Lingum

That was unexpected. So much better than being mad.

I don't think the fact that we don't have new superheroes is a sign of generational squatting. Rather, the reason why superheroes rose to prominence in the last century is the same reason why the West is dying today. The previous generations gladly accepted the idea that progress would come from the outside; heroes to worship, institutions. Childhood has been extended indefinitely, and similarly there are benevolent and paternal forces keeping us out of harm: narcissism. I think the biggest appeal of zombie- and doomsday movies is the eradication of expectations. As an increasingly narcissistic society, people are looking outside for direction, other people to define their identity. These movies offer the fantasy of no longer living for others. You don't have to do things you don't want to fulfill the expectations you believe others have of you. You are free from the bondage of other people. What now? Well, now that everything you know and love is wiped off this earth, you can live. In this way, zombie movies deliver the most poignant critique of the totalitarianism and atrophy of the modern welfare state. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/09/real_men_want_to_drink_guinnes.html A second appeal is the destruction of civilization and technology. As we get more tools and toys, they demand more of our time and attention. The simple act of enjoying the presence has become an impossibility. We believe that our lives will start when we have finished the current stage, accomplished our current goals. That's when we can be happy. In the meantime, only novelty brings us out of our automation. We go weeks without tuning in, being mindful. Racing toward our graves. http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/01/randi_zuckerberg.html

Great! I remember her talking about this on Joe Rogan, and I was hoping for a more in-depth discussion around this. Thanks for bringing it to my attention J.D.

This is not what troll means. Here is an accurate definition of how the term is popularly used today: I find it fascinating that you should choose to redefine the term troll, but make no mention of it. Trolling has no relation to philosophy. Notice also, there's nothing inherently anti-rational as it is described above. It's devoid of moral content. What defines trolling is its intent and the deception required to achieve it. I always become skeptical when I see people redefine terms. It's a common tactic used to take advantage of a terms emotionally loaded nature, without the rigorous standards necessary to apply the term; a sleight of hand. In this case, what is described, is what this community has formerly called sophistry. Hence, fascinating. I can't help but wonder whether this new interest in trolls is directly related to recent forum events. If the standard for branding someone a troll is anti-rationality, you should be upfront about who you consider trolls so that others can judge their arguments on the merit of their rationality alone. Furthermore, what seperates your definition of trolling from someone who has defenses? You state that you've engaged in these behaviors yourself. I think many people here have that same experience, and were lucky enough that someone was willing to engage with them despite this, to help them out.

You are using scientific theories to undermine the foundation of science; the notion that there exists an objective reality independent of our perception. That could be fine because you don't believe in an objective reality and think contradictions can be true, but then why are you using science to make the case? It's the antithesis to your thesis. Why are you even debating this if there's no objective reality beyond our perception? Do you not notice how much you're spinning to regain a claim? You're in a debate, but you've rejected the foundation for language and communication. Apples don't exist because words aren't tangible. I'm sure the scientists whose works you're using had the same standard for the word exist. "Star don't exist. Can't write that. Instead, I have to accurately describe everything down to its atoms for it to be referenced, but even then it's meaningless because language is meaningless." I don't understand why you immediately jump to "there's no objective reality, only perception" instead of "huh, maybe we are operating on different defintions of the word exist." As it stands now, you've put your arguments in the category of insanity. This is not a matter of philosophy or science, but linguistics and communication.

No one changes their mind when they are deliberately provoked. Yet, some people (narcissists, contrarians, media personalities, politicians) use this approach exclusively. It's just a predictable way of making people resistant to fact and issues unsolvable, by upping the stakes. This tells us it's not really about having a rational debate, but rather fulfilling some personal need.

I'm curious. What's the difference between saving and hoarding? In my understanding, it's a loaded term, like describing a voluntary and mutually beneficial relationship as exploitation.

Some questions pop up in my mind: Do you trust your parents judgement? You mentioned that you were rebellious as a kid. Do your parents know what you want in life and care about? I ask this, because a lot of parents give advice without knowing anything about their childrens' inner life. Instead, they use advice to mold the child into what they want. Did they warn you about dysfunctional women earlier in life? How is your parents' relationship? Do you think they opposed your relationship because it lacked what they have, or because they recognized parts of their relationship in yours? I think it would also be helpful if you described your mother; how she behaves in conflicts, what she fills her days with, what she cares about etc. I'm glad to hear you're out of this relationship and fog now.

I just downloaded my first podcast from the Mike Cernovich Podcast, because I've been reading his Danger and Play blog a while. His content tailors exclusively to men, but he talks about different subjects than FDR. There's very little philosophy, but a lot of fitness and wellness. All in all, a good guy. He reminds me of Stefan in that he takes a lot of flack for standing by the issues his audience have, and is similarly unapologetic about it. The Dr. Peter Breggin Hour is a good podcast for getting some insight into all the stuff that is wrong in psychiatry today, and recent developments regarding this. Similar to FDR, The Joe Rogan Experience is a great podcast for getting introduced to a lot of fascinating subjects. Joe Rogan accomplishes this by getting a lot of talented people on his show. Interestingly, when his guests weasel into social justice terminology and anti-capitalist sentiments, without making any case, he provides pushback on this.

This is some really heavy handed propaganda. Implying there are no drawbacks to strictly digital currency Implying there are no benefits to cash over digital currency Claiming digital currency will help the poor and elderly Implying libertarians arbitrarily root for cash, similar to football fans rooting for a football team, instead of a principle at play Implying we're all on the same team, which further implies digital currency is "the common good" And in the article, he talks about how negative interest rates will discourage saving, but never explains why saving should be discouraged in the first place. Nothing new there. I wonder, do economists just cite each others' opinions? That's what it seems like every time I read an article with or by an economist. They never justify their extraordinary assumptions. The people I know that have studied economics, never make arguments or cite research, but rather tell me which prestigious economist was a proponent of a theory or which successful businessmen believe it. This is also how the media propagate misinformation. They have policies that stories need to be corroborated, but consider what they're told by government figures as already corroborated. In other words, they don't corroborate political propaganda, but rather propagate it. That's how the media is only a mouthpiece for status quo. Sorry for the increasingly off-topic rant.

I also think it's a bit of a stretch to claim this could be working for Hillary. All it does for me, is remind me that the facade politicians create is entirely fictional. The media likes to pretend Hillary is a new woman, a clean slate, but this just brings back all the scandals that have surrounded her. I would imagine it's the same for other people.

I don't know if being uncomfortable is related to empathy. You can't really tell why someone is uncomfortable, from their body language, which is why empathy can be confusing at times. I would imagine they rationalize it as "What if a woman wants that seat, but is too shy to ask? That would be terrible because women deserve seats. They do so much already." The dominance (and comfort) aspect of it is probably what it's all about. Feminists want men isolated and submissive. Keep in mind, I was only saying it was a good indication. I don't think there's something wrong with making someone uncomfortable, and certainly, there are times when you have to ignore it out of conviction. Just be on the lookout.

Wuzzums post made me think about something I saw in (I think) BBC Horizon a while back. From Psychology Today Typically, psychopaths exhibit muted facial expressions and body language. What I find fascinating, is that even though studies show time and time again, how much we can read from body language and facial expressions, even how much we register sub-consciously, we are terrible at spotting lying and insincerity. I suspect it has to do with social lubrication and avoiding confrontations and escalation, that there's a barrier between sub-conscious and conscious, as self-defense. While holding eye contact indicates confidence and dominance, breaking eye contact occasionally is considered an empathetic gesture that puts others at ease in our presence. I've read that never breaking eye contact is a trait associated with psychopathy and lack of empathy. I started becoming more aware of my eye contact recently, and started experimenting with it. The first thing I noticed in one-on-one interactions is that you often take turns breaking away. Secondly, the more uncomfortable I feel in an interaction, the more discomfort I feel holding eye contact with people. The person I'm interacting with picks up on it, and becomes shifty. Thirdly, when I feel confident and relaxed, I notice other people breaking eye contact more often. If you feel uncomfortable with someones' presence, I would consider that a good indicator that they lack empathy. They're unaware of how you react to their body language, and don't pick up on your discomfort. Something just feels off. Maybe they gaze at you when you're not interacting with them, sit or stand too close to you, or stare at you without emotion when you're talking. Empathetic people, on the other hand, will pick up on your discomfort, and feel it themselves. They readjust their body language according to their surroundings. In that sense, social interaction is a complicated song and dance of body language, with dominance at stake. Interestingly, there's two guys in my circle of friends that I've always felt uncomfortable around. I used to say that I feel like we're not on the same wavelength, even though I have nothing against them. The first one tends to be overly affectionate and stands way too close to me when he excitedly greets me. The second one has trouble understanding social conventions and dressing appropriately. Both of them overestimate our familiarity and relationship. I was told by my other friends that the first one has a learning disability and the second one is on the autistic spectrum.

He didn't provide any reasoning, but rather uses peer review as magical words. Is there a reason why he should reject non-peer reviewed data on this topic? The fact that he doesn't provide any reasoning for this decision, only serves to tell you he has no idea why peer review is important in the first place. He has only provided an arbitrary standard, peer review, not a principle. The problem here is that he thinks his assertion is limited to this instance. He can't accept information that hasn't been peer reviewed, because peer review is a better standard. Clearly, it's not limited to this instance. It's endless. There's always a better standard. His demand for peer review isn't a scientific one, but rather a complete rejection of science in favor of nihilism. I find that people who have had some exposure to science, but have no understanding of its origins and foundation, commit this fallacy every time they're faced with scientific conclusions they dislike. This is what science is to them, a tool to cower people into submitting to their beliefs, while arbitrarily rejecting information that makes them feel uncomfortable. Consider it an admission of inadequacy. In this case, you can't. His position isn't a reasonable or scientific one. Like Stefan frequently says; "You can't reason somebody out of a position they weren't reasoned into." He is managing the anxieties this topic brings up, by minimizing exposure to it, but without admitting defeat. This way, he can suppress a bubbling epiphany relating to his own life. Discussions like these aren't always pointless, because the opposition you provide him can results in some self-reflection eventually. However, it's important that you be aware this isn't a scientific discussion. You are spending a lot of effort researching, but he will inevitably move the goal post each time.

That is fantastic. It explains so much in society.