leaders and our police forces have attempted to dupe us? They often did or said things we couldn't see personally, and used their supreme authority to make us question our what we thought we saw, what we knew. They gave us the narratives through which we interpreted and understood the language of reality and encoded into memory its supposed meaning -- see the role of 'elaboration' in the levels of processing model of memory --, so that we would thereafter correctively remember those important things as we were supposed to understand them all along, or not at all. Dual processing models -- you remember Norenzayan's research on analytic thinking and belief in god, right? -- might have a crucial role in disentangling the process I have described above. How was that? Too abstract? 12:17 PM CST December 12th 6th Bezos aside, I liked this Al Jazeera on India's media consolidation by the Ambani brothers. Ah, the future. 12:36 PM
  10. How much I run is abnormal, but what I am saying might be so important for the older people on this forum. You stop building bone density in the latter part of your life, so you have to maintain it. I don't know kinesiology, but I I was running ten miles per day until I ran fourteen to fifteen per day for a week before our move. I learned that the vertical legs of a foot stool can be used for the stretch I described above, but I still strongly prefer the chair with the horizontal bars. Also, I injured my foot on the day after we moved. After I was running along the inclined grassy hill beside a sidewalkless road, I immediately noticed the soreness on the pavement. Four days later, I avoided irritating the sore foot by adjusting my style, extending the sore foot farther than usual and compensating with a "springing" push from my other leg. I just did a test run through the hallway, and I am deducing that extending the step in this way puts pressure on the fleshier parts of the foot. The soreness is inbetween my heel and the ball of my foot, and moreover it is on the outer side of my foot. I guess my tendency was to run by lifting my feet over and over, but extending the step seems to undercut this tendency so that I am landing on my heels and pushing ("springing") from my balls. Alternatively, I might be directing more pressure to the inside side of the foot that has more padding, but intentionally redirecting the pressure toward the inside side had little benefit. Also, the drawstring bag can be tied more easily, if one is wearing a jacket that provides cushioning below their neck, by simply twisting the strings around eachother. I prefer the other tying method, which is more symmetrical via being more stable, if it isn't too tight. I seemed to have less joint pain when I was attempting to meditate during my jogging. This might be coincidence, for the meditation significantly slowed my pace. Anyway, fighting with your HPA axis in this way has some unexpected consequences, if you don't close your eyes and trip and fall. Without closing my eyes, I try to consciously detach from the visual stimuli. One might enjoy this if they have a nice view. Don't run along any inclined hills! If you start extending your steps in that way, you will probably find that you are running more quickly. The paradox might be that a faster jog is healthier. I also jog at that leisurely pace, Airbrush, but for much longer distance.
  11. Does anyone like a YouTube channel that frequently discusses the scientific process, i.e the procedures, math, and analysis involved? Maybe it is a channel about rationalism, or merely a science channel, but it explores how ordinary people and/or scientists analyze the world or their data. I am sending this entangled particle into the future. Please give me a reply back, if that is possible. Is it possible? Can the future determine the past via the observer effect? Well whatever. reply back.
  12. MonDie

    Impeachment Hearings

    That makes it a top-down consensus rather than a bottom-up consensus. See #2. If nobody respected a law, nobody would uphold it. See prohibition. P.S. I might have included this link about another way to manipulate consensus: Trump Jrs NYT Bestseller Scam Confirmed I think you might have been onto the same idea with "consensus of representation." Again, this top-down influence is upheld through bottom-up support, and we might defy it if we learned that what we accepted by default was actually deeply flawed. In reality, our low-level social affairs tend to be guided by why a thing was wrong, whereas we will accept that lawfully illegal behavior is wrong - by default - without any reason why it should be wrong. P.S. you might not have seen this if you're watching mainstream media. MSM'S Embarrassing impeachment Coverage. Oh, and Bezos and Amazon making the faulty facial recognition tech used by ICE (Beyond The Valley). ... Wrong video link...
  13. Thinking right/accurate about an affair is a means to controlling/optimizing that affair. The nice thing about sensory perception is that the feedback is really very in your face. Internal control would be more ambiguous, however. Anyone who searches themself for a state of mind will probably find something that will seem like it might be that same state of mind, and there might be little feedback to correct them from being wrong. An incorrect search and find procedure could yield a circular feedback loop that creates a now erroneously recognizes that new state as the same state as the old state, and this error could become cemented without any kind of correction for who knows how long. Thus the person is given an illusion of control rather than real control. *now erroneous recognition* In the real world we conduct open-ended searches, and I guess the equivalent would be mindfulness.
  14. MonDie

    Impeachment Hearings

    Here is a battle plan. 1. We rule by consensus, and we have consensus goals for society. 2. Influential people have influence by consensus, and appeal to influential people is meant to be a cognitive shortcut toward what the consensus should ideally be. 3. The consensus will inevitably be that statecraftsmen should have certain skills, education, and goals. Any other attempt to manipulate consensus is akin to shooting steroids before the big game. 1L32 PM CST November 24th See: tactical framing What is the date? I miss having my computer. 2:01???
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.