Leaderboard

There's no reason to prefer a high IQ society over a lower IQ society. However, a lower IQ society is more prone to violent/immoral behavior, so if your prefer a more peaceful and moral society to live and raise your kids in, you ought to prefer a higher IQ society. As well, a higher IQ society will tend to be more open to therapy and more peaceful means of parenting, which, through generations, would eliminate the irrational psychological roots of socialism/communism.

I am 28 now and i am still supriced as i was when i was 5 how much (adults then) people seem to regard admititng mistakes as some sort of ego death. And curiousity as some flaw or weakness...

Looking for citations for all of Sam's unsupported assertions. He made a ton.

A world where no suffering is acceptable sounds ideal, as who wants to suffer? Masochists I guess? I think the problem is how do you achieve that without it becoming so strict to the point of suffocation? Any system meant to protect people, and boundary can become a cage. Parents can be too strict with children. Schools sorting kids by age can hold back kids who are already ahead. A job ladder can be a tool of oppression. To achieve a world of no suffering you would still need a world built on rules, but the rules would have to be much more fluid and malleable than they are today, or at least be much more thorough in a way where they account for human behavior to a much greater degree. Because any tiny thing could cause suffering proportional to that tiny thing, and if no suffering is acceptable than even that tiny thing isn't okay. Would there be penalties for causing suffering? How would you enforce that? Wouldn't the person enforcing the person who caused the first suffering cause suffering on the part of that person as they find suffering in being enforced? Maybe it would also cause suffering on the part of the people who are enforcing the "no suffering" rule because it brings them suffering to be the enforcer? When you take "no suffering" out to the extreme it's almost like an argument to just eradicate humanity, literally through genocide, as that would permanently end all suffering as no one would be left to suffer and there would indeed be zero suffering after the act. Or, if you take it out to the extreme literally in terms of some kind of alive but super controlled society, (with rule generation and judgments coming from advanced computer systems) or you "plug them into the matrix" and have a pseudo-dream state existence, then that would be putting people into a cage. Do people want to be in a cage? Even a really nice cage? Again, rules for society are one thing. A cage is something different. I think we also need to look at the idea of suffering versus unnecessary suffering, because that's where the most important difference is. A workout could easily be seen as "suffering" but it's also necessary to build muscle. Chopping down a tree with an ax could be seen as suffering, but it's also necessary to build a shelter. On the other hand a bully shoving a kid down on a consistent basis (daily/at school) when that kid has done nothing wrong and is being bullied for the sake of it, well, that's unnecessary suffering. Trying to curb unnecessary suffering down to almost nothing is in my opinion a much more realistic if not a more admirable goal to strive toward. I think eliminating all suffering is the goal of someone who sees no end to suffering and wants a way out. That's why the "Trump is bad because he did A." "No, Trump doing A is good" is such an unproductive conversation because in our unconscious the person who says "Trump is bad because he did A" will translate the rebuttal of "No, Trump doing A is good" into "I'm in favor of continued suffering". Because saying "Trump is bad because he did A" is them actually saying "I want to reduce suffering". It's just that by the time "I want to reduce suffering cause I see no end and I think humanity is doomed" gets to the conscious mind, filters through other parts of the personality, bounces into emotions, and then exits the mouth in words it comes out as something that doesn't quite represent the totality of what that person actually thinks. In a sense I think we minimize ourselves by not giving ourselves the time to really think about what we want to say before we say it. It's why I think the move away from long form conversation to Twitter, Facebook, and other super short chunks is going to be the sword that the west dies on. Take note, even some people here don't want to have long conversations anymore. That's a sign things are about to crumble. We had better change it soon or it's all going to disappear.

Ha! I was gonna start a thread about this exact topic. Listening to the podcast right now, halfway in and I'm completely triggered by Sam. Was he always this much of an idiot? I have read everything he has ever written and watched all of his debates and considered him one of my heroes a few years back. Now he's just a petulant loser in my eyes. Was he always like this? If so what does it say about me that I used to admire such a person? I watched a couple of minutes of his most recent Joe Rogan appearance and he literally looked like a homeless person (see pic). Did he also get a stroke or something? At this point it would be his only saving grace. Scott: Trump is a master persuader. Sam: No he's not! He didn't persuade me! Scott: But he's the president against all odds. Sam: Doesn't matter! He's a liar and morally bankrupt! Scott: How do you know he has no morals? Sam: Because of the things he says! Scott: How can you trust the things he says if he's a liar? Sam: [autistic screeching] Sam's level of debate is abysmal. WTF.

Concern trolls are people that raise issues in the guise of helping but actually detract from a forum or a conversation by wasting time and increasing frustration.