Oh wow all the Fox News viewers are ecstatic about how high silver prices are, which suggest to me that we’re gonna see an influx of ice – detained dental silver on the market soon.
I’d frame “creative capacity” as emergent from our ability to make arbitrary verbal, cognitive pairings with intelligence as pattern-recognition shaped by contact with outcomes but also arbitrary cognitive . If you’re open, I can share a longer essay laying this out.
@ocrampal.bsky.social I agree we likely need to avoid over-reductionism and the self-referential traps that show up when disciplines interrogate their own foundations. econ and psych both study human behavior, but Econ doesn’t have to reduce individual behavior because of different scale phenomenon
I betcha in the end municipalities will be forced to use overpriced, corporate contractors who have little accountability to patch it up versus any sort of new deal or large scale investment in infrastructure.
Anyone who says anything negative or threatening about Ms. Rachel has given up their privileges from the social contract in my opinion. If I win the lottery, you’re free to help me build a clone army of Fred Rogers.
Thank you for this! It’s kind of funny, when Plumbing was the state of the art technology, we used the metaphor that the brain was like a valve or regulator that uses pressure and fluid dynamics to perform, now the computer metaphor for the brain is just as unhelpful and neglects real science
Thinking about Kurt Vonnegut’s statement that an ethical science test is one who doesn’t develop weapons, but really any science whether math, social science or physics can be turned into weapon. Perhaps this was more of a charge by a Nobel prize winner to actively promote ethical use of sciences.
Thank you for your charitable interpretation of my statement, I didn’t mean to mean your thesis at all. I just feel there’s ways you can make your case based in philosophy of science, however esoteric.
My take: Critiquing circularity by invoking a “primordial creative capacity” just replaces one circle with mysticism. Radical behaviorism escapes this: intelligence and meaning emerge via variation and selection by consequences, not inner generators. Frames are selected by survival, not minds.
The assumption that institutional power correlates with psychological competence is increasingly untenable. In contemporary psychology and governance, this assumption distorts both epistemic authority and feedback learning.
I assure some libertarians will storm the Bastille any day now!!
Hey careful, you don’t want to besmirch his legacy now he totally cares about that I’m told
The problem is, we need to be scientifically precise, which is very offputting, but perhaps the literature can apply acceptance and commitment therapy methods to explain these in a more humanistic way that would be empirically, validated and appropriate
Let me know if you want a Skinnerian behavior analytic fundamentalist philosophy of science interpretation ha ha ha I’m just joking. Nobody does that.
Hot take- we can have a true ontological knowledge, but it needs to be couched under the lens of human behavior as a possible confound at multiple levels.
Coddling anti-intellectualism is reinforcing behavior that decreases the survival value of all humans and is thus amoral, prove me wrong!
In the end, I think value aware choices are what you should do and not hold back from your subjectivity as that leads to a better objectivity for you
I disagree on the grounds that intelligence is a non-parametric force of nature that will emerge as a counter to the anti-intellectual and necessarily anti-populous position that will fail in the end. Maybe I’m Voltaire’s Candide, but that’s the best I can do rn for a set of practical values.
Absolutely as religious systems currently have the best control of social behavior that leads democracy, but I have to pause that ontological intellectual systems may have the best chance of lifting us out of our human problems because of a common struggle against the harsh rules of nature.
I’m in a weird position because behavior analysis is considered a soft social science by most, but ultimately is a hard science of physiology of our behavior that deposits some very weird and unconventional facts about human self, locus of consciousness, and free will that are functional, but “raw”
All fascists and those who spurn intellectual power are very scared and insecure about what can happen to them if people with the actual skills and intelligence apply that power over them.
I’m sorry that was my heartfelt way of agreeing with you that while fascist may have better tools they don’t have better people which are in the end the people who operate the tools :-)
It’s like having a disconnect between your behavior and your values leads to disillusionment and frustration. What an emotional roller coaster it must be to have such disconnected behaviors to your values, I would pause it, but those people are definitely mentally unstable.
If we unlimitedly promote certain systems now it’s possible we could be eliminated physically as humans, but then again if we are low-country -of-the-mind and don’t reject any modern technologies of behavior changes in philosophy, we may very well just stagnate forever until we die off.
Contradictory, all philosophical questions are about highest order of abstract values and direct practical actions and behaviors you can take.
It’s nihilism and the promotion of wealth as a value onto itself, as when your wealth alienates you from other people socially and ontological truth, intellectually, in the end, you will either be like shakers and die off, kill us all in the glorious fire of their exhibition of power, or be beaten.
Absolutely that’s why I feel radical behaviorism as per BF Skinner is the best fundamental lens to view science as science is done by scientists, who engage in behavior we label a scientific because it means certain criteria that have more survival value than other systems.
In the end, it’s Pol Pot 2.0: anti-intellectualism at its best practice right now, how dare those assholes challenge that God concepts of those who have economic authoritative power right now?
However, if that doesn’t lineup with ontology that determines evolutionary fitness y’all die, your values are done. So the paradox is aligning what seems like desperate personal values to survive with a big picture of values that give you the motivation to keep surviving even if it’s tough.
For beings with the power to be compassionate is, it is an ultimate value to promote the values and genetics of creatures like you going forward, leading to the reinforcement that you can conceptually live on after death so to speak.
