Jump to content

GYre0ePJhZ

Member
  • Posts

    132
  • Joined

Everything posted by GYre0ePJhZ

  1. I do agree with you in a general sense. In this case, however, using utalitarian ethics is merely applying the same standards that global warming advocates generally use as a justification to infringe upon our liberties. I would suggest that if the results of this report is not taken into consideration, they are clearly exposing their biases (whatever they may be). From this I think you could make a reasonable case for that they do not really care about utilitarian ethics applied to humanity as a whole or the environment. And I think there is value in that. I am also curious whether Professor Myers has been in the media protesting the so-called Stalinists in the global warming advocate camp. Although I do not know, my guess is that he has not.
  2. This report from The Global Warming Policy Foundation "addresses the question of whether, and how much, increased carbon dioxide concentrations have benefited the biosphere and humanity by stimulating plant growth, warming the planet and increasing rainfall sheds very interesting statistics on the debate on global warming and CO2 emissions. From the summary (my bolding): Empirical data confirms that the biosphere’s productivity has increased by about 14% since 1982, in large part as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels. Thousands of scientific experiments indicate that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the air have contributed to increases in crop yields. These increases in yield are very likely to have reduced the appropriation of land for farming by 11–17% compared with what it would otherwise be, resulting in more land being left wild. Satellite evidence confirms that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also resulted in greater productivity of wild terrestrial ecosystems in all vegetation types. Increasing carbon dioxide concentrations have also increased the productivity of many marine ecosystems. In recent decades, trends in climate-sensitive indicators of human and environmental wellbeing have improved and continue to do so despite claims that they would deteriorate because of global warming. Compared with the benefits from carbon dioxide on crop and biosphere productivity, the adverse impacts of carbon dioxide – on the frequency and intensity of extreme weather, on sea level, vector-borne disease prevalence and human health – have been too small to measure or have been swamped by other factors. Models used to influence policy on climate change have overestimated the rate of warming, underestimated direct benefits of carbon dioxide, overestimated the harms from climate change and underestimated human capacity to adapt so as to capture the benefits while reducing the harms. It is very likely that the impact of rising carbon dioxide concentrations is currently net beneficial for both humanity and the biosphere generally. These benefits are real, whereas the costs of warming are uncertain. Halting the increase in carbon dioxide concentrations abruptly would deprive people and the planet of the benefits of carbon dioxide much sooner than they would reduce any costs of warming. Very interesting facts that should have impact on the public discourse on CO2, but Breitbart reports that: In other words, we are reading the opinions of a concern troll. Other sources: The Global Warming Policy Foundation press release. Who The Global Warming Policy Foundation are.
  3. Very interesting!
  4. I am a fan of both. Each of them have their strengths I think.
  5. Recommended. Link: http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/a/9/4/a94c4ad5149b279e/cswdcc93.mp3?c_id=9292118&expiration=1435585133&hwt=acd246c85934bd7f591315474fbf5b2d
  6. I have tried to investigate NVC with an open mind and have some thoughts I’d like to share and get everyone's thoughts on. I will focus on the three central concepts of NVC: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. In the end I will provide suggestions for improvement. I will not make full fleshed-out arguments for every statement that I make: I need to cut some corners so the post won’t become too long. Source is the Wikipedia-page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication The definitions: “[NVC is] a communication process that focus on three aspects of communication. Namely, self-empathy (defined as a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience), empathy (defined as listening to another with deep compassion), and honest self-expression (defined as expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others).” I consider pros to be that NVC has a focus on walking a mile in the other person’s shoes as well as one’s own. Communication-schemas that call attention to another person’s experience may in some cases be associated with self-erasure, which I generally think is unhealthy. NVC also emphasizes honest expressions that I, at least on face-value, can appreciate. I consider cons to be the definitions of the three aspects: self-empathy, empathy, and honest self-expression. Regarding the definition of self-empathy (a deep and compassionate awareness of one’s own inner experience) I find problematic the use of the word deep and compassion. To me it seems vague. For example, what is the difference between deep and compassionate awareness? An alarm-bell rings for me when I see this because it seems to me to be an appeal to emotion. I felt a little annoyed when I read that, and I think it is because I evaluate it to be manipulative. “Inner” as prefix to “experience,” I also find redundant since the definition refers to “one’s own.” Is it possible to have an outer experience? I think the definition of empathy (listening to another with deep compassion) is problematic for the use of the words “deep compassion” for similar reasons of vagueness. Also, is listening to another person enough for it to be empathy? I think I am missing a component that refers to an act of processing what the other person is communicating as in integrating it into your own schemas of the world. The definition of honest self-expression (expressing oneself authentically in a way that is likely to inspire compassion in others) I have some criticisms of as well. Again, I am not sure what compassion means. More importantly, I think the condition that your authentic expression has the goal of inspiring compassion in the other could be a set-up for inappropriate guilt, abdication of responsibility, and manipulation on both ends. Inappropriate guilt because if the other person does not become compassionate through your communication it can be evaluated as a failure that you yourself has the responsibility for. This may induce guilt. I think listening and processing what the other person is communicating is a responsibility of the receiver of the communication. If this is understood the honest self-expression is less likely to be associated with guilt if it fails to inspire compassion. This ties closely to abdication of responsibility to listen and process what the other person is communicating: “I didn’t inspire the other person to feel compassionate. I failed and I feel guilty” or “the other person didn’t inspire me to feel compassionate. The other person failed his or her responsibility to inspire my compassion.” Manipulation because this definition could entice a conflict of who has the responsibility to inspire compassion in who. Maybe define self-empathy as awareness to and processing of one’s own experience? Maybe define empathy as awareness to and processing of what the other is communicating? Honest self-expression I find harder to find alternative definitions of. But maybe define it as describing your perceptions, describing your evaluations of those perceptions, and describing the consequent feelings those evaluations created? I want to emphasize that I am not an expert on these matters by any stretch of the imagination so I find it likely that I am mistaken about some things I have written in this post (I only heard about NVC yesterday). I have more thoughts on the matter, but I think this is enough for now. I look forward to everyone's thoughts
  7. It definitely seems like people use SDT on faulty grounds to further their own agendas while stealing scientific credibility. Personally, I find that utterly disgusting on so many levels. On what you write about the Occam's razor I don't feel I really have enough knowledge to evaluate that one way or the other. But I am thinking it might be contextual. I.e., what we use it for or what we want to investigate. For your use it seems perfectly valid to use the Occam's razor. I do want to correct something I said earlier though: "My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options." I don't agree with this since externally motivated behaviors might be a result of healthy negotiation. The use of the word imposed is therefore totally misplaced. I am not sure whether I have much to add this conversation by now, but I want to thank you for helping me think more clearly on this topic. I hope you found our discussion fruitful as well. Take care and good luck with your educational endeavours.
  8. Here is an article that summarize the intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory from the standpoint of the founders of the theory. Search for it on scholar.google.com and I think you should be able to access it. I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a difference between how psychologists use these terms and how people who for their own selfish agendas transmogrify and apply them into something hideous. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.
  9. I agree with you that it is often very difficult to know the source motivation of someone's action due to limited self-knowledge and that this undermines the usefulness of the labels. Still, people do give reasons for their actions and they often report that it is important to them whether they do it because the activity makes them happy or to get a reward that will make them happy later on. Statistically speaking, this seems to be a pattern. This discussion reminds me of this meme: : I will withdraw from this thread now as I don't feel I have enough time to participate further. It has been fun. Thanks jpahmad for bringing up important issues.
  10. Matt: I want to make sure I understand what you are arguing. You think that people do things because they think it will make them happy? Thus, whether people do things because the activity makes them happy or because it leads to something else that makes them happy does not matter. Is this accurate of your position?
  11. Apologize for misrepresenting you. I do think you misrepresent my arguments too though. I did apply the terms to activities and experience. So when you quote me writing: "An action imposed from an external source" and say that it is completely unscientific you are not arguing against what I actually was writing. What I wrote was: "whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source". This makes it clear that I am talking about the experience of where a motivation to do something comes from. I.e., does a person experience the motivation as coming from extrinsic factors (e.g. rewards, force) or from intrinsic factors: "I enjoy doing this as an end in itself". Notice that I am talking about an experience in relation to an acivity and not as a label of the personality of someone. People that label, judge or shame anyone (including oneself) as good or bad depending on the answer to whether one is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated to do something are engaging in a non-sequitor. Therefore, it is not an argument against the usefulness of the distinction. Useful in this context means that the concepts help explain the reality of why people do what they do and the resulting experience of an activity due to this reason (the theory fit the data). After all, words are tools. To sum up: I think you bring up good critiques of how these terms are used, but I disagree with them being unscientific.
  12. First of all, cool of you to put yourself on the spot like this. The terms intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation come from Deci & Ryan's Self-Determination Theory which is a "macro theory of human motivation and personality, concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination_theory I have not seen all of your content on this (it is in total a bit too long for the time I have available right now), but I do agree with you, philosophically, in that motivation without any external influence is a misnomer. We all have those we admire, advisors, parents, and a life lived with unique experiences that can be said to atleast have some influence on your motivations. However, these terms are useful in explaining human happiness as evidenced by empirical research on the matter. My opinion on this is that the key difference is whether a person feels that an action is imposed from an external source or feels that an action comes from a place where many options are available. I.e., you feel free versus limited in your options. This feeling can, of course, be based on irrational thinking/expectations, but it still does explain a lot of what makes people feel good about what they are doing.
  13. What better to do on New Year's Eve than to philosophize, am I right? So I am reading "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff and I want to share with you how I came to accept the axioms of Objectivism because this was a big struggle for me. Maybe this can be of help to others and perhaps I can have any potential mistakes corrected. My understanding is that there are no contradictions between the metaphysics of Objectivism and UPB. However, the approaches are distinct in that Objectivism has a focus on establishing its theoretical framework in a more formal way as can normally be found in philosophical works while UPB focuses on establishing its tenets through looking at what people do in conversation. In other words, UPB does not really contain axioms in the traditional sense other than what is self-evident when people argue. I.e., UPB takes a shortcut and I assume this is done due to it being more effective and practical in everyday life. Objectivist metaphysics, on the other hand, goes deeper in that it uses axioms that refer to our first sensation of the world. The three Objectivist axioms are Existence, Consciousness, and Identity. My error in grasping them was that I am used to evaluating concepts through the method of how one establishes arguments: Through evidence plus deductive or inductive reasoning. The challenge here is that the validation of the Objectivist axioms require no deductive or inductive reason. It is not something that is grasped through analysis. Rather, what I needed to do was to dilute my focus on the abstractions and simply look at the world around me with its various objects, actions and properties. When I focus on just looking around I have to accept that something (identity) exists (existence) of which I am aware (consciousness). This is self-evident just by perceiving the world. I am not sure whether identity are a function of existence, of consciousness, or of both, but I think that it does not fundamentally matter because without accepting this axiom I contradict myself. This because I have to implicitly rely on identity when I use concepts which I evidently do since I am writing this forum post. Another interesting thing about Objectivist metaphysics is that identity is an implicit of existence rather than something that refers to an essence that are in the things. The latter is what Aristotle stated in one of his principal works: "Metaphysics." In other words, in Objectivism existents do not have identity. They are identity. I am not sure what to make of that but I really find that fascinating. Hope that helps and please point out any errors. Happy 2015!
  14. I think you make a great point about being conscious of not enabling behavior like this. It has never worked on me either but I find it interesting to reflect over how I reacted to it in the past to get a deeper understanding of the issue for both men and women. Thanks for sharing your thoughts About the video I now think she definitely has legitimate complaints over how she was treated by those men, but I get the impression she has some ulterior motives like fame, money etc rather than actually adressing the problem in a constructive manner. I think that a constructive way of addressing the problem is to resist sex-baiting and invite both men and women on how to solve this problem as a human problem and not as a female problem that only men are responsible for perpetrating.
  15. I am sorry this has been your experience. I have never been dick grabbed or spanked in public, but when I read what you wrote I do recall encounters that creeped me out as well. I do understand that it is dysfunctional on part of the woman to instigate an interaction by, for example, pinching a man's butt, and maybe it was dysfunctional on my part that I, in some instances, felt good about it too. However, I wonder if the instances I felt flattered were cases in which women whom I perceived as beautiful did it, and thus my shallow parts gave me a rush of happy joy-juice. I mean, it might be my balls telling me that I now have the chance to make more balls with women of high-quality DNA thus a reinforcement of happy-juices were injected in my brain for the purpose of motivating me to pursue that opportunity. This explanation makes a lot of sense to me, but I am certainly open to other ones. Let me know what you think if you have thoughts about it
  16. Bringing the female perspective: My girlfriend says that she did not really see the harassment in it, but she thought those following her was creepy and she does not like whistling. She also says that she would start talking with someone who initiated contact with her on the street in a polite manner. How she would react to compliments she says is very dependent on context. She thinks that women in general have very different preferences for how they want to be contacted. Edit: want to add that I've had my butt pinched by girls several times in clubs and been approached with compliments. There absolutely were parts of me that enjoyed it a lot.
  17. Sounds brilliant with some sort of whiteboard while we discuss. I am not sure of the necessity of tracking the documents though, I am predicting they will be messy and thus hard to make use of later.
  18. Perfect! I'm in. I started listening to it just the other day. Love the structured format. Skype is fine for me although I have heard some prefer hangouts.I am uncertain of one thing though, did you mean we would meet to discuss the concepts of the next chapter that we have not already read or discuss each chapter after we have read the chapter?
  19. Great work! "The Fountainhead" is an amazing book that had a big impact on my life. Can't wait for the next part!
  20. Ah, I see. So a question of memory and them being too long to be useful later on. I have been keeping them so far, and thinking about listening at them now 1 month later is an uncomfortable thought. I think I will re-listen to it though because it creates this feeling.
  21. I'll join. Looking forward to it
  22. Thanks for the tip! I really like what I have read from your blog and I subbed you Sympathies to both you and Kevin for your experiences with your mothers.Why do you delete the audio recordings after one listen? Do you do the same with your written journals?
  23. Thanks for a good read, Kevin! I was journaling by writing on a computer and by hand for the last 4 years, but I switched to audio journaling a month ago and I really like it. Writing is more frustrating to me because I think I censor myself more, I get stuck up on grammar or sentence structure, and it is not as much fun as talking. I am sure there are many other reasons, but I think audio journaling is more effective and easier to get into because it rests on our genetic disposition to communicate orally. Steven Pinker outlines evolutionary psychological reasons for this is in his recent book, which I have only read some reviews of, but it is supposedly there. Sometimes I play the tape back to myself to investigate how I process and create stories about my past, present and future. I find it uncomfortable to do so at times, but I do get value out of it.Thanks for the tip about Mecosystem/IFS therapy. Will try it out!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.