UNLIMITED holist appreciation thread

[Internet Jesus]

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

You just couldn't resist, could you?   

Serial arsonists have better self control.

As I just said, I did not mean this as a derogatory comment. I just happen to think this is the reality of general situation. Unfortunately.

Actually it's more a commentary on how you don't seem to be able to exercise some constraint on your word salad.

Sometimes, less is actually more.

[Dildo Argentino]

Actually it's more a commentary on how you don't seem to be able to exercise some constraint on your word salad.

Sometimes, less is actually more.

I am verbose, yes. Word-salad, this particular instance, no. I do digress and I am vague occasionally. Though I think some of what seems digressive and vague is just an optical illusion generated by the cultural difference. And hasty judgment.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Where the hell is the ignore button?

I don't need a button. My brain point blank refuses to process anything the cunt says anymore, regardless of whether I try or not. 

[Verbal Mike]

Though I think some of what seems digressive and vague is just an optical illusion generated by the cultural difference.

While I am very much willing to believe that is the case, it doesn't/wouldn't change the fact that you're being insensitive to the local culture, as well, and kinda just going on and on in your own fashion with apparently little regard for where you're doing it. Which in a blessedly impolite culture like this one, gets you a lot of shit.

I get the feeling that we're past ad nauseum here. But I'm also busy with getting ready to move, so I don't mind not feeling like posting anywhere here, right now.

[Dildo Argentino]

Though I think some of what seems digressive and vague is just an optical illusion generated by the cultural difference.

While I am very much willing to believe that is the case, it doesn't/wouldn't change the fact that you're being insensitive to the local culture, as well, and kinda just going on and on in your own fashion with apparently little regard for where you're doing it. Which in a blessedly impolite culture like this one, gets you a lot of shit.

I get the feeling that we're past ad nauseum here. But I'm also busy with getting ready to move, so I don't mind not feeling like posting anywhere here, right now.

Fair enough. I wish you a painless and easy move.

[Phox]

In regards to the "How you play the game" bit, maybe you can reframe win/lose conditions as well. If "winning" is "being right", then admitting fault is problem, but if "winning" is "learning something" or "making friends", it's a hell of lot more likely that you can admit that you were wrong. And of course, each indiviual is going to decide what makes a win or loss.

[Internet Jesus]

Actually it's more a commentary on how you don't seem to be able to exercise some constraint on your word salad.

Sometimes, less is actually more.

I am verbose, yes. Word-salad, this particular instance, no. I do digress and I am vague occasionally. Though I think some of what seems digressive and vague is just an optical illusion generated by the cultural difference. And hasty judgment.

Look, it's clear that you either can't understand the point I'm trying to make or just don't want to, so I'll do my best to break it down for you in as simple a way as I can:

Whether its a troop of chimps in western Africa or a gang of bikers, you don't just show up one day spout off and expect the group of primates to accept you.  That just ain't the way that we're programmed to act.

And that's pretty much what you're doing here.

It's as if Jane Goodall walked into her troops area, started shitting in her hand and tossing it at random chimps and then expected to be an accepted member of the group.  And why shouldn't she?  She's engaging in classic "chimpish" behavior. 

All the goodwill you gained in your epiphany thread has been burned through with a number of posters who are important (for whatever reasons) to the group.  You would do well to relax, stop tossing shit and just be for a bit before you attempt to throw more shit.  Because even though you're acting like a chimp, you're working against the local power structure and actually transforming yourself into a "threat" (not really but for lack of a better word, it will do) to the group.  The group may see you as a chimp based on what you're doing, but they don't see you as one of "ours".

If you really want, as it seems when your in your lucid non-manic phases, to be a part of the community and engage in discussion, don't respond.  Just try really hard to understand the message here.

At any rate, my .02 as something of an outsider and someone who can see the group dynamics at play here.  Trust me, power and group organizational structures that you find in place when you arrive aren't easily overturned from outside.  If anything they're reinforced and hardened by "threats" from the outside.

[Dildo Argentino]

...  transforming yourself into a "threat" (not really but for lack of a better word, it will do) to the group.

I think "irritation" may be a better term?

Anyway, thanks for the explanation. But at some point, the analogy is bound to fail: I am not a chimp, and neither is anyone else here. In particular, no band of chimps claims to place great value on rational discussion.

I don't expect you to go through my history here, but that's what I have been doing, several times now, to try to figure out what went wrong.

Beginning with orthographic posturing, and then sticking by it, was clearly stupid. Picking homeopathy as a first major subject was looking for a fight. I (eventually) realised this, admitted it, and apologised for it.

But the other times I was cluster-shat upon, much as I try to distance myself from them, still appear to be overwhelmingly unfair. I was less than crystal clear about the points I was trying to make, but I did nothing to merit accusations of sexism, racism, dishonesty or contempt for this group. Which is kind of sad.

I think you are totally right, I could be in a better situation now had I remained quiet for longer and had I been very judicious about contributing when I did start it. But that is not where I am at now. (Oh, and the Ayotollah, who is certainly capable of being very clear, also encountered the same thing.) If a group attacks this viciously for questioning some of the common beliefs of the group, that group is dogmatic. Even if it is entirely justified in its dogmatism because of the countless idiots who have attempted to change the power structure. I have already encountered a number of stories in which someone came to PD, read a lot, and ended up changing some pretty important beliefs as a result. I wonder, has that ever happened the other way? Or is that inconceivable?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

  Yeah, it's happened the other way. I have changed my mind due to some of the discussions here, and I have had people tell me that my arguments on stances I brought to the board changed their mind. Now what? Claim that it's because I bullied them?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, it's happened the other way. I have changed my mind due to some of the discussions here, and I have had people tell me that my arguments on stances I brought to the board changed their mind. Now what? Claim that it's because I bullied them?

It's because you reached through the monitor and Nigeled them.  You big bully.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

tldr

Fact:  You've spent the last week complaining how awful we are.  Given that, why are you here?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, it's happened the other way. I have changed my mind due to some of the discussions here, and I have had people tell me that my arguments on stances I brought to the board changed their mind. Now what? Claim that it's because I bullied them?

It's because you reached through the monitor and Nigeled them.  You big bully.

I'M A BAD BAD MAN.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Yeah, it's happened the other way. I have changed my mind due to some of the discussions here, and I have had people tell me that my arguments on stances I brought to the board changed their mind. Now what? Claim that it's because I bullied them?

It's because you reached through the monitor and Nigeled them.  You big bully.

I'M A BAD BAD MAN.

YOU'RE SICK, MISTER!

[Kai]

I think the behaviour Nigel describes in the OP (and yes, I think it is a very good question) is partly a spandrel of social evolution. I also think it is partly also caused and sustained by the prevailence of neurosis among people raised and living in the multicultural (and, as someone pointed out earlier, though I don't remember who and which thread, fractally cultural) environment of the megapopulation after being raised in more or less dysfunctional families. I believe this unfortunate story began about the time the paelolithic slowly turned into the neolithic, whenever that was. When sustained and significant interaction between cultures and hence cultural evolution got off the ground.

In greater detail: I think people do not find it hard to admit to making a mistake in general. I think they find it hard to admit a mistake they are confronted with when they feel misunderstood, and when they sense that they are being rejected. Of course, some people are maladaptive to the point that they feel they are misunderstood and rejected every single time they are confronted with a mistake (this is the sort of thing you are trying to pin on me, totally unfairly, but I'll leave that until later.) It is those element of misunderstanding and rejection that make it hard. And it makes it hard because being misunderstood and rejected is actually quite terrifying.

And this is despite the fact that, if you look at it objectively, in this day and age, being misunderstood and rejected is in most cases not such a big deal.

But it is a big deal in a monocultural tribal society. In a society where there is one language, one ethos, one set of customs, one way of understanding the world, in which people who stray from those norms are seen as fundamentally defective (mad, or evil, possessed, or whatever, but badwrong), being misunderstood is a terrible thing. A terrifying thing. It could well be the lead-up to being abandoned, or coerced. And most people (those whose early years are spent in a community that is functional enough) spend those first three, most formative years of their lives, when their emotional self-regulation is fine-tuned for a life in a particular culture, in an environment (a family, or, unfortunately, sometimes an insitution) which is quite a lot like a monocultural tribal society. So their emotional self-regulation, when they are thrown into the sea of the megapopulation at age 3, or later (kindergarten, school, etc.), is that of a monocultural human. Very scared of being misunderstood/rejected. Try to think back to your earliest memories: your were a blessedly happy and sheltered child indeed if you don't recall some scary incidents that involved interacting with strangers who did not know how you tick and didn't much like you.

If close family did that, so much the worse, which brings me to the second part of my explanation:

Most of the people on this board, just like most of the people who grew up in this civilization we share and are alive today, actually were raised in a manner that was far from optimal (in the evolutionary sense), and hence their emotional self-regulation is (to a greater or lessed degree) off-kilter. They feel threatened when they are faced with their mistakes, because they think they can only be loved if they are perfect: their lack of security in their relationship with their primary caregiver scars them for life. Some overcome it. Many never do. Those who don't often find it very hard to admit being wrong because they are afraid that if they do, they will be left alone to die. Those two effects interplay and reinforce each other in a number of interesting ways.

Since you don't seem to understand evolutionary biology, let's improve your argument.

A spandrel, sensu Gould and Lewontin, is a character of a species or higher group of organisms that does not have adaptive significance. It is a product of evolutionary contingency, but does not serve any adaptive function. As an aside, he tendency to assign adaptive value to every character is known as the Panglossian Paradigm, also in that same paper.

So, what you are saying is that the unwillingness to admit mistakes has no adaptive significance, but the measure of adaptive significance is fecundity, not emotional well being. Your argument should be that the unwillingness to admit mistake has no significance on fecundity. Furthermore, your argument revolves around a behavior that has lost adaptive significance recently, which is not the character of a spandrel. Instead, in your argument, the behavior should be called vestigial.

But even with these changes your argument is unfounded. There is no evidence that an unwillingness to admit mistakes has loss adaptive significance, i.e. has lost its impact on fecundity, the /only/ relevant measure of evolutionary success. Nor that it is socially unacceptable (any gander at political battles will show this). Furthermore, there is no "optimal in the evolutionary sense", only "whatever works".

*goes back to work on actual biology*

[LMNO]

Nicely done, prof.