Owlify
2d ago
With AI, I think we will be able to upend the current system and replace it with a newer better one.
Owlify
3d ago
I can understand why you are advocating for what you are advocating for. But it is a very let's try to add something to a badly run system argument, when the whole system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt from scratch.
Owlify
3d ago
Restrictions and constraints can exist in a system that allows freedom; they don't have to come from being forced. You simply remove the incentives and conditions that enable participation in outcomes you don't want, and introduce barriers to them, while simultaneously creating pathways and support for the outcomes you do want.
It is pretty simple, and all about system design. Kids are naturally curious and become bored if they don't do anything. You create a system where they have the option to participate in all the activities you want them to participate in (and of course you can and should encourage them to continue doing those when they become hard to promote resilience, hardwork and grit, and there are several ways of achieving this without having to use force), and at the same time just don't have the activities you don't want them to participate in (for example just don't give them internet access/electronics devices if you don't want them to be hijacked by their phone all the time). Lionel Messi became himself because he had access to soccer, and there were no competing distractions that diverted his energy away from soccer. The system was conducive to creating intrinsic passion in Lionel, which is necessary for success. It wouldn't have occurred if he was in the type of system anti_dan advocated for. I know because forced P.E. in school never motivated anyone around me into becoming better; and also because when people were allowed to do whatever they want, rather than being forced to participate in the specific activity that was chosen that day, it didn't result into them becoming lazy or growing up into someone who never does physical activity for health.
Owlify
3d ago
I agree that not all school systems have to be ineffective, but most schools are that way globally so currently such a policy will do more harm than good.
Yes not everything has to be joyous, but physical activity doesn't have to be bad either. Kids enjoy playing, and so do adults with the right kind of physical activity and environment. It's only unpleasant when you have gone without physical activity for a long period, so initially it can be tiring and will feel bad, but that's only a result of having systems that discouraged play for kids in the first place. When you force someone to engage in something fun and also suck the joy out of it, the result can often be counterproductive for life as that person forms a bias against doing that activity (like how a lot of kids get maths anxiety, a belief that they are bad at doing it, or it's just not fun for them) in their adult life. It is important not to design systems that have this effect when you can have better systems in place. I don't think that you will disagree that almost all kids enjoy playing, sports and physical activity and engage in it naturally (infact I have never met a kid who didn't like it). You only have to design a system that allows them to continue doing that as they grow older. The problem is that modern life and school systems effectively stop kids from natural play, and then force them into ineffective P.E. classes. The fact you can observe "autistic nerds" who aren't participating in physical activity at all is a symptom that there is something wrong with the current system. There is nothing inherent in these kids that makes them dislike play/physical activity. If you look outside of western society, you will see that these type of children/teens don't have to exist, and it is not because adults have to be force them into physical activity.
Owlify
4d ago
I don't think it is forcing kids to do things that makes them agentic per se, as opposed to exposing them to different things and having an environment that ensures they engage in various healthy activities. Forcing people typically tends to do the opposite, it raises them to be conformative (unless they turn rebellious as a result of being forced).
Note that I am not against promoting sports or physical activity for kids, I took issue with forcing people to do things in the specific way anti_dan advocated for.
Owlify
4d ago
You can have a culture that promotes physical fitness as an important aspect, but doing so in a boot camp like space and forcing them to participate in it in what a school environment typically is like currently is what I am against, because I believe it hurts more than it helps and sucks all the joy out of physical activity and sports just like school typically sucks all the joy out of maths/science and everything else you are forced to study there. Plus, schools tend to be ineffective.
Owlify
4d ago
This is also how LLMs and NLP lexical models like Wordnet understand words. I would say instead of good words, all words are like this, but some words are more clear in what cluster of concepts they are referring to exactly than others.
Owlify
4d ago
Iconochasm didn't ask you to reformulate the concept because he doubts your understanding of a woman. He did so that you don't have to be uncharacteristically catty. If you reformulate, then the curious wouldn't have to each individually go through the effort of getting a response, and hoping that the response was similar enough to yours.
Owlify
4d ago
People should get to be agentic rather than being forced into activities. (Not that I am against promoting physical activity in society).
Owlify
4d ago
To add on to this, OP's premise that people don't know what a woman is, is incorrect for the reason that separating biological sex from sociological gender originated from progressive ideology. To do so, one must have a clear understanding of both biological sex and the sociological traits associated with it referred to as gender.
Owlify
9d ago
What kind of state kills people due to accusations like this? And no, I don't think it counts as violence. I wouldn't say it is emotional abuse either, because that's a specific kind of harm to me, but it is definitely as severe. She was trying to get herself removed and either genuinely didn't understand the full consequences of her actions on her family or she just didn't care (probably this).
Owlify
11d ago
To add on, if lacking the ability to see light or hear sound was just flavor and didn't impede your life, then I wouldn't consider it a disability at all. For example, many people with synesthesia will describe their additional perceptions as deeply enriching and for some it would be fundamental to their human experience. However, I don't consider lacking synesthesia to be a disability. I wouldn't consider it a disability even if synesthesia was a majority trait and thus engrained in human culture, resulting in those without it being unable to understand and participate in core aspects of human culture.
Owlify
11d ago
The inability to experience light and sound both severely affect one's ability to go about their life without obstacles and participate in society. That's why they are disabilities. If you are blind, you can't drive a car for example. It has especially been true historically, with modern technology and social accomodations many disabilities like lacking an arm are much less of a disability that before. Lacking sexual desire doesn't severely impede you life, if it does so at all. It's also a matter of severity rather than just inability. My vision is terrible without my spectacles for example, but even if I lack the ability to see properly and it would impede my life if I didn't have spectacles, I wouldn't consider it a disability because it isn't severe enough.
Owlify
11d ago
I mean that we can agree that we have different meanings of what is considered a cripple. It's partly subjective how people decide what word means what, so I don't see what else we can gain from continuing this discussion. Also, what different people consider "basic to human functioning" would also be different and subjective to an extent. If it was less subjective, then I would have continued the discussion, but as of now I think I have a good understanding of your viewpoint and am unlikely to gain much more insight with additional discussion that would change my viewpoint.
I feel like I'm trying to explain why seeing color is better than being colorblind.
Yeah, this is why I said we can agree to disagree. What different people value and how much they value something is fundamentally subjective. I also think seeing color is better than being colorblind, but I think having sexual desire is mostly a net neutral. I still don't think that seeing color, hearing sound, or having an arm is important enough that I would include them in a set of things that are the most important in life, or fundamental to the human experience. They are good to haves, and not having them would make you disabled because that's what disabled means. I can see why you would consider asexuality a disability if experiencing sexuality is so important to you, but it's not that important to me so plus I don't think it restricts people from participating in society or provides severe hinderances to living their life in a way that I would say is necessary for something to be considered a disability.
I mainly wanted to know your viewpoint on if you also view people who forego sexuality as disabled, because I like poking at potential sources of cognitive dissonance like that. We can continue the discussion if you still want to know more from me though, I would be happy to do that.
Owlify
11d ago
I meant that she is a child more to point out that her current way of living and incentive system is very different than from an adult's and also that she doesn't have the capacity she would have as an adult, rather than to elicit empathy. Empathy is also a good to have, but I do think that her specific problem of getting bored and seeking chaos for fun would be less likely to occur if she had a lot of responsibilities to worry about in her day to day life and also had a lot more control over her life (so if she wants something, then she can figure out how to get it for herself rather than begging the people around her, and it would probably be in a productive manner in a well-structured society). She would also have learned mechanisms to deal with things that cause her to be upset with more experience in life (even if they aren't the most healthy or ideal way). Currently, she has only learned to devolve into tantrums and escape whatever irritates her because that is what works now. I also have heard of people who didn't have empathy for others the way she doesn't have any now when they were teenagers, but went on to learn it. So even if it is unlikely, I don't think that it is impossible she would always stay this way.
I am not convinced that children with this very specific/rare combination of traits go on to be great destroyers 100% of the time. Can you link a source if you have any, or are you speaking from your own experience? Personally, I have read that most psychopaths tend to become productive members of society, and it makes sense to me why that would be. Also, I am curious what kind of behaviour you are expecting from the girl in the future. I can see her becoming a druggie in a society that allows drugs, and a thief in one that is lenient with thiefs, but in both cases I would blame the system too. Apart from that I can see her being anti-social in situations where she has nothing to gain from, but that's not considered destructive enough to murder people.
I agree that it doesn't make sense to prioritise this girl over everyone else, but I don't think that it has to be a tradeoff. Surely there are solutions between just letting the problem be, and "putting her down" that work out for everyone.
Owlify
11d ago
Which action of her would you say is tantamount to attempted murder?
I agree that she doesn't care about the harm being caused to others (like her parents and siblings, but also the people whose house she breaks into) in this case, but I think that is more due to apathy rather than finding it fun to harm others specifically. When I said I think her actions would have been a lot more destructive, I mean that would have included consistent violence, property destruction, emotional abuse, and other things that are more severe.
11 is still a child in my opinion. That's the oldest age given above, unless I missed something. I don't think I had the maturity I do now at 11, and I think that is true of a lot of people. You grow up a lot partly due to increased responsibility you are given by others. I wouldn't say that she should get adult punishments yet, there are a lot more stricter options between adult punishment and her current life that have not been tried at all. And unless juvenile prison is different in her country than mine, even that would be a much harsher life than she is living currently (though she wouldn't have much responsibility there either - you get your basic necessities brought to you and you can't do anything to improve the quality of life you are given, so the incentive system doesn't incentivize good behavior and she will still be as rebellious as possible thus it wouldn't be a good solution, but still better than "putting her down").
Owlify
11d ago
I agree that the right approach is not to ignore the problem because it is hard, but I don't believe that the only thing we can do to solve it is murder these people.
Owlify
12d ago
We don't have to necessarily try and maximize the productive labor value of such people. Even locking them up in prison and giving them the necessities to live is better than killing them. Many people with dysfunctional lives have mental illnesses that can be treated, or they can be institutionalized. There are constraints on how many resources can be spent on fixing such people right now because we live in a resource-constrained society. This is becoming less of an issue as we grow wealthier and technology advances though, and eventually I believe we will be able to give everyone what they need due to AI. I think the main reason we don't see a lot of change in mentally ill and psychopathic people is because we don't spend a lot of resources to identify the origin of their issues in detail and give appropriately personalized treatment to fix them in the first place (understandably so, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be done to fix them). I will also note that most psychopaths grow up into productive people because they are intelligent enough to understand the incentive systems created by society.
I think a huge cause of the issue with the girl in question is also that she is a child. I don't claim to understand her mindset fully, but she doesn't seem to want to be purposefully causing harm to people around her. I think her actions would be a lot more destructive if that were the case. I think it is possible that this particular girl will stop trying to do things such as break into other people's house for fun when she becomes older, has more responsibilities and her actions have consequences that directly impact her life. As of now, her actions don't have that many consequences. She gets to live in a decently wealthy house with attentive parents and have all her needs met without having to work for them. Punishments like grounding aren't really negative if you don't care about them much. She would probably also stop it now if she was in a harsher incentive system. I don't think she would behave in the same manner if she had to work to get money for her necessities like food and clothing, she couldn't steal and would be placed in jail like adults if she did anything illegal or harassed people, and had more things to worry about just like adults. We don't do that because it is considered child abuse, but I wouldn't say that we have explored all the options just because her parents take her to counselling, try to make her understand the consequences of her actions, and institute disciplinary measures that don't affect her very much.
Owlify
12d ago
I guess this is something we can agree to disagree on. I can understand that you see the inability to experience emotions as crippling, but I don't view it that way. To me, disability means lacking the ability to do something. For example, blind people can't see as well, deaf people can't hear as well. A person lacking an arm won't be able to do many tasks as well without external help or interventions. It just boils down to a semantic disagreement here. I don't view experiencing the full range of human emotions as something crucial either. It's a nice to have, but not necessary to achieve the things that are important in life.
Owlify
12d ago
I am not saying either. Ofcourse there are people who have been a net negative to society throughout their lives. It's good to know that you abhor violence, but your initial statement didn't come across that way. I am saying that even the people who are a net negative to society and are psychopaths are still human (not animals) and don't deserve to be murdered ("put down"). I believe it is immoral to kill people except as a last resort (for self-defense). There are many other things we could do with these people instead of killing them that will still make society safer.
Owlify
12d ago
Yeah but not having lust isn't preventing them from having sex, asexuals don't lack the ability to do so. And even if they did, since many people live excellent lives after foregoing sex, I don't think they are missing out on something crucial. I don't see how they are a cripple. Maybe they wouldn't understand sexual desire in their fellow human beings as well, but I don't see any other negative effect.
I said excessive lust since gluttony is already the word for eating in excess. Not having hunger signals is not bad, people can still live a good life without feeling hungry. Also, I believe anger is bad in all amounts. I will say lust as an emotion is neutral in moderation. Saying excessive lust is bad doesn't imply that having no lust is bad.
I will also note that people who choose to live like monks, priests, nuns, etc. do everything in their capacity to train their mind to stop feeling lust in the first place (and also other emotions like wrath). And I believe that it does work, since brains are neuroplastic, habits are powerful and in my own experience I have almost eliminated anger as an emotion after trying. Even in the rare times you start experiencing the emotions you are avoiding, you learn to immediately notice it and let it go. I agree that if someone did not feel these emotions in the first place, then not acting upon them is not a moral virtue like it is to intentionally choose to resist and forego those emotions. Considering that people make it a goal to stop feeling lust and acting upon it and view that as a good outcome, I am not convinced that not feeling it at all makes someone a cripple.
Owlify
13d ago
Violence was only a factor in deciding mates in inter-tribe conflicts. Within tribes itself, women will have enough social capital and there would be courtship rituals to have a choice in selecting their own mates. Even in cultures where women are considered to be less valuable than men, they still some some amount of social capital, and especially did so historically because a lot more social cohesion was required for human survival and thriving. People would know everyone else in their tribe intimately. Each woman would typically have many siblings (and brothers) and a father and uncles for her protection. Rape was recognized as a crime and morally wrong inside tribes, it was only not recognised as morally bad when done to your outgroup.
It's so strange to me that people's view of a normal relationship are so skewed here. It's like they turn off all their rational thinking capabilities when posting opinions about relationships on the motte.
More options
Context Copy link