Carl-Richard

I guess my point is that once you choose the empirical route, you might as well go all the way. Then again, I'm not exactly against rationalist intuition as a methodology (as with Hegel or Plato for example).

Are you another one of those who doesn't understand the concept of probabilistic preventative measures? Things like seatbelts, government safety inspections, condoms?

I feel there is something not healthy about viewing a natural bodily function as negative. The way I see it is if you don't feel like fapping, that's fine, and if you feel like fapping, that's fine as well. I think unhealthy fapping is when you're doing in spite of not feeling horny, as an emotional band-aid or just as a mindless habit.

It's called sarcasm.

People might've been pregnant, but that is mostly hearsay. I don't believe people are pregnant today to the extent that it's portrayed in the media. How come I don't know any? You can always find single studies, but there are new studies everyday. Besides, I don't trust the mainstream narrative in medicine that pregnancies are very prevalent in the first place.

Completely irrelevant. I don't know anybody who is pregnant.

I don't see how that is possible. I think of Yellow as Green 2.0.

The response to criticizing SD shouldn't be "think less." That's a problem. By empirical standards, it's definitionally not universal, but it might not matter.

Ah, I forgot about the shared ontogeny aspect of SDi. I guess that limits the problem to just the value systems aspect from the original SD (vMEMEs), which is mainly what my question is about. In other words, how do we know that vMEMEs specifically correlate with other developmental models in cross-cultural contexts? Is it just sufficient to say "oh, the ontogeny seems to line up with the overall trend of the other developmental lines, so that's proof enough", or should we expect a possible deviation from that pattern? I think that might be a possibility considering how value systems might be more adaptable than say the computational complexity of cognitive processes (Piagetian or Neo-Piagetian models), hence my Muslim scholar example. Maybe I'm just way out of my depth as usual

It's one thing to take a model and try to verify it in a particular environment (a flawed process, especially on the level of personal anecdotes and self-report from memory; confirmation bias etc.). It's another thing to reconstruct the model based on that environment.

Nice. Imma find the VOD I like the Tool quote btw

That's a WEIRD joke

It fits pretty well for me too, which is not surprising coming from a Western culture. I'm mainly interested in how they justify applying it to non-Western cultures (and cross-cultural people).

@SonataAllegro The stages were derived from empirical data. If the data only consists of American college students, it's at best an American developmental model, and therefore you can't apply it to non-American individuals or cultures without justifying that somehow (which is what I'm asking for).

Are you up-to-date with the latest health legislation? At least in Norway where I live, it's almost all about systemic approaches to preventive healthcare (primary, secondary, tertiary), health promotion (salutogenesis), better coordination between health services, and patient participation.

Lower consciousness than no education?

You could probably make the case that believing in conspiracy theories correlate negatively with things like education. You won't get very far into meta-awareness or understanding self-deception and self-bias without visiting post-modernism.

All mental illnesses exist on a spectrum of normal human functioning. You have more in common with conspiracy theorists than you think, or what I like to say: we all have a little conspiracy theorist inside of us. It's in many ways a battle against the human condition: of internalizing a contracted perspective on emotional grounds and defending it through post-hoc rationalization. The issue is really just about how honest or transparent you want to be about this process and how self-aware you are about which rationalizations you use, which is essentially what epistemology, self-deception and meta-awareness is about. Conspiracy theorists are generally less aware of exactly how they arrived at their position, but the exact way you arrive there is very similar across all value systems.

People who practice Islam generally need to adopt a more pluralist, non-literalist interpretation of not just religion but of worldviews in general, which is a big ask considering how the West is not anywhere close to doing that. For those who have grown up in the West and dislike the ideas associated with Islam, try to notice your own ethnocentric/fundamentalist interpretations when it comes to your own Western values (secularism, democracy, freedom of speech), even though you might rationalize it across developmental lines (SD also has a Western bias on many levels). You should be vary about convincing people to adopt your own worldview without understanding the limitations of your worldview.

I guess this is a more descriptive model than an explanatory one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede's_cultural_dimensions_theory

You are asking.

Is it true that I will die? Am I in control of death?

Seems like defining being as control is what is petty wordplay.

Why?

Why?