Carl-Richard

https://slate.com/human-interest/2015/01/medieval-history-why-are-the-middle-ages-often-characterized-as-dark-or-less-civilized.html One paragraph later:

This is true. People have different ideas about how dangerous the virus is and how safe the vaccines are, and some of these ideas are more paranoid and less well-informed, and some are not. It's still the case that the individualistic meme that is circulating in the West at the moment has a strong absolutist, ideological bent. It's more or less equal to "my right as an individual is to act like an isolated unit separate from the larger society". To then perpetuate this belief and call it collective responsibility, from a system aware view, is quite ridiculous. But it's true that the individual and the collective is always weighed up against each other. However, it's nevertheless the case that system awareness is lacking in society, and it's impacting the perception of the problem. Society as a collective is a huge system of complex relationships that stretches out horizontally, and this is what the virus is working on. In response to such a problem, an absolutist version of the individualist meme, that has a strong vertical>horizontal bent, quickly becomes problematic.

Yes. I didn't participate

It's semantics, I know, but you said it's a murder case. Murder is a legal term, and murder cases are about establishing the extent of liability and punishment. I guess retroactive responsibility isn't necessarily a legal issue. Ok let's say I give a low score. What's your point?

Systems thinking (the cream of leftism) and mysticism are related, yes.

It's a constant derived from another equation .

You're talking about a structure aware practice of law, which essentially doesn't exist . I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to let structures affect liability. Just fix the structures.

Alden's number is the constant you need to calculate the ratio of island-bound socioeconomic privilege and the weight of deez nuts.

You're conflating retroactive responsibility (e.g. liability) with proactive responsibility (taking action). The former is often a legal issue while the latter is mainly a moral issue. You don't necessarily go to jail for failing to take action and become a value-contributing citizen, especially if you're privileged (e.g. you're leeching off inherited wealth). On the other hand, if your environment is shit, the probability of it turning into a legal matter is much higher. However, this doesn't mean underprivileged people don't have liability.

He got debunked by his own comment section lulz

Why you trolling a perfectly good conversation?

Stop ?

The reason personal responsibility is mentioned less is because it's obvious grade school level stuff that nobody denies the importance of, meanwhile the entire right-wing ideology is about actively denying the importance of structural change, so of course that is where you'll see the pushback. If you were to actually educate yourself on the meaning of empowerment as a social intervention, you'll see that it has both systemic and individualistic aspects to it. It's also the case that structures provide a base for individuals to exercise their power in the first place. You can't build stable family dynamics on a pool of lava. You need to start on a firm ground. This is just a rehash of the bootstrap meme.

You're going way beyond that. You're making claims like "the individual is the MOST important factor." Leftists are not making such claims, and they're not denying the importance of personal responsibility either. Ask a community psychologist (they're all leftists btw) what is more important for the health of society: collective or individual action? He/she would answer that it's a malformed question. They're interdependent. Like Rillies said, this is exactly what the model describes. To paraphrase Fritjof Capra: "there are no things, only relationships."

Place a group of individuals in a pool of lava and you'll see how the equation truly works. I recommend getting familiar with the theory behind what we're talking about. Urie Bronfenbrenner's Ecological systems theory is a good start: https://iteducationlearning.com/bronfenbrenner-theory/ Your analysis is biased towards the center.

I would assume you did that as a privileged person from a stable neighborhood/family. We'll have to fix the neighborhoods and wait and see. Again, start on-the-ground.

I'm going to assume that this is not a metatheoretical observation of human nature, but rather of "those people". I'm going to argue for the former: that when it comes down to the fundamentals of sensemaking, it doesn't help to point the finger. What you're reacting to is not the naive adherence to authority. It's rather the ramifications of collective responsibility. This can be demonstrated very simply: What do you mean by "studying the evidence with an independent mind"? You mean reading news outlets? Academic papers? Scientific theory? Are these not authorities? Are you the sole source of that information? From whom did you learn how to interpret that information? The truth is that no one is independent, neither epistemologically nor socially. That is the psychosis of radical individualism. One is always reliant on authority, and this doesn't suddenly change just because you watch one youtube channel over another. What you're really opposed to is recognizing your duty as a member of a society; to see how your individuality is intrinsically tied to the collective, how absolute freedom is not a given, how spreading disease is not a point of pride, and how threatening people's right to survive is not an exercise of individuality. If society is dying, you're dying. No society, no individuality. Is this me arguing against independent thinking as an ideal? Nope. I'm just saying that in practice, it's not something as straightforward as making a choice. If people could just "reclaim their minds" and instantly become objective, independent, sober dispellers of untruth, would we have any disagreements in the world? Polarization is a fact of life. The ability to worry about weighing petty issues like polarization over human life is a good showcase of the levels of social privilege that is granted by a stable collective.

Is this really what is happening? Where are the well-funded schools and stable neighborhoods that don't take advantage of them? You're getting lost in hypotheticals here. We're talking about on-the-ground issues.

@BadHippie If you've followed the threads closely like I have, you would know what I'm referring to. It's mainly a point about the format in which points are presented, not the ideology behind them.

Plato and Aristotle were also ingenious innovators for their time period. That doesn't mean their theories are cutting edge today.

Do you have a specific example of what you would like me to say in this case?

To your question: I didn't watch the video. From the little I've heard from him, Aubrey Marcus seems like a reasonable guy, but let's not forget that a lot of reasonable people have gotten lost in the skeptic rabbit hole. One example is Bret Weinstein. That is not to say that these guys should be burned at the stake. It's more subtle than that.

Haha thank you! ? I can relate to this very much as I used to have anxiety around people just like that myself, but after my meditation experiences, that anxiety is no longer there. It's kinda like you're saying that people are like rocks sometimes

I think this adds evidence to my theory that meditation works (at least partially) through a mechanism of memory reconsolidation, which is how therapies like medicinal PTSD therapy and systematic desensitization therapy for anxiety seem to work, how sleep reduces stress etc. In other words, thoughts are recontextualized in a calm context, which creates a lasting impact and fuels therapeutic progression.

Haha I was about to deploy the broken clock meme again but I figured that would be too accommodating. Again, the trap here is to get stuck on low resolution value judgements like "good" vs. "bad". The overarching point is that society, like technology, is always evolving. Technology is an external expression of internal ingenuity, and they build on top of each other: ingenuity creates technology, and technology inspires more ingenuity. Combine this with the fact that knowledge is passed down through generations and you have the dialectical movements of society. We're evolving towards more complexity and intelligence. This also creates new challenges, and that requires more complex and intelligent solutions. As challenges are overcome, we cultivate collective resilience. You can call that strength. As society evolves, it cycles between individualist and collectivist stages. The individualist stages like to look at the collectivist ones (especially the higher, more inclusive and compassionate ones) and call them weak, and the collectivist ones like to look down on them and call them stupid, because that is what absolutists do. It's also easy to get carried away with everyday speech and concede to using these absolutist terms while also recognizing that the accurate terms indeed are "complex" vs. "simple" and "individual" vs. "group." That is just the nature of language and communication (which are simply social means to social ends; social pragmatism).