Simon Paynton

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,734 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44238

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think you’re right – if we don’t approve of someone, we just won’t listen to them.

    #44236

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    There are a lot of reasons people simply don’t want to hear what you have to say. I’m not talking about agreeing or disagreeing with it. I’m talking about even hearing and understanding what it is that’s being shared. And sharing can provoke anger and aggression, dismissal, harassment, ostraciation and isolation, or potentially violence.

    I guess that supports my point – that people don’t want to listen to someone if they don’t like them as a category of person.  I think part of a possible way forward is to take the anger and accusations out of the situation.  People are less likely to listen if they are being accused, a priori, of being horrible people.  This just stokes the fires of the culture wars in my opinion, much as I try and stay out of those as a lot of angry noise.

    #44232

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    @davis – it’s true that abused women often say that psychological abuse is worse than the physical.

    @autumn – we seem to be talking about a failure of empathy.  I think empathy is a product of what we perceive and how we feel about it.  Empathic concern or compassion depends on how much we approve of the other person.  If we don’t – then compassion is weakened or absent.  In other words, it would help the situation if oppressed victims could tell the rest of us how they feel.

    #44231

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think there is a problem with perceived infantalisation and crying wolf.

    I’m not sure that I understand. Are you saying people perceive those equating certain verbal abuse and violence as being coddled or potentially as making up harm that doesn’t exist (or at least not to the degree claimed)?

    Bleh. I wrote that right after waking up. Times like this I wish I could edit for clarity or delete and start over.

    No, you were right. I observe that some people think that. Personally, I suspend judgement.

    #44224

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think there is a problem with perceived infantalisation and crying wolf.

    #44221

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    speech not being violent.

    Surely speech can only be harmful, not violent.  Violence is physical.  To call words “violence” is to devalue the word “violence”.

    #44201

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Thank you for your explanation Autumn. I admit I still don’t quite get it, but I’ll keep trying.

    It raises the issue of how relational we human beings are in many ways.  I.e., in identity (I exist in the minds of others), in reasoning (I need to explain to others), self-esteem (depends partly on others’ opinions or treatment), and morality (achieving normative goals socially).  It demonstrates what it means to be a social species.

    #44186

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    OK, so I can observe your neural activity while you experience consciousness, but so what? That’s what we do already. You don’t need to be related to through observation in order to be conscious, except by your own brain.

    #44184

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    I think the consciousness article makes sense, in that consciousness is subjectively felt and objectively measured. The subjective experience is a process of being measured by one’s own brain. Beyond that, I’m not sure what the implications are.

    #44176

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    But I don’t know that our brains are wired to put rationality first. So we can use the illusion of rationality to entrench incorrect information in ways we other wise might not have been able to do.

    There’s the famous example of brown beetles which try and have sex with discarded brown beer bottles, because they look like brown beetles.

    In other words, it seems that organisms are evolved to look for fitness benefits rather than facts per se.  Facts are just one example of fitness-enhancers, that humans with their rational brains and science are better than most species at digging out.

    #44169

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    What did early humans think were “facts”, before they had sophisticated language and communications?

    You’re talking about before the dawn of the scientific method.  So probably, “facts” were a mixture of observation, report, and speculation.

    Speaking of “personal identities”, I think they must have been even more significant determinants of behavior in band and tribal settings than they are today.

    Surely my identity is who I am to myself and who I am to the world.  In prehistory, I think the identities that mattered were 1) cooperative identity – how cooperative I am, which determined whether people would want to cooperate with me or not; 2) tribal or group identity.  The group identity would have been important not for fighting against other groups, because there is no evidence of warfare in prehistory, but for purposes of coordination: in our tribe, we all do things “this way”.  If you mark your face with a blue stripe, and so do I, it means we can coordinate our activities.

    There were no survival pressures to evolve cognitive-based, language-filled debating skills,

    That’s where I think you’re wrong.  Facts help us to survive; reasoning about facts with others helps us to survive; thinking of reasons to give others helps us to survive.

     

    #44032

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    Yes, but to be fair to them, they always offer Biblical evidence to support their science 🙂

    They do, lol.  Can’t argue with that.

    #44027

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    something that has no use in everyday discussions with ordinary folk.

    Yes, but Creationists often claim to have all kinds of esoteric scientific knowledge.

    #44019

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    My other rule for not debating idiots is to make sure that they are not doing the same thing 🙂

    Good point.

    #44016

    Simon Paynton
    Participant

    “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”

    What use is this theory to Creationists?  Michael Tomasello used to refer to it in reference to children’s moral development vs. the evolution of morality, but he seems to have stopped using it.  It always struck me as magical thinking.

    I agree that you can’t argue with stupid.  Arguing with a Creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon (which I believe Heather S. also said).

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 2,734 total)