• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Forestluv

  • Rank
    - - -
  • Birthday 12/31/1969

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

26,691 profile views
  1. @Hardkill Some recent polling suggests polarization is decreasing a bit. Biden has nearly 60% of approval. And even though most Rs disapprove of Biden, about half of Rs approve of Biden’s demeanor - which is a good sign.
  2. Ds and Rs do not work together. Nearly all votes are along party lines. As well, during elections, they characterized their opponent as an extremist. And polarization is great business flor media - cable news and social media. Trump was awesome for ratings and clicks.
  3. Polarization is profitable in many areas.
  4. Today's conservatives will die off, yet today's youth will be conservatives in the future. Nearly all my undergraduate students support same-sex marriage. If I say "But marriage is between a man and a woman", they see me as a conservative boomer. Yet when I ask them about human - A.I. marriage, they get uncomfortable and exclaim "No! Marriage is between two human beings!". In 50 years, that will be the conservative position.
  5. A good example would be the recent election. A lot of people on the left feared that Trump would make an authoritarian attempt to overthrow an election result. And if successful, would degrade democracy and co vert the U.S. into an authoritarian state. A lot of people on the right believed the election was being stolen by communists, including election fraud mediated by Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan communists, a deep state and a Kraken. As well, there was fear that democrats are satan-worshipping pedophiles that eat children. Of the different forms of fear mongering, I would say the right was more exaggerated and irrational.
  6. I’m giving a formal job interview this Wednesday. When inquiring about their professional experience, I’d love to slip in “Do you have any experience with 5-Meo-dmt? If so, how would you integrate 5-meo into your computer science courses?”. . . and see their reaction.
  7. Psychedelic and Schizophrenic experience may have overlap based on subjective descriptions and brain studies. Yet I wouldn’t assume that psychedelically inducing a schizophrenic-like state in some that has schizophrenia will help them. It’s not like the two cancel each other out. I suppose it has a chance of helping, yet I would say it also has a chance of making things worse. I imagine risks are higher. Perhaps using a low dose. There haven’t been any psychedelic clinical studies on this. People with schizophrenia get declined for the studies.
  8. @Blackhawk Adam did not have a gun 0.0001 seconds before he lifted up his hand. The officer was in a difficult situation, yet do not distort and manipulate. Adam tossed aside his gun and then lifted his hands. A more accurate representation would be that Adam tossed the gun about a half second before he turned and the cop had 0.85 second seeing his hand without the gun. Even the police defending the officer quantified he had at least 0.85 second to react in which Adam had no gun in his hand. At night, 0.85 second to react is about the threshold in which it’s reasonable for an officer to make the proper judgment. There have been various studies done on this. However, your narrative that Adam had a gun in his hand and the officer needed to shoot before Adam shot him is a blatantly false narrative. The officer shot a boy that was unarmed with his hands up. He made the wrong judgement, yet making the right judgement is challenging since he only had about 0.85 seconds in a poorly lit area. It was a challengeing call, yet doesn’t take “supernatural abilities”. A skilled officer could have made the call. As well, hooded training exercises can vastly improve split second decision making. There have been studies studying reaction time percentages in these situation.I don’t recall the specific numbers, yet I think it’s about half the time officers can make the right call with 0.85s in a poorly lit area. As well, I’m not sure we know if the officer even knew that he had a gun. In that situation, the odds would be shifted toward not shooting.
  9. Adam didn’t have a gun in his hand while he turned around and lifted his hands up. His hands were empty.
  10. Yet the cop might not have known any of this. He could have simply been called in on a shooting and upon arrival identified Adam as a suspect. It is a very different situation if the cop was informed there was a prime subject and given a description. I think its only fair to judge the officer’s response based on the information he had at the time.
  11. In the surveillance video, it looks like Adam stopped, reached into his pocket, pulled something out and thew it. The officer repeatedly yelled for Adam to stop, yet never yelled “drop it”. If Adam had been running with the gun in his pocket and the officer never saw it, would you still consider the shooting justified?
  12. @Epikur I was addressing the brain structure / mindstates of Hitler, Nazi's and regular German citizens. I'm not into red herrings about allied forces. Using a conventional definition of "evil", everyone on this forum could safely answer "yes" with plenty of room to spare.
  13. I agree that the policing system has an inherent fear that can distort risk into threat. For example, if a man is large and intoxicated risk is increased - yet bein a large intoxicated man isn't itself a threat. Many large intoxicated men could be crying about their girlfriend or passed out. Opioids are depressants that would actually reduce the risk of threat. As well, there is a difference between an officer getting a 911 call for domestic violence vs an officer pulling over a driver that seems to be half conscious on heroine. . . Yet an officer might see a large black male that appears intoxicated and assume he is under threat. These types of assumptions lead to escalation. I was leading a discussion in a self-help group and one of the women went into a delirious rant. Another woman interpreted that as threatening, stepped outside and called the police. The officer arrived and with the mentality was going to restrain a psychotic, threatening woman. Yet she wasn't threatening at all. She had a mental illness and wanted to talk about her sexual escapades with James Dean (which were delusional and off topic). Yet the cop escalating things and she freaked out. I was able to intervene and talk her down. The cop wasn't trained about how to deal with mental illness.
  14. Imagine a fish looking for an ocean. Psychedelics have an extremely low addiction profile. One of the lowest addiction profiles of all substances. There are some risks with psychedelics, yet addiction is extremely low on the list. Psychedelics can actually help people to recover form drug and alcohol addiction.
  15. A red herring. . . We don't know that. There is genetics associated with sociopathic / psychopathic brain activity. We don't know what Hitler's genetics was. He may have been carrying alleles that made him pre-disposed to sociopathy / psychopathy. I don't think it's quite fair to say that everyone has the capability to go down the path Hitler did. Someone with a genetic pre-disposition to sociopathy / psychopathy is wired in a way that will make it much more likely they will behave sociopathically. In contrast, someone with genetics that promote high empathy would have an very low capability to go down Hitler path. A sadistic-oriented brain enjoys inflicting suffering onto others. An empathic-oriented brain would suffer if they inflicted suffering onto others. . . There is some potential for synaptic plasticity and rewiring, yet there are limits. . . Somewhat similar to someone having a stroke, there are limits to how much plasticity can take place. Yet in 100 years, we may understand genetics and neural chemistry much better and be able to fix a brain pre-disposed to sociopathy. Socio-economics certainly played a role in the rise of Nazism. Just prior to Nazi rise, there was severe poverty in Germany. A lot of people were suffering, desperate and vulnerable - which allows for the rise of corrupt, manipulative leaders. My understanding is that most German's were not directly or actively engaged in atrocities. It was more of a passive support or turning a blind eye. The human mind is very good at compartmentalizing, filtering, denying and rationalizing cognitive dissonance. Hitler would be a different story. He was directly and actively involved as the leader. There could be many inputs, including both genetic and environmental. Sociopaths have aspects of altered brain structure/function, which has both genetic and environmental inputs. Yet we don't know, because there was not a post-mortem analysis of his brain. However, if they saved some of his DNA, they could analyze that. Yet saying one person is sociopathic partly due to genetics is very different than say an entire race of people is violent due to genetics. They are two very different contexts. One of the key features of racism is that someone takes the behavior of one person and extrapolates that to a group of people. This is conflation. For example, it could very well be that Hitler had extreme sociopathic behavior partly due to his genetics. Yet it would be racist to extrapolate that and say that Germans in general are sociopathic in part to their genetics. That would be characteristic of race realism.