• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Dglgmut last won the day on June 23

Dglgmut had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Dglgmut

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So then how do you choose your highest value?
  2. So you give yourself one freebee, the "highest value." That one is done unconsciously, but then it's all conscious (and subconscious through self-programming) from there. Got it.
  3. Well, I don't want to derail the thread, so I'll just apologize. I did not mean to insinuate that you are dishonest, it just seemed weird to me, and I'll leave it at that. Here are some of Yarvin's actual words that are a complete thought (it's hard to find a relatively short section that can be read on its own): This is from Chapter 4 of A Gentle Introduction.
  4. I don't understand. What about experiments where mice choose a stimulus over food, and continue to until they starve to death? It's a combination of importance and scarcity. It's why sugar tastes good. And importance always pertains to the species, not the individual.
  5. What does "fundamental" mean? What animals are more likely to choose: sex, food, or not getting eaten, is clearly not the standard he's using here.
  6. No, a reversal would be saying emotion comes before consciousness... that's not what I said. Try to be more precise. Yes, so? Emotion is not an "act" of consciousness. Thought is an act of consciousness. Thought is fueled by emotion, but we control the accelerator. So we automatically know pain is bad, got it. That value judgment happens automatically, but that's where it stops, according to you? You realize that argument can be used to support emotions being automatic, rather than consciously programmed, right? If you're unsure, try leaving your family. Is that fair? If not, maybe you should try another angle to make your point about pain.
  7. Because the two are inseparable. There is no emotion without consciousness, and there is no consciousness without emotion. What does this have to do with value being determined consciously? You admit the pleasure-pain mechanism functions automatically, but what about the value of those sensations? Do we know pain is bad automatically? You've avoided my question and it's pretty obvious why... It's impossible for you to explain how we would choose to be rational, because if we don't choose to be rational, then it is automatic, and if we choose to be rational, it is an irrational choice. So which is it?
  8. You said judgments were made consciously, now they're automated?
  9. He's radical in the sense that his ideas are far from the status quo. His practical recommendations are far from radical, though. He basically suggests people just don't engage in power games. I don't know how that gets us from where we are to his ideal society, I haven't gotten to that part in his writing. He is making me look at society very differently, though, and I think it's a more useful way to look at it. There is no such thing as getting rid of power, there is just diffusing it. And we see how diffused power can corrupt virtually every aspect of life. Everything has become political: "the keto diet is racist," is something I've read recently.
  10. You're too modest. Who, her critics? I didn't see many quotes on her Wiki page either. I've had arguments with people who couldn't quote anything from her (on the Internet, of course). By that I mean, they couldn't find quotes of hers to support their characterization of her. Someone said she was all about "greed," I said show me where she uses the word greed... of course he didn't. I think the people who quote Rand's words are the same people who would quote Yarvin's words. They either agree with what she said, or they're willing to challenge her ideas and not just her character. Maybe I don't get your point. But it doesn't seem honest to say you're doing ground-work; ground work implies you're preparing for further work. If you have no intention to approach something honestly, what is the point of speculating publicly?
  11. No, I'm not. The opposite. I agree with what you said at the end "They think you are full of shit the moment you open your mouth. In the stories they tell themselves, people who think like you are the bad guys or the fools." I don't think an argument is helpful at all, including smuggling it in with a story. Because the story in their head takes precedence, and the line of yours I just quoted is keeping them from even entertaining the implications of your story. Either they don't understand your point, or they understand and can now judge you. Because I think character comes first. I suggested above that you state your stance, but no more. You don't defend it, you just say that's how you think/feel. Depending on how much exposure they have to you, the less true it becomes that people who think X are the bad guys. That's what's keeping them from exploring the idea in the first place... because they know where it ends... becoming "the bad guy." Think about Darth Vader; I don't really care about Star Wars, but he's a good example of someone the common person would not trust to hear "reason" from... even if he smuggled it in in the form of a story. Again, I'm not saying stories are not effective tools, but there are definitely things more important to the brain than stories. Things they pick up in the immediate moment, for example... How many white women who have posted black squares on their social media would cross the street if a couple young, black men were walking towards them? They might believe with all their heart that black men are the victims of malicious stereotypes, but in the immediate moment their instincts tell them something different. Exposure is one of the most effective strategies in psychology. It can be used to reduce fear. As far as persuading someone, reducing their fear is part of it... their is also an element of leadership, I believe. They choose to follow your lead, and this comes back to character. This ties into basic psychology as well, because like I said in another thread relating to this same problem, people learn primarily through imitation/mimicry. In the role of leadership you do not pay attention to their bad ideas. You don't contest them, you just ignore them. You focus instead on the good. This fits with what some people I listen to say, which is something along the lines of "have fun." What they mean is for your own sake, and for the sake of representing whatever philosophy you've embraced, be a person people would want to be around first. One of the biggest slurs you can call someone is a Republican, not because the ideology is evil (even though people do think that), but because they're boring and people have seen them mocked and humiliated for their whole lives. I do not think discussing something like climate change is going to be effective at all unless you have established trust. That trust does not have to be established by you alone, and you don't even have to be the messenger. You just help open the door to the possibility that they will ever be brave enough to listen. This isn't selling someone a vacuum, a car, or a house. You're selling them an identity. James Bond didn't sit someone down and explain, even through a story, why he is a cool guy. He just was that way (that's not to say telling stories can't be cool, just that the point of the story can't be "think like me").
  12. You could be talking about Ayn Rand here. You're reading "about" him? Why not just read his own writing?
  13. This is why I make a distinction between consciousness and awareness. Consciousness includes self-awareness.
  14. My thing is this: aren't you, fundamentally, a character in their story? This is where I'm saying how you come off, self-awareness, is crucial, because this is a point where the person you're talking to can consciously choose to detach.