DocWatts

@Princess Arabia @Jodistrict More detail than you would ever want on exactly what kind of person RFK Jr is, from the excellent Behind the Bastards podcast.

A yellow outlook is great, but that alone isn't sufficient. Obama arguably had some Yellow tendencies, but that didn't necessarily translate into an effective political platform. In practice, he squandered a lot of his political capital trying to compromise with Republicans who were acting in bad faith, and missed an opportunity to be a transformative president. And he didn't leave office with a sustained democratic coalition that could defeat Trump in 2016. Competent Green-Orange politicians of integrity who are able to articulate a vision for the country that can inspire people, and who are willing to fight for it, are what's needed right now.

A big part of it has to do with antiqueted Institutions that allow for minority with outsized political power to impose their will on the rest of the country. This is driving polarization because the most extreme factions within the country get an outsized influence on setting the agenda for the rest of the country. In a country with more proportional representation, Christian Nationalists who represent perhaps %20 or 30 of the country wouldn't be able to impose their unpopular policies on everyone else. This would also explain why polarization is worse in the US, because our institutions are more undemocratic than the far more representative parliamentary democracies that exist in Western Europe, Canada, etc. I would highly recommend 'Tyranny of the Minority' by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky who explore this issue in depth. ____________ (Summary From ChatGPT): "Tyranny of the Minority" by Daniel Ziblatt explores the troubling phenomenon in American democracy where electoral minorities are able to dominate the majority due to the structure of counter-majoritarian institutions. Here is a summary of the key points: Counter-Majoritarian Institutions: The book highlights how institutions like the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate's representation system, the filibuster, and a politicized Supreme Court allow a political minority to govern, even when they do not represent the majority of the population. Democratic Challenges: Ziblatt argues that these institutions, designed to protect democracy, are instead enabling a shift towards authoritarianism. This is seen as a particular issue with the Republican Party, which relies on these mechanisms to maintain power despite demographic changes that should diminish their influence. Proposed Reforms: The authors recommend reforms to make American democracy more representative. This includes abolishing the Electoral College, reforming the Senate, and making it easier to amend the Constitution. However, they acknowledge that these reforms face significant obstacles and may not be achievable soon. Global Context: The book compares the U.S. to other democracies, particularly in Latin America, where less counter-majoritarianism has sometimes allowed populism to dismantle democracy. The authors argue that while such institutions can protect against authoritarianism, the U.S. has taken them to an extreme that hampers majority rule (LSE Blogs) (ReVista) (Harvard Gazette). This analysis provides a critical look at the fragility of U.S. democracy and the urgent need for reforms

I'll admit that I'm unfamiliar with Deleuze, but I do find process driven epistemology and ontology to be more insightful than classical rationalism by a good measure. I've found Nietzsche to be a fascinating chimera of real insights, mixed with egoic self-deception. Good writer as well. I wish academic philosophy would take notes on how to make their insights as engaging as Nietzsche did. Rigor and an engaging writing style don't have to be diametrically opposed. I'm agnostic on the value of the will-to-power. I think its utility is entirely dependent upon what other types of insights it's driving towards.

Well we're venturing well-outside of my area of expertise here. But in general first I would try to gauge whether the issue in question is worth having an option on (not everything is). Then I would approach it from a meta-perspective that's informed both by own values, and the expertise of people with domain-specific expertise whose character and motivations I have reason to trust. With that in mind, in forming an initial opinion, I would try to evaluate the spirit of the law in question, and whether that makes sense for the situation in question. I would also approach it with the perspective that Laws are akin to social-technologies, and ask whether the specific social-technology is causing unnecessary social harm or not. I would then try to hold that initial opinion provisionally, and update it as the situation and my own understanding changes.

1) There is and cannot be any generalized rule for relevance determination. I'll go so far and contend that this is a hard constraint imposed upon us by Reality. Any set of rules for determining relevance runs into an infinite regression problem - where you the need rules for determining how to apply the original rules, and then rules for those higher level rules, ad-infinitum. Turtles all the way down Relevance is determined by the needs of the situation. Best we can do is heuristics which are largely tacit, all of which have exceptions. 2) Fortunately for us, we don't need things to be Transcendentally True for sensible decision making. We just need heuristics that are 'good enough' for what we are trying to accomplish. There's an illuminating parallel here to a concept within evolutionary science known as 'satisficing', which refers to the idea that evolutionary adaptions do not need to be optimal - just 'good enough' to be compatible with survival. Likewise, the truth that guides our decisions just needs to be 'good enough' to fit our needs and goals. (And before you ask, what is 'good enough' is situational, there's no explicit rule that's going to be completely applicable to every conceivable situation 😎). In sum, Reality, as it turns out, is quite resistant to our attempts to completely capture it within any formal system. There are limits to epistemology.

Hard agree. But diving into that gets into fundamentals ontological topics like 'being', which would derail this thread faster than a drunk conductor taking a speeding train through a sharp curve 😎

Because the idea that there's a single, correct understanding of Reality is a metaphysical assumption, which is disconnected from our actual lived experience. The notion that our concepts are correct or incorrect to the degree to which they correspond with this 'neutral' God's-eye perspective is what I'm critiquing here. (The philosophical term for this is a 'Correspondence Theory' of truth). We can still arrive at shared forms of understanding because human beings exist within a number of shared contexts, bounded by our common biology. Something like science, for instance, isn't Transcendental, aperspectival Truth. Instead, it's a form of truth that's reflective of human needs, capacities, and interests. Arguments and statements can be more or less correct from within a given purposive context . Basically, truth is always connected to something that's relevant to you for some reason + something you're trying to do or understand. Perspective-dependent does not mean 'arbitrary', nor does it mean that truth is 'subjective'. In other words, critiquing the Transcendental View does not mean that 'anything goes'. If you want to build an airplane that flies, there are certain constraints that you have to adhere to - there's nothing arbitrary or subjective about it. On the other hand, airplane building isn't a feature of Reality that exists apart from minds who have some reason to build airplanes.

Correct. My specific point was that distinctions are valid and necessary to epistemology, which is of course a human discipline. Not that conceptual distinctions have an importance that transcends our human perspective, or anything like that. Being coupled to a context and a perspective is a feature - not a bug - of conceptual distinctions.

It's like people who pursue nondualistic spiritual perspectives sometimes forget that distinctions serve a very valid and necessary epistemological purpose. And that they can be used in a flexible way, without the insistence that they're Transcendentally true.

If I were to improvise a laundry list of nonsensical metaphysical distinctions that aren't rooted in anyone's lived experience, that would be a good example of something that's 'imaginary'. Likewise, hallucinations that don't convey reliable information about our shared Reality are also 'imaginary'. Ditto for entities like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, if they're invoked to refer to concrete metaphysical entities (rather than say, a cultural idea). Constructs aren't inherently imaginary. If they didn't convey generally reliable (albeit perspectively limited) information about Reality, they would be useless to us. They're cognitive tools that provide highly focused information to us in a way that's relevant for our specific needs and capacities. Referring to mental constructs as 'imaginary' is reductive and lacks rigour.

Could you elaborate on your use of the term 'illusion', and how it relates to distinctions? I would define 'illusion' in this context as 'self-deception'. If you're contending that distinctions are inherently 'illusions' (correct me if this is a strawman or mischaracterization), I'd say that is bit of a reductive take. As I alluded to in my earlier post, distinctions would be incompatible with survival if they didn't convey generally reliable (albeit perspectivally limited) information about Reality. Distinctions can be used with varying levels of self-awareness about their inherent limitations. Additionally, acknowledging that 'everything is a Construction' isn't wrong, per se, but if you define it so broadly that it includes literally everything, it's hard to analyze it in a rigorous way that facilitates understanding.

I actually wrote a bit on this subject, for the book I'm putting together. On the surface, no - biology isn't a social construct, at least not in the more straightforward way that say 'crime' or 'gender roles' are socially and culturally constructed. But on a deeper level, the conceptual distinctions that biology is derived from are indeed mentally constructed - not 'objective' features of a mind-independent Reality. They instead arise from needs, interests, and capacities of a human vantage point. This is feature - not a bug - of these distinctions. Just because these conceptual distinctions are constructed doesn't make them imaginary, however - and this is a common way that Constructs are misunderstood. Physical objects are actually a good parallel here: __________________________________________________________________________________ Objects Are Mentally Constructed (But Not Imaginary) In essence, objects are a type of interaction which happens between our embodied minds and our surroundings; neither existing ‘out there’ in some external Reality, nor as a pure fabrication of the mind (distinguishing them from hallucinations, which present us with non-existent phenomena). In sum, objects are mentally constructed (but not imaginary). Before proceeding, let’s first clarify what a mental construct is. What a mental construct (or just a construct, for short) refers to is a distinction that our minds create and sustain, which is coupled to some observation about ourselves or our world. If we think more deeply about what an object actually is, it’s our mind’s way of drawing a boundary around some portion of our local Reality. The advantage of carving up Reality in this way is that it allows us to relate to what’s contained within a given boundary in a more concrete way (as a house or as a chair, for example). As such, the boundaries which mark where one object ends and another begins are not arbitrary; rather, they are functional in nature. They are our mind’s way of packaging our surroundings into more manageable ‘chunks’ that are easier to interact with and understand. Because this point can be easily misconstrued, the contention here isn’t that objects are ‘imaginary’ (like how Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are imaginary). Instead, what’s being pointed out is that objects are the products of a cognitive process that puts us in direct contact with the world. As living beings that are adapted for survival, objects would be useless to us if they didn’t convey generally reliable information about Reality. This also explains why there’s a valid distinction between objects and hallucinations, despite both being mentally constructed. Since the former puts us in touch with our surroundings and our environment, while the latter does not. Hence, objects are mentally constructed, but not imaginary.

Thing is, a recognition of social constructs is a form of a Construct Awareness. Knowing that something like 'crime' is socially constructed, rather than an 'objective' reflection of right and wrong, does take a level of epistemological and ego development that not everyone attains. It's a level of 'early' or 'entry level' Construct Awareness, in a sense. More 'mature' forms Construct Awareness involves understanding how our ego identity, sense perceptions, and all conceptual distinctions are created and sustained by our minds. I'd venture that social constructs are where most people who do go on to develop more mature forms of Construct Awareness get started, since it's the most accessible entry point into that capacity. I'd be surprised if more than maybe %20-30 of people living in a developed country would have a solid enough grasp on social constructs to be able to articulate why 'crime' is socially constructed. It's all too easy to downplay how much development and education it takes to get even this far. (Remember that the majority of people in the world have thier 'center of gravity' somewhere around SD-Blue)

Given everything that Trump's campaign is currently imploding, maybe the name of this thread should be updated. The momentum shift over the past 3-4 weeks has been absolutely wild to witness.

Not treading new ground here as far as stage-models go, but I find these are useful distinctions that are broadly applicable across a host of different domains. My intuition here was to capture commonalities between different types of stage models, in a looser way that's perhaps a bit more resistant to this more nebulous 5-stage model being used as a way of bypassing other forms of analysis. Rigid Defender Core features: Stubbornness, denial, defensiveness, rejection of contradictory information Resistant Rationalizer Core features: Minimization, whataboutism, excuse-making, seeking confirmation bias Conflicted Compartmentalizer Core features: Inner conflict, struggle to integrate new information, cognitive dissonance, partial acceptance Open Evaluator Core features: Serious consideration of new evidence, productive questioning, seeking diverse information Adaptive Integrator Core features: Full integration of new information, self-reflection, willingness to change, meta-cognition

I thought I might share a fascinating brainstorming session I had earlier today with Claude AI. I used Claude to workshop a 5-stage model of cognitive flexibility, that could be applied across a wide variety of domains and ideologies, using numerous real world examples. I was inspired by Leo's blog post where he goes through a nuanced exploration of liberals and conservatives with an AI, along with the '5 Levels' YouTube channel, where experts discuss a subject (such as quantum mechanics) at 5 different levels of complexity. Enjoy! _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Q- I'm trying to brainstorm a 5 step model of cognitive flexibility, where 1 represents a very cognitively inflexible mind, and 5 is someone with a highly meta, self aware perspective. And 3 is the mean. Let's assume that this model is meant to be applied to adults without any serious mental disabilities. How would the 5 levels on this scale react to being given reliable experiential evidence that contradicts a core belief? To make it concrete, let's say that a political party they support gets caught red handed doing something that they criticize their political opponents for. This is an interesting concept for a cognitive flexibility model. I'll create a 5-step scale based on your criteria and describe how individuals at each level might react to contradictory evidence about their political party. Here's a breakdown: Highly Inflexible: Completely rejects the new information May become angry or defensive Accuses the source of lying or being part of a conspiracy Doubles down on their existing beliefs Refuses to engage in any discussion that challenges their viewpoint Somewhat Inflexible: Acknowledges the information but tries to minimize its importance Engages in whataboutism, pointing out similar faults in the opposing party Rationalizes the behavior, making excuses for their party Experiences cognitive dissonance but resolves it by clinging to existing beliefs May seek out alternative sources that support their current view Average Flexibility (Mean): Feels conflicted about the new information Considers the evidence but struggles to fully integrate it May compartmentalize the information, separating it from their overall view of the party Experiences prolonged cognitive dissonance Might adjust some minor beliefs but maintains core allegiance to the party Somewhat Flexible: Takes the new information seriously and contemplates its implications Experiences cognitive dissonance but works through it productively Begins to question some of their assumptions about the party Seeks out additional information from various sources May adjust their level of support for the party or specific policies Highly Flexible (Meta, Self-Aware): Fully integrates the new information into their understanding Reflects on why they held their previous beliefs and how they were formed Considers the broader implications for their political views and decision-making processes Openly discusses the issue, seeking diverse perspectives Willingly adjusts their beliefs and support based on new evidence Uses the experience as an opportunity for personal growth and learning This model provides a framework for understanding different levels of cognitive flexibility in response to contradictory evidence. It's important to note that individuals may display different levels of flexibility depending on the specific belief being challenged and other contextual factors. Would you like me to elaborate on any particular aspect of this model or discuss how it might be applied in different scenarios? Q- What might be some names that capture the core features of each of the 5 levels? Certainly! Let's create some descriptive names that capture the essence of each level in our cognitive flexibility model. Here are some suggestions: Rigid Defender Core features: Stubbornness, denial, defensiveness, rejection of contradictory information Resistant Rationalizer Core features: Minimization, whataboutism, excuse-making, seeking confirmation bias Conflicted Compartmentalizer Core features: Inner conflict, struggle to integrate new information, cognitive dissonance, partial acceptance Open Evaluator Core features: Serious consideration of new evidence, productive questioning, seeking diverse information Adaptive Integrator Core features: Full integration of new information, self-reflection, willingness to change, meta-cognition These names aim to encapsulate the key characteristics of each level, highlighting the progression from inflexibility to high cognitive flexibility. They also reflect the primary mental strategies or states associated with each level when confronted with belief-challenging information. Do you think these names effectively capture the essence of each level? Would you like to discuss any modifications or alternatives? Q- Awesome. What are the core issues that each stage would need to work on to improve their cognitive flexibility, adjusted for a realistic expectation of thier capacities at thier level. Excellent question. Let's explore the core issues each stage would need to address to improve their cognitive flexibility, tailored to their current capacities: Rigid Defender: Core issues to work on: Developing basic emotional regulation when confronted with challenging information Learning to pause before reacting defensively Recognizing that disagreement isn't necessarily a personal attack Practicing active listening, even if they don't agree Acknowledging that their perspective might not be the only valid one Resistant Rationalizer: Core issues to work on: Reducing reliance on logical fallacies like whataboutism Recognizing their tendency to make excuses and rationalizations Practicing considering alternative viewpoints without immediately dismissing them Developing the ability to hold two conflicting ideas simultaneously, even briefly Learning to seek out information from diverse, credible sources Conflicted Compartmentalizer: Core issues to work on: Developing strategies to manage cognitive dissonance productively Learning to integrate new information with existing beliefs gradually Practicing critical thinking skills to evaluate evidence objectively Enhancing self-awareness about their thought processes and biases Working on letting go of the need for absolute certainty Open Evaluator: Core issues to work on: Refining their ability to synthesize diverse perspectives Developing more sophisticated meta-cognitive skills Learning to balance open-mindedness with critical evaluation Practicing how to adjust beliefs incrementally based on new evidence Enhancing their ability to communicate their evolving thoughts to others Adaptive Integrator: Core issues to work on: Cultivating even greater self-awareness and meta-cognitive skills Developing strategies to help others improve their cognitive flexibility Refining their ability to navigate complex, multifaceted issues Learning to balance adaptability with maintaining core values Exploring ways to apply their cognitive flexibility across various life domains Each level builds upon the skills of the previous ones, with the challenges becoming more nuanced and sophisticated as cognitive flexibility increases. The focus shifts from basic emotional regulation and openness to information at lower levels, towards more complex integration and meta-cognitive skills at higher levels. It's important to note that progress isn't always linear, and individuals might find themselves at different levels depending on the specific topic or context. The goal is steady improvement rather than perfection. Would you like to explore specific strategies or exercises that might help individuals at each level work on these core issues? Q- How might someone embody a specific political ideology at each of the five levels? Let's use socialism as an example This is a fascinating question that explores how cognitive flexibility intersects with political ideology. Let's examine how someone might embody socialist beliefs at each of the five levels of our cognitive flexibility model: Rigid Defender (Socialist Zealot): Dogmatically adheres to socialist principles without question Views any criticism of socialism as an attack on their personal identity Dismisses all other economic systems as inherently evil or corrupt May idolize socialist leaders uncritically and defend their every action Refuses to acknowledge any historical failures or shortcomings of socialist regimes Resistant Rationalizer (Socialist Apologist): Acknowledges some issues with socialist implementations but always finds excuses Engages in whataboutism when confronted with socialist failures (e.g., "But what about capitalist exploitation?") Minimizes the negative aspects of socialist history while exaggerating its successes Tends to blame all socialist shortcomings on external factors (e.g., sanctions, sabotage) Seeks out and shares only pro-socialist information, disregarding contrary evidence Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Socialist): Believes in core socialist principles but struggles with real-world implementations Experiences cognitive dissonance when confronted with socialist failures May support some market-based solutions while maintaining overall socialist ideology Compartmentalizes, separating ideal socialism from its historical manifestations Feels conflicted about supporting certain socialist policies that have shown mixed results Open Evaluator (Critical Socialist): Critically examines both the strengths and weaknesses of socialist theory and practice Seeks to understand why certain socialist policies succeed or fail in different contexts Considers insights from other economic theories that might complement socialist ideas Advocates for evidence-based socialist policies rather than ideological purity Engages in constructive debates with both supporters and critics of socialism Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Socialist Thinker): Holds socialist values but integrates them into a broader, more flexible worldview Recognizes the complexity of economic systems and the need for adaptive solutions Advocates for a nuanced approach that combines socialist principles with insights from other economic theories Reflects deeply on the ethical implications and practical challenges of implementing socialist policies Uses socialist framework as a starting point for innovative solutions to contemporary issues, rather than a rigid doctrine At this highest level, the individual might develop a highly personalized and evolving understanding of socialism. They could, for instance, advocate for a mixed economy with strong social safety nets, worker-owned enterprises alongside private businesses, and market mechanisms for certain sectors while maintaining public control over essential services. This progression demonstrates how increased cognitive flexibility allows for a more nuanced, critical, and adaptive approach to political ideology. It shows the shift from black-and-white thinking to a more complex, contextual understanding of socialism and its place in broader economic and political thought. Would you like to explore how this might apply to a different political ideology or discuss the implications of this model for political discourse? Q - That's great. How about two more examples in a similar vein. 1) Atheism. 2) Christianity Certainly. Let's explore how individuals might embody atheism and Christianity at each of the five levels of our cognitive flexibility model. Atheism: Rigid Defender (Militant Atheist): Aggressively rejects all forms of religious belief as irrational Mocks or belittles religious people without attempting to understand their perspectives Views science as infallible and the only source of truth Dismisses any positive aspects of religion or spirituality May see religious people as inherently less intelligent or educated Resistant Rationalizer (Defensive Atheist): Acknowledges some cultural or historical value of religion, but minimizes its importance Uses logical arguments against religion but may not fully understand the counterarguments Tends to stereotype all religious beliefs based on their most extreme examples Rationalizes away any gaps in scientific knowledge as "not yet discovered" May feel personally attacked when encountering religious ideas or symbols Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Atheist): Maintains atheistic beliefs but begins to recognize complexities in the debate Experiences some cognitive dissonance when encountering philosophical arguments for God May appreciate some aspects of religious culture or morality while rejecting supernatural claims Struggles with questions of meaning and purpose that religion traditionally addresses Compartmentalizes, separating respect for religious individuals from criticism of religious ideas Open Evaluator (Philosophical Atheist): Critically examines both atheistic and theistic arguments Seeks to understand the psychological and sociological functions of religion Engages in respectful dialogues with religious individuals to deepen understanding Recognizes the limitations of human knowledge and the complexities of existence May explore secular philosophies or practices that fulfill needs traditionally met by religion Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Nonbeliever): Holds a nuanced, evidence-based worldview that happens not to include deity beliefs Integrates insights from various philosophical and scientific disciplines Appreciates the cultural and personal value of religion while maintaining nonbelief Explores existential questions deeply, comfortable with uncertainty May adopt or create secular practices that fulfill spiritual or emotional needs Christianity: Rigid Defender (Fundamentalist Christian): Interprets the Bible literally and rejects any contradictory evidence Views other religions or denominations as false or even evil May believe in young-earth creationism, rejecting evolutionary science Sees Christian morality as the only valid ethical framework Might expect divine intervention in daily life and interpret events as direct acts of God Resistant Rationalizer (Apologetic Christian): Attempts to rationalize Biblical inconsistencies or scientific contradictions May use "God of the gaps" arguments to explain scientific unknowns Minimizes or reinterprets problematic aspects of Christian history Tends to socialize mainly within Christian circles, reinforcing beliefs Struggles with but ultimately dismisses doubts through rationalization Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Christian): Maintains core Christian beliefs but struggles with certain doctrines Experiences cognitive dissonance when faith conflicts with scientific or ethical reasoning May compartmentalize, separating "religious truth" from "scientific truth" Explores different Christian denominations or interpretations Grapples with questions about the nature of God, evil, and free will Open Evaluator (Progressive Christian): Interprets the Bible contextually, considering historical and cultural factors Engages critically with Christian theology, open to reinterpretation Seeks dialogue with other faiths and philosophies, including atheism Integrates scientific understanding with religious beliefs May focus more on Christian ethics and community than supernatural claims Adaptive Integrator (Contemplative Christian): Holds a nuanced, evolving understanding of Christianity Integrates insights from science, philosophy, and other religions into their faith Sees religious texts as wisdom literature rather than literal truth Embraces mystery and uncertainty as part of the faith journey May practice interfaith dialogue and see truth in multiple traditions Focuses on the transformative aspects of faith rather than doctrinal purity In both cases, we see a progression from rigid, black-and-white thinking to more nuanced, integrated perspectives. The higher levels of cognitive flexibility allow for a more complex understanding of belief and nonbelief, recognizing the multifaceted nature of human spirituality and thought. Would you like to discuss the implications of these models or explore how they might apply in real-world scenarios? Q - These are great, let's keep them coming. How about Anarchy as a political philosophy? Excellent choice. Anarchy as a political philosophy offers an interesting case study for our cognitive flexibility model. Let's explore how someone might embody anarchist beliefs at each of the five levels: Rigid Defender (Dogmatic Anarchist): Rejects all forms of hierarchy and authority without nuance Views any form of government as inherently oppressive and evil Dismisses all historical examples of functional states as propaganda May advocate for immediate, total dismantling of all societal structures Sees violence against the state as always justified Refuses to engage with or consider any arguments in favor of governance Resistant Rationalizer (Defensive Anarchist): Acknowledges some benefits of social organization but always finds ways to attribute them to non-hierarchical structures Engages in whataboutism when confronted with challenges to anarchist ideas (e.g., "But what about state violence?") Minimizes or rationalizes away examples of failed anarchist experiments Tends to romanticize pre-state societies or small-scale anarchist communities Seeks out and shares only pro-anarchist information, dismissing contrary evidence Conflicted Compartmentalizer (Questioning Anarchist): Believes in core anarchist principles but struggles with practical implementation Experiences cognitive dissonance when considering complex societal issues that seem to require some form of governance May support some limited, decentralized forms of organization while maintaining overall anarchist ideology Compartmentalizes, separating ideal anarchy from real-world challenges Feels conflicted about participating in current societal structures (e.g., voting, using government services) Open Evaluator (Critical Anarchist): Critically examines both the strengths and weaknesses of anarchist theory and practice Seeks to understand why certain anarchist ideas succeed or fail in different contexts Considers insights from other political theories that might complement or challenge anarchist ideas Advocates for evidence-based anarchist practices rather than ideological purity Engages in constructive debates with both supporters and critics of anarchism Explores various schools of anarchist thought (e.g., anarcho-syndicalism, green anarchism) and their applicability Adaptive Integrator (Nuanced Anarchist Thinker): Holds anarchist values but integrates them into a broader, more flexible worldview Recognizes the complexity of human societies and the need for adaptive, context-specific solutions Advocates for a nuanced approach that combines anarchist principles with insights from other political and social theories Reflects deeply on the ethical implications and practical challenges of implementing anarchist ideas in a complex, interconnected world Uses anarchist framework as a starting point for innovative solutions to contemporary issues, rather than a rigid doctrine Might propose or support transitional models that gradually reduce hierarchies and increase direct democracy Explores how technology (e.g., blockchain, decentralized networks) might enable new forms of non-hierarchical organization At this highest level, the individual might develop highly personalized and evolving understanding of anarchy. They could, for instance, advocate for a society with radically decentralized decision-making processes, but acknowledge the need for some form of coordination for large-scale issues like climate change or public health crises. They might explore how anarchist principles could be applied within existing structures to gradually transform them. This progression demonstrates how increased cognitive flexibility allows for a more nuanced, critical, and adaptive approach to the political philosophy of anarchism. It shows the shift from a simplistic "smash the state" mentality to a more complex, contextual understanding of power, organization, and human cooperation.

Doesn't have to be either-or thing. He can genuinely believe he's doing good for the world, while operating from a place of ignorance and self-deception. Which is what I see as most likely. It doesn't make him a good person. Hitler genuinely thought he was doing what necessary to save European civilization from existential threats, which he imagined to be very real.

Oooooph... Aftering watched some clips, calling that Elon-Trump interview a shitshow is severely under selling it. While it almost certainly won't have the same impact as Biden's disastrous debate performance, Trump has been declining in a very noticeable way that's going to be hard to hide. Only now it's Trump, rather than Biden, that's the decrepit old man. Would be sad to see if Trump wasn't such a terrible human being, and if his continued health and well being wasn't detrimental to so many.

A good heuristics is: 'don't let your intellectual models do your thinking for you'. If your metamodels are leading you to deliver canned answers, it's a good indication that it might be time to set them aside. For what it's worth this just doesn't apply to this Forum, but at one point I was part of a Spiral Dynamics discussion group that contained some very smart people, and I would see this happen all the time.

Learn Spiral Dynamics, and then set it aside IMHO. If you rely too much on it, it can become a form of epistemological bypassing.

I've used both. For creative tasks brainstorming, and contemplative exercises I much prefer Claude. While ChatGPT is preferable for stuff like coding.

Scientism is the 'I'm not like other girls' of epistemologies 😆

Thought I might share this write-up for my philosophy book, '7 Provisional Truths', on how Scientism is an incoherent perspective that's parasitical upon genuine science. Some additional context for this section is that it's part of a chapter which critiques Transcendental Rationality in favor of Metarationality, using conceptual categories to illustrate how context and perspective are features - not bugs - of human reason. * Note that 'Transcendental' here, refers to the viewpoint that ideas and concepts transcend our human perspective, and are inherent features of a mind-independent Reality. (Plato's 'Theory of Forms' is an excellent example of this kind of thinking, along with Scientific Realism and Kantian Idealism). ____________________________________________________________ Transcendental Illusions: The Scientism Trap At its core, this phenomenological approach to categories seeks to embrace, rather than transcend, the limitations of our human perspective. Beyond how counterintuitive this approach may seem, an additional objection might be raised. Doesn't a means of accounting for our human biases already exist, built into the structure of the scientific method? To address this objection, we first need to distinguish between simplified portrayals of the scientific method in popular culture, and how it operates in a real-world context. These portrayals tend to overlook the integral role of human interpretation in scientific inquiry. In this folk understanding, scientific practice consists of a gradual accumulation of perspectiveless, uninterpreted ‘facts’, retrieved from a mind-independent Reality. In actuality, science is heavily interpretative; driven by a productive tension between competing viewpoints that, despite their differences, ultimately fuels scientific progress. While this tension between competing viewpoints is crucial for scientific progress, it operates within a structured framework. This framework, known as the scientific method, provides the rigor and consistency that distinguishes science from other forms of inquiry. A more thorough characterization of science, therefore, must begin with the scientific method. The scientific method is a systematic process for investigating the behavior of the natural world. It uses careful observation and controlled experimentation to develop iterative, falsifiable models that distinguish true cause-and-effect relationships from coincidental patterns. Much could be said about the degree to which science achieves this laudable aim in practice. For our present purposes, we’ll confine ourselves to what this more nuanced perspective on the scientific method means for our intuitions about categories. In essence, it demolishes the assumed link between ‘Transcendental Categories’ and genuine scientific principles, exposing noticeable shortcomings in folk theories of science. What’s essential to understand about this assumed link is that it’s derived from metaphysical assumptions, not a rigorous application of scientific principles. The supposition that our conceptual categories are transcendent representations of a mind-independent Reality is not a falsifiable conclusion that can be evaluated through controlled scientific experimentation. Instead, it’s a starting assumption that incorrectly gets associated with the precision and authority of science. The same critique also applies to ‘‘Transcendental Objectivity’ and ‘Transcendental Reason’. At their core, these Transcendental epistemologies exhibit a parasitical relationship with science; riding the coattails of its authority, while foregoing the rigor that makes science a credible source of knowledge. Unlike scientific theories, which are subject to testing and falsification, these transcendental concepts are beyond the scope of controlled experimentation. This would be fine, since not every type of truth is amenable to the methods of science (including many of the ideas within this book), except that Transcendental epistemology is often veiled within an aura of unassailable truth. This is problematic because it reinforces a distorted perception of science that’s disconnected from how the discipline actually operates. At its worst, Transcendental epistemology can morph into a view known as scientism. This perspective, while claiming to champion science, actually misrepresents it in a profound way. In contrast to genuine science, scientism is a murky chimera of scientific aesthetics and metaphysical suppositions. It contends that the only ‘valid’ forms of truth are those that are amenable to the scientific method. While at the same time, it insists that Transcendental metaphysical assumptions, which are beyond the scope of science, are absolutely true. Needless to say, this is an inconsistent, and arguably incoherent, viewpoint; it’s the epistemological equivalent of trying to have one’s cake and eat it too.