Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
A subject is required when posting a new thread
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists


Logitech G933 Artemis Spectrum 7.1 Headset Giveaway!

G933 Giveaway     Discussion Thread
12 rules for life by Esther Ficklelit - Mon, 15 Oct 2018 01:34:22 EST ID:kbqhsVlv No.209498 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1539581662436.jpg -(13754B / 13.43KB, 650x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 13754
what a joke. How the fuck does this guy get a way with it? Somehow he got smilies, litteral colon-close-bracket's - :) - past the editor and in the forward he is cited as "one of the world's most influential public thinkers". A housemate happened to leave this book lying around so I started reading it but fuck me it's trash. The first chapter which goes on at waffling lengths about lobsters and other animals can be summarised as "don't let people fuck you over".
Is there something i'm missing here?
20 posts and 6 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Matilda Bropperville - Mon, 03 Dec 2018 22:25:15 EST ID:oggYrtsP No.209597 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1543893915695.png -(1111031B / 1.06MB, 1280x909) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
idk if what he says is so much common sense. Yeah sure, if you clean your room and stand up straight you will be a more well-put-together human being but that's only the superficial layer of what he's talking about. It's still a response that implies a bunch of complexities about how (he thinks) society should work. And that doesn't concern his cold-war style dismissal of marxism or the bizarre and nigh-on conspiratorial targetting of post-modernism as the scurge of society.

I mean, the basic problem is that society is pretty hard. If you look at Marxists such as Mark Fisher f.e. they will talk about how society's dissolution creates these individuals -mainly by individualising society through (economic) policy, culture and technology. Those are then people who could use a dose of (his) self-help medicine and will buy into it, it's also being marketed to them. True, he isn't just a snake-oil salesman but the strategy he uses to remedy these problems is pretty shit and an approach from the wrong perspective. Gabor Maté specifically identifies Peterson's approach with repression adn people's desire for repression...

> if you can't love yourself how will you love someone else?
It's possible to just turn that question around:if you've never been loved how can you see yourself as worthy of love?

You could boil this down to a basic nature-nurture conversation and the nature end of the scale motivates alot of JP's reasoning and arguments. I think though that its still crucially important to look at the immediate reality and society that we have today and inform our approach by examining how our societies came to develop these problems.
Albert Branderham - Tue, 04 Dec 2018 14:04:42 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209598 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1543950282288.jpg -(77040B / 75.23KB, 708x559) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209597 Thanks for good analysis.

Seems Ecopsychology partly points the way, with phenomenology, to a reconnection with reality (the natural world) and away from our late-modern abstractions. Which involves digging up alot of unpleasant emotions which have been suppressed within. That one author of that one book suggests group therapy. Ecopsychology, unlike environmental psyschology (viewing nature purely through an analytical detached lens), is attached to liberatory politics and a critique of authoritarian apparatuses running our society. So basically ecopsychology supposes a grounding, an increased awareness of or relation to what is real, within and with-out (internal and external).
Caroline Bombletark - Sat, 08 Dec 2018 21:17:40 EST ID:oggYrtsP No.209600 Ignore Report Quick Reply
does Ecopsychology take after Lao Tzu? I just found this interesting passage:

>In Lao Tzu’s eyes, most of what is wrong with us stems from our failure to live ‘in accordance with nature’. Our envy, our rage, our manic ambition, our frustrated sense of entitlement, all of it stems from our failure to live as nature suggests we should. Of course, ‘nature’ has many moods and one can see in it almost anything one likes depending on one’s perspective. But when Lao Tzu refers to nature, he is thinking of some very particular aspects of the natural world; he focuses in on a range of attitudes he sees in it which, if we manifested them more regularly in our own lives, would help us find serenity and fulfilment.
Basil Purrytadge - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:18:28 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209604 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1544735908863.jpg -(30710B / 29.99KB, 380x240) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Definitely a parallel there, and the author of that one ecopsychology book i keep referencing recognizes as much. There's also the field called naturalistic psychology which "approaches psyche in terms of both the natural ordering of our experiences and the natural 'others' who are prefigured in, or who call forth, our experiencing."

The idea we are a part of a natural order of things, and to line ourselves up with it, is of course very old. This in contrast to the modern cult of technology and its celebration of disembodied intelligence, that through technology we will transcend our human limits. (That's what 2Lw and yG5 were discussing in this thread: >>209390 .) In that book the author quotes another person who calls Taoism a religion that serves life by following "the way" of nature. Which is also connected to a Native American "Great Spirit" or "Great Mystery". As the Koyukon Indians believe: "the proper role of humankind is to serve a dominant nature." This is reminiscent of the myths of the medicine wheel, the labyrinth, and the mandala, which define oneself in relation to other life, their immediate environment, the world, and the universe, placing their-selves within all of it.

>Naturalistic psychology, accordingly, calls for a humbling of the self, an admitting that we emerge from and are beholden to serve a natural world much deeper and greater than our individual or personal selves. A narcissistic culture, however, takes the reverse view, insisting that the world of nature serve it.

Chuang Tzu is an old Chinese philosopher who represents one of the branches of Taosim. His central theme is freedom. Unlike the proposals put forwards by the Confucians, the Mo-ists, and the Legalists, are all different, but base their proposals on common-sense approaches through concrete social, political, and ethical reforms, the Chuang Tzu Taoist branch is grounded upon a wholly different type of thinking. It is the answer of a mystic, free yourself from the world.

He means, through a story of a man named Nan-jung Chu who went to visit the Taoist sage Lao Tzu in hopes of finding some solution to his worries. When he appeared, Lao Tzu promptly inquired: "Why did you come with all this crowd of people?" The man whirled around in astonishment to see if there was someone standing behind him. Needless to say, there was not; the "crowd of people" that he came with was the baggage of old ideas, the conventional concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, life and death, that he lugged about with him wherever he went.

>It is the baggage of conventional values that man must first of all discard before he can be free.

>If man would once forsake his habit of labeling things good or bad, desirable or undesirable, then the man-made ills, which are the product of man's purposeful and value-ridden actions, would disappear and the natural ills that remain would no longer be seen as ills, but as an inevitable part of the course of life.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Edward Goodwill - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 16:44:53 EST ID:h4qbyubn No.209605 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1544737493102.jpg -(88136B / 86.07KB, 822x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I totally understand where you're coming from here but I feel it is important to take Jordan Peterson's entire bibliography into consideration when you're evaluating his worth as a thinker.

Admittedly, 12 Rules for Life is his weakest book. But pic related on the other hand is his magnum opus. I'm not exaggerating when I say that it has changed my life dramatically. This book cements Jordan Peterson as the greatest resevoir of penis-related philosophical insight since Diogenes.

I used to be like you. I used to gaze upon Jordan Peterson's dour visage and feel nothing but contempt. Now I am a convert. I look at Jordan and I see hope, wisdom and a sort of lumpy grey paste that does absolutely nothing to arouse your apetite but is nonetheless highly nutritious.

A friend of mine does the pyro for Jordan's live shows, I'm gonna pester him to get me a free ticket when he comes to my town. If not, I don't mind dropping 100 bucks for good seats. Then I'm gone settle in, drop a triple threat (ecstacy, viagra and human growth hormone) and get ready for four and a half hours of non-stop action.

/pss/ing away the days by Polly Segglepudge - Wed, 25 Jul 2018 18:05:45 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209417 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1532556345180.jpg -(37418B / 36.54KB, 600x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 37418
Why is it that the only two modes on /pss/ are:
>>Being blown out the ass by endless streams of tranny and helicopter ride baiting


>>Dead fucking silence

Are ennui and schadenfreude of such outsized value in our decadent collapsing imagewest that the only reason we can be arsed to slap our keyboards is if it hurts another miserable inhabitard? feelslikebatmantheanimatedseries
4 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Samuel Fancocke - Tue, 25 Sep 2018 16:39:11 EST ID:gE6qChct No.209462 Ignore Report Quick Reply
This is an imageboard for junkies. When people are high, they make some pretty far-fetched and random connections among their everyday thoughts, and probably go on long rants. Problem is, these connections remain even when their high is gone.

If they get high often (they do), then their worldview eventually becomes more and more similar to such far-fetched random connections. Proper students of philosophy don't think that way, they are usually either more analytical, or pull way more things together to form those connections. Neither of them finds any meaningful discussion with junkies who have far-fetched random connections, so eventually they stop posting, or leave the board entirely. We are left with the junkies who have 10+ boards they find themselves more comfortable on than this one. /ph/ gets renamed to /pss/. /ph/ dies.
Augustus Buzzville - Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:21:05 EST ID:JyDTI0YA No.209599 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>proper students of philosophy don't get high
nb lel
Ebenezer Brummlechedge - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 10:23:16 EST ID:iBSGcwPF No.209601 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I minored in Philosophy when I went to college 9 years ago. Students of philosophy aren’t analytical, they just memorize and regurgitate historically famous ideas. More often than not they’re hipsters and radicals. Critical thinking and analysis are not taught in academic philosophy; no, instead, you’re taught to see the world exactly how someone like Descartes would see the world.

Truth is, it’s extremely hard to find a person worth philosophizing with. Most people, almost everyone in the world, just doesn’t have what it takes to hold an intellectual conversation. You/they will disagree, but that’s only because you/they are dealing with unknown unknowns; you/they don’t know what you don’t know, but you/they know something, an extremely small amount of information, so you/they are more than willing to have an intellectual conversation that probably only covers like 5% of the facts relevant to a subject, and then you/they feel accomplished and intellectually stimulated when in reality not enough facts were brought to the table to have a real intellectual discussion.

For example, look as Ben Shapiro. He thinks he’s right about everything he talks about simply because he overlooks most of the facts and philosophies surrounding the subject. To a man like him, as long as one or two facts are present, his big, stupid ideas feel totally justified, because he’s but a simple man who is dealing with countless unknown unknowns.

Intellectual conversation and philosophizing, like any real HARD science, like the theory of gravity and etc, requires taking into account so many details and relevant facts, and the truth is that nobody does this, not even the professionals touting their PhDs. The bar for ‘philosophy’ is extremely low, just about as low as ‘sociology’; all SOFT sciences, all extremely flimsy and likely to be wrong due to simply having so many unknown unknowns.
Caroline Chogglehotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 13:35:06 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209602 Ignore Report Quick Reply
But no human knows everything, or all unknowns. So you've set your bar of 'intellectuality' so high that no humans can reach it, so you're essentially saying that philosophy isn't philosophy. But haven't you then done the same thing you're complaining about; taken a limited set of facts, knowing you don't and can't know all the relevant facts, and then generalized that to make a universal claim about many things which you admit you don't know? And don't you feel as accomplished and self-satisfied as your hypothetical opponent, because they didn't bring in the relevant facts to your discussion...but that means you also didn't bring in the relevant facts? They may know the very same things you do, but assume you don't because you don't mention them, and thus 'don't want to go over your head' ? You would look the same to them as they look to you.

All that besides, genuine intellectual discourse does occur, even if you haven't experienced it. You just need the two people involved to have the same level of expertise in the same field. If you would say that even that isn't truly intellectual, then I would submit that under your definition there are no intellectuals at all.
Graham Wondletotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:45:44 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209603 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>no, instead, you’re taught to see the world exactly how someone like Descartes would see the world.

What kind of shit minors did you follow if you just got formed into a Descartes 2.0?

You ever feel like society is the problem? by Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:04:23 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209470 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538089463189.jpg -(282780B / 276.15KB, 2000x1125) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 282780
not some aspect of it, but civilization itself? Has anything since prior to the advent of agriculture had a net positive effect on society? agriculture lead to division of labor, class, and status. People were happier when they were still nomadic.

I know we can't go back, because we are addicted now, but can we at least admit civilization was a mistake?
19 posts and 2 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Archie Futtingserk - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 19:50:52 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209587 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542675052119.jpg -(30326B / 29.62KB, 550x399) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
You started off right, in that agriculture and industry also have drawbacks, but you took it too far to the point where it's no longer true.
>> enjoy having a greater risk of famine
The reason we developed agriculture was for food security. You are always on the edge of famine as hunter-gatherers because you can never develop a food surplus. Without food surpluses, specialization is impossible. Thus all technological advancement is dependent on agriculture. You couldn't even have enough specialists to develop the sociological insight to understand why you society did/didn't develop agriculture, without agriculture.
>> for the majority of humanity today and in history, agriculture and civilization has made life worse,
Impossible. Without agriculture human populations never could have increased the way they did. Sure, those that did exist might have arguably better lives (in the same way that most animals lives are better than ours -- because they are totally ignorant of their condition or the possibility of something else) but most of the people in the 'majority' you're talking about simply never would have been born without agriculture. It's a bit existential to argue over whether its better to never exist or exist in a life that isn't quite as good as some other people have, but I would certainly take the latter.

>>People became 60-70 while living like hunter gatherers.
Hardly. From the wiki for 'hunter-gatherer':
>>Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.

>>probably no wars that waged for years and years
It depends on how you define warfare. Hunter-gatherers certainly engage in full-scale conflicts that risk death and destruction for every member of their society -- which is exactly what defines total war for us -- its just that their whole society put together might hardly constitute a platoon. In order to reach the scale of society that traditionally engages in what we would call 'war', you obviously need the industrial and agricultural system to support that many military specialists. So that's quite a circular argument.

>>It's easy to say civilization was the best thing ever if your not dying from the plague or famine because you rely solely on 1 food source.
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Thomas Gedgewater - Wed, 21 Nov 2018 19:46:52 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209589 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The idea that hunter-gatherers live the most fulfilling lives is easily BTFO by looking at neolithic art.

There's a reason why the best, most complex, aesthetic and largest neolithic art is found in the Middle-East. That was a crossroad of ideas, trading goods and nomadic people.

The first temple in the history of the world, perhaps the universe. Built on a hill in Turkey by people who didn't even build houses. Fine carved stone slabs as tall as a human, decorated with animals and human-animal hybrids.

You can't come up with that shit when you're all alone with just 30 tribe members in some dark corner of the Balkan, getting gobbled up by cave bears.
Martha Sirringlock - Fri, 23 Nov 2018 18:04:41 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209590 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Not to mention if you're born into the shitty tribe of the valley. You can move sure, but that means months of trecking and surviving alone, just hoping some tribe will take you in and not murder you for being of the wrong tribe.

There's no individuality in that system. You're too reliant on the people around you, and they are reliant on you. There's some good there but jesus christ you get fucked over as well. Just look at how small communities treat their undesirables even in the modern world.
Doris Fevingshit - Sat, 01 Dec 2018 12:23:21 EST ID:gBcfNBFM No.209593 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>You couldn't even have enough specialists to develop the sociological insight to understand why you society did/didn't develop agriculture, without agriculture.
Yes, but you also didn't worry about that. I would say the reason we are interested in it at all is that society has caused symptoms, and we rightfully are looking into how and why a society changes in order to figure out our next move to try and guide the next leap with ideas and theories. I won't deny though that one of the major things that agriculture contributed was continuity. Culture is the conglomerate of human society over tens of thousands of years and without that we would not have been able to amass knowledge that can only be discovered with time outside the range of a single humans lifetime. But we also didn't need that knowledge with the limited things we had to deal with in a lifetime.

>>Researchers Gurven and Kaplan have estimated that around 57% of hunter-gatherers reach the age of 15. Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45. This places the life expectancy between 21 and 37 years.
Yes, so they had a preadult mortality rate of over 50%. If you look at it like that the average age was 45+, Crorrywell saying people became 60-70 while huntergatherer is not actually disproven, I tried to access the citation in the wiki article to see if there was a percentage of people who reached 60, but the direct link doesn't work and I didn't feel like putting more effort into it.

>>Without agriculture human populations never could have increased the way they did.
More humans=/=Better life. For the majority of the time agriculture has been a part of society, beyond the huntergather/agriculture mix type societal structure that still existed in the beginning, the majority of humans have been serfs to an increasingly small portion of humans. Not only were the farmers serfs to their leader, but every functional society worth position was based off of being serfs to support or economize the agriculture industry, especially when we began to farm animals. Bakers, blacksmiths, weavers, tanners, coopers, cobblers, knights, you name it. They supported them, proccessed their produce, made transportation of goods possible, protected them, made everyones tools to do so, It made specialization possible, but only after the result of enslaving humans to society, and it was not the goal.

>>It depends on how you define warfare.
He obviously means conflicts that kill large percentages of the human race. Which as you agree, can only be possible with large enduring social structures, and while a single tribe of less then 150 would be wiped out(maybe not most, but all the men of course, most likely including the male children), that doesn't represent a risk to the extiction of the human race.

>>You really have it out for food security, don't you?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Clara Subblemore - Sun, 02 Dec 2018 19:24:22 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209594 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>If you look at it like that the average age was 45+
The average age of living people might have been, but that's not what the concept of life expectancy means. If 57% of the population died before 15, it's mathematically impossible for the average age to be 45, unless some people lived to be hundreds of years old. You essentially can't shake mortality out of life expectancy and expect it to mean anything. And, just because you don't like the concept of life expectancy doesn't mean its meaningless. It matters that people die; if it doesn't matter to you from a human pain and suffering perspective, think about all the energy and resources that went into making that person?

>>More humans=/=Better life.
I think you're missing the really salient, very basic point. If there was no agriculture, *you* would not be alive. So would countless millions of other people. You don't have the right to declare that it would have been better if they and you had never existed, based on your subjective preference for another history that never actually happened. At the very least, its nonsensical from the perspective of a utilitarian ethic, as you are robbing all utility from the millions of unborn in this permanent hunter-gatherer state. Under what ethic or philosophy could you argue that, because people's lives are bad, or agriculture enabled them to be enslaved, or whatever, that because of that it would be better if they had never been born in the first place?

>>a risk to the extiction of the human race
Warfare never posed an existential threat to humanity until we developed nuclear weapons. In almost all wars, more people died of disease than the actual warfare. And it depends on how you define 'large percentage' but basically no war ever has killed off a double digit percentage of the human population. However, with diseases and famine, that has happened regularly.

>>food security, and that that society may not be needed for that
How? How can one possibly become food secure as hunter-gatherers?

>> less asthmatic genetics surviving in the gene pool if we didn't save them
If you would have died in the wild, and you believe that would have removed asthmatic genes from the pool, then why didn't that happen during the half a million years that humans did live in the wild?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck by Polly Pockson - Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:29:08 EST ID:4G6UWnoK No.209484 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538972948176.gif -(405203B / 395.71KB, 499x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 405203
>Brother has personality disorder
>Diagnosed bipolar but it's definitely antisocial (sociopath), and probably narcissistic too.
>He's owed me money for like four years now. Spends every extra cent he gets on super strong weed and video games.
>Excuse is he's so depressed. He convinced his doctor to give him a high dose of antidepressants which make his manic symptoms worse and more frequent.
>Anytime an issue is brought up he'll go to any lengths to justify his position on the matter. He'll stand there and talk at full volume at you, for hours of you let him, until you admit defeat or do something to piss him off enough for him to leave you alone. He doesn't take advice from anyone. Weed, depending on the strain, just makes him more excited/agitated.
>He just came home raving about his newest idea he won't go through with, acting like he's on meth.

He's only gotten worse over the years. I know the solution is to move away (but I'd feel a little bad because I'm pretty much his only friend). I'm mostly just venting here. I guess if anyone else has any ideas that would be cool.
13 posts omitted. Click Reply to view.
Cedric Lightford - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 05:54:17 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209565 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>Neurosis: A chronic disorder featuring irritability of the nervous system (nervousness) and characterized by anxiety and/or extreme behavior dedicated to avoid anxiety situations.

Is this wrong? Does this sound anything like a psychopath to you? Does this sound like somebody with no fear or emotions(psychopath)? Every person I've ever met who seemed like a sociopath was at some point in their life abused or emotional damaged and ended up unable to deal with reality as a result. They dissociate and withdraw from reality and they gain their power back by abusing people and making themselves feel bigger. In my understanding it's completely different than psychopathy and has always been associated with trauma.
Eugene Werringham - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 19:51:37 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209566 Ignore Report Quick Reply
My god you have gotten huffy over this haven't you?
>>If I'm wrong blame the information and provide proof.
That's what I did. I said where you were educating yourself from was leading you astray. You apparently interpreted that as a personal attack and responded in kind.

>>Isn't neurosis literally defined compared to psychosis as having causes related to stress/emotion/trauma
No, the defining characteristic of neurosis is having abnormal, disordered or illogical patterns of thought that are highly idiosyncratic. Any number of things can cause neurosis, but any psychological condition that isn't caused by a neurological condition is inherently caused by stress/trauma, those are the only two options.

>> Everything on the internet contradicts everything else.
Not really, at least if you keep to proper sources. I can see how it might if you don't understand the way technical terms are being used, which is what is happening here, as you are lumping a bunch of unrelated stuff together merely because they seem to go together "Every person I've ever met who seemed like a sociopath" well did you ever consider that the definition of sociopath you learned from movies and such isn't the definition psychologists use? The same is at issue with psychopathy; while psychopathy was never strictly defined, and it is used by the public to mean a wide variety of behaviors stretching from neurosis to schizophrenia. If we used technical terms in the layman sense, they would no longer be technical or even scientific. It's worth noting that psychologists don't really use the terms psychopath or sociopath for this reason; which is why I was trying to point you to the fact that what you're looking at are extreme evolutions of psychosis and neurosis, which are scientifically defined.

>>You didn't explain psychopathy that isn't psychotic or caused by delusions
When the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy was coined by George Partridge, the intent was to distinguish anti-social behavior that was neurologically caused from that which was environmentally caused -- basically to tie the -pathic concept to neurosis and psychosis, which had just been defined at that point ca. 1930. Socio-pathy was introduced as an alternative to psychopathy that emphasized the social causes of the disease. Neither is a DSM recognized condition, but both went on to influence the related antisocial and dissocial personality disorders. So, psychopathy that isn't caused by delusions, is sociopathy, since the latter is caused by disorder responses, the former by disordered perceptions. One is an error in input, one is an error in output.

>>If you're going to speak in facts I'd appreciate a source
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hamilton Choffinghirk - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:27:06 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209567 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>My god you have gotten huffy over this haven't you?
I'm just slightly pissy that you're claiming to be an expert and not explaining anything. I'm asking because I genuinely find this stuff interesting and I want to figure out if I should believe you or not. It's all good man

>I can see how it might if you don't understand the way technical terms are being used
It's a problem with sources. They are being used wrongly in the first place and I'm just trying to figure out what is the right way to use them. Pretty much any article/diagram that isn't an actual scientific study seems full of shit because they all say something different about the subject and tend to contradict eachother. I don't know if there is a proper website or textbook or something to go by without going to university, but there were literally several websites and infographics with completely wrong information according to you. Wikipedia would have honestly been a better source than trying to read all this wannabe psychology clickbait.

> It's worth noting that psychologists don't really use the terms psychopath or sociopath for this reason
Is it possible that these concepts are not only confusing but just not properly defined in the first place? I wouldn't use them either and I like what you said about psychosis and neurosis. Like I said in my original post I think a lot of these "disorders" are BS , at least in the way they are commonly used, and a lot of "professionals" using the terms don't seem to have any real insight into issue which it seems like we're both trying to do here.

>When the distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy was coined by George Partridge...
The rest of your post is the kind of answers I was hoping to get. Thank you. I might have more to say later but you've given me stuff to look into.
Betsy Brookham - Sat, 10 Nov 2018 19:16:20 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209568 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks mate, was really just trying to steer you toward a more proper understanding of the material you were trying to engage. I realize if I had just said what I said without mentioning the spoiler, it would have gone over easier because everyone is inherently hostile to claims of expert knowledge online, even if it happens to be true.

>>Wikipedia would have honestly been a better source
Wikipedia is actually good and its sad how often it is dunked on now. If anyone is ever doubting the quality of a wiki article, check out the discussion page. If its a constant edit war (like a lot of the psychology entries are) the odds are its a pretty good article. Stay far away from shit like Psychology Today and its clones which are full of 'eat pray love' feel-good bullshit. Also be highly suspicious of people claiming 'if you have this...this means that', when you see fake psychologists they will act like they can tell the weather from if you were grumpy two weeks ago, whereas real psychologists are very circumspect, like proper scientists...'there seems to be a slight correlation...statistically this could match our theoretical construct...but more study is needed and x y z are ways this material could be misinterpreted' kinda stuff. Its hard, but the more time you spend studying the literature of any science the easier time you will have telling the real stuff from pretenders...almost universally the latter claims it can tell you more about everything, the former claims it can tell you very little about a specific thing.

>>Is it possible that these concepts are not only confusing but just not properly defined in the first place
Positively that's the reason. They were never properly defined, and when psychologists tried to rigorously define them, they found they couldn't, because they aren't distinct psychological phenomena but colloquially defined clusters of other phenomena. They're really more of a social or legal concept, like the notion of 'criminally insane' which, of course, is a legal, not scientific idea.

>> I might have more to say later but you've given me stuff to look into.
Good luck!
Samuel Turveyhood - Sun, 25 Nov 2018 07:07:24 EST ID:UsYodcqs No.209591 Ignore Report Quick Reply
His personality is what antidepressants do to people at high doses.

transphobia by Isabella Danningstick - Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:48:12 EST ID:D27gVweR No.208297 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1501174092415.jpg -(15352B / 14.99KB, 532x320) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 15352
Why is there so much more visceral hatred of trans people than gay or bi people? I've noticed this for a while but comment sections of recent news articles really brought it to light. I keep seeing over and over again people saying stuff like "I don't mind gays but trans people are mentally ill blahblah SJWs something something free speech" and people making a million "logical" excuses as to why trans people shouldn't have certain rights that don't really make sense and do nothing to really hide their irrational contempt but why is that really? Is it just because trans people are more noticeable? Less physically appealing generally to most people? "Icky"? I feel like anti-SJW crusaders have made this the hill they want to die on and it doesn't make a lot of sense considering the amount of trans people in their own community is vastly higher than average.

Also while I don't think it matters to save us some posts on this incredibly slow board I'm neither trans nor gay and I don't really get on the liberal outrage train very often I'm just a mostly neutral, vaguely left-leaning party.
198 posts and 26 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Hannah Bliggleforth - Fri, 26 Oct 2018 17:25:47 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209527 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ok, I guess rhetorical questions go straight over your head even when you have them pointed out to you twice. By saying 'if you do care, that means constructs have tangible effects' I am pre-emptively rejected everything you said here. The idea that constructs are human made and therefore cannot affect you in any way is so fucking stupid I can't believe you actually think it. You also were emphatically unable to define construct, so I'm still convinced you don't even know what the word means. 'America' is a construct. It is an intangible concept created by and existing solely because of humans. Now, tell yourself that if America is a construct that means it can't touch you -- while it drops drone bombs on your head. Constructs have tangible effects all the time, that's not cognitive dissonance, that's reality.

>>you'd use clothes, actions, tones etc from both genders and more
This is what transgender people do. This is what violating gender norms is, and it happens all the time. In fact, we were talking about how transgenderism erodes the general concept of gender norms by its very existence just a few posts before you came in. So you're saying 'if this is true, you should do this.' We do this, so now what?

Well said
Priscilla Brookdock - Sat, 27 Oct 2018 21:10:15 EST ID:K8efSmbs No.209534 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Because it has more components. Bi and gay are just who you have sex with. Trans has a medication body modification and bigots most likely hate being attracted to someone with a penis who looks feminine and vice versa. People sometimes hate people with tattoos. Just simple body modification. There is nothing wrong with having more components to what you do, but there is more reasons people will point to that they disagree with.
Ian Ginningfoot - Sun, 28 Oct 2018 18:51:11 EST ID:ejXS6pHc No.209536 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>This is what transgender people do

No, that's what some genderfluid people do. Transgender people usually stick to one gender and want to be treated as one gender, which was my point. If you can't freely switch between one gender and another, or even invent something completely new using the pieces of the ruin that once was this thing called gender, you haven't transcended it, simple as that. Transgenderism in fact reinforces genders as something more, that they are more than something we made up, precisely because transgender people care about sticking to one or the other. And when they say "I transitioned and that proves I transcended genders" they sound exactly like a muslim saying "I converted to christianity and that proves I transcended religion". If this person would then even go as far as saying "religions are just social constructs", how would you take their word if not as absolute bullshit? As a thing someone pretending to be above it while they actually aren't would say? Until you can't help but have a belief, you haven't transcended shit, you're just parroting the words of someone who actually did.

>Constructs have tangible effects all the time, that's not cognitive dissonance, that's reality.

People's actions have tangible effects, not constructs. People believing these constructs are real have tangible effects. You're just removing people's responsibilities for believing in these concepts and doing something because of these beliefs from the picture - and then blaming the concepts.

Until you haven't learned to fake believing in something whenever it suits you, only to immediately discard it when it doesn't, you haven't really taken control of the belief, rather the opposite has happened. When you've made that step, THEN you can say "x is just a concept" and mean it. Until that moment, you're just a helpless believer, lying to yourself about your condition.
Graham Pockspear - Mon, 29 Oct 2018 01:21:26 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209538 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>No, that's what some genderfluid people do.
No, that's an oversimplification and a false dichotomy. Genderfluidity is encompassed under the heading of transgenderism.

>>Transgender people usually stick to one gender and want to be treated as one gender, which was my point.
People have gotten pretty loosy goosy with the definitions in the past couple of years, but technically, that's a transsexual person, not a transgender person (the former being a subset of the latter.)

>> even invent something completely new using the pieces of the ruin that once was this thing called gender, you haven't transcended it
But, again, this is what transgender people (using the big tent definition) do. Ever heard of two-spirits? Ever heard of third gender? How about ever read any actual transgender theory by transgender authors expanding on the ways gender non-conformity disrupts the general concept of gender roles? You have an extremely narrow perspective on the situation, and are then surprised that the people you are dealing with have a narrow view. No, you actually aren't interacting with the other perspective at all, you just have no idea what they actually think, and are arguing with a strawman constructed of your own limited experience.

More to the point, things that are constructs have real effect. That's why it's important to utilize constructs, even if you'd rather not -- deliberate refusal to even be aware of their consequences is potentially fatal, in a literal sense in this case. It's all well and good to say 'I'm a third gender that transcends all definitions and categorizations!' but at the end of the day, there are two bathroom stalls to choose from, and two sections in the clothing store. The construct does not cease to exist by your recognition of it as a construct, and thus you must continue to interact with it, although hopefully with a deeper understanding.

Just like, again, you can be totally over the concept of your nation's power and authority being absolute, and that won't in any way prevent them from exerting that power over you if you attempt to ignore it.

>>People believing these constructs are real have tangible effects
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Priscilla Honnerstone - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 22:44:24 EST ID:RdQJt0Bn No.209588 Ignore Report Quick Reply

"Nothing can be changed except ourselves" by Cedric Wablingnare - Sun, 04 Nov 2018 13:01:29 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209555 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1541354489548.jpg -(20956B / 20.46KB, 355x355) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 20956
As someone who's wanted to change the world, let's talk about the subject. Is it a valid statement? Why or why not?
4 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Eugene Hevingshaw - Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:56:18 EST ID:KGYHppHw No.209560 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1541570178768.gif -(900177B / 879.08KB, 500x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
"He began to speak into his noter, after he had been at Tes twenty days or so; he would sit in the sunlight on the doorstep of his cottage in a glade of grasses and ferns and talk quietly to himself by way of the little recording machine. "What you select from, in order to tell your story, is nothing less than everything," he said, watching he branches of the old trees dark against the sky. "What you build up your world from, your local, intelligible, rational, coherent world, is nothing less than everything. And so all selection is arbitrary. All knowledge is partial--infinitesimally partial. Reason is a net thrown out into an ocean. What truth it brings in is a fragment, a glimpse, a scintillation of the whole truth. All human knowledge is local. Every life, each human life, is local, is arbitrary, the infinitesimal momentary glimpse of a reflection of . . ." His voice ceased; the silence of the glade among the great trees continued."
A Man of the People
Nicholas Diggleman - Thu, 15 Nov 2018 17:24:55 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209572 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thanks for getting the ball rolling guys. I guess I should specify that I feel like someone frustrated by mass society and that as an individual I am more or less powerless, and I've dabbled with activism and got disillusioned. Even in groups, there are higher-order tendencies and stochastic events that seem to undermine intentions. Greed, fatigue, power/force, mortality, morality, schisms. I'm just a loner for the time being but have been one at heart almost always.
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 05:04:32 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209574 Ignore Report Quick Reply
You can change both yourself and society. Do you not have a brain, arms, legs, mouth, and hands?. Who/what do you want to change and why? To achieve this does this require you to change yourself first, or to change society first, or only one of these? These tidy little motivational quotes annoy the fuck out of me and require specific context to have any use whatsoever.

What is your fucking goal? What are the steps required to get there? Mystics like to turn common sense into fucking rocket science.

I would generally agree however that most people who want to change the world are not remotely ready to make a difference until they evolve as people. You must empower yourself before you can have the power to change things, and you must fully recognize what it is that you want to change.
Sophie Crorrywell - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 03:30:23 EST ID:XqsBUz5h No.209584 Ignore Report Quick Reply
The world will change only if you change yourself.
Just take it easy and accept that shit is as it is, and you won't chanve the world, however by changing yourself the world will change around you.
Sophie Crorrywell - Mon, 19 Nov 2018 03:36:58 EST ID:XqsBUz5h No.209585 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1542616618532.jpg -(491776B / 480.25KB, 2048x1536) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
I think a lot of us here are in that boat mate, but don't forget that people felt lije that before with probably better reasons. Shit might get wild for a while but you shouldn't give in to the darkness. Be carefull with media, they show the world in a very negative state and are thus co-responsible for feeding anger and despair into the hearts and minds of the people. My guess is to try and educate people and to have open and calm conversations, but i'm saying this who has become quite the social hermit lately.


Americans hate everything besides cars by Caroline Sarryforth - Mon, 28 May 2018 13:04:17 EST ID:AwbVlekG No.209223 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1527527057350.jpg -(100681B / 98.32KB, 648x920) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 100681
Why are Americans so convinced that mass transit is a conspiracy?
If anything, there’s a pretty plain conspiracy to fund cars over every other mode of transportation.
52 posts and 9 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Ebenezer Blythegold - Mon, 12 Nov 2018 20:33:23 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209569 Ignore Report Quick Reply

OP i'm gonna be honest here- you must either be just a dink. a big ol' dink. or you're not actually from the United States nor have you ever been here. 325 million people we're talking about- if you're talking about intra-state? sure, there's actually plenty of mass transits available in densely populated centers.... if you're talking about interstate travel. no you're being stupid. the only think that's basically cost effective, on the ground, is trains, and even those are being used less and less versus air travel.

The United States isn't Europe we can't just string trolleys everywhere and expect to cover the millions of square miles of open space whereas some European countries are so minuscule that they might as well be carpeted
Phineas Gaggleway - Mon, 12 Nov 2018 22:29:22 EST ID:8gq7GAVV No.209570 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Russia is fucking big too, and they have good mass transit in Russia.
Graham Honkintirk - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:18:26 EST ID:ZGNH5R/T No.209581 Ignore Report Quick Reply
We'd probably still be using trains if the auto industry didn't leverage tax dollars against them. With trains, the train folk pay for the trains, the tracks, the fuel, the insurance, the policing, the repairs and upkeep.

With automobiles, we pay for the cars, the roads, the police, the insurance, the fuel, and then extra shit through toll booths and tax subsidies.
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:33:39 EST ID:EoUIC8nL No.209582 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I’m not exaggerating. This is the most uninformed post I’ve ever seen.
Ian Grimfoot - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 18:35:59 EST ID:EoUIC8nL No.209583 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Sweden is more sparsely populated than the US.
China is building a giant awesome high speed rail network.

Fortunately we have private high speed rail companies here. If republicans ever stop blocking them we will get a high speed rail network. It’ll be a mix of public and private lines.

Richard branson just bought the one in Florida and there expanding to orlando.

Psychology by Fimi - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 08:38:44 EST ID:pMfGENvq No.209575 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1542375524876.png -(48854B / 47.71KB, 454x478) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 48854
Hey! Could anyone take this 5-10 minute survey to aid me with research for my thesis? It’s quite interesting, easy to complete and completely anonymous! I will be posting results when I have all of the participants that I need! All nationalities welcome! Thanks in advance!

Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:51:14 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209576 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Seeing as you're just spamming this on imageboards you can go fuck yourself. Also take your 1-dimensional context-ignorant narcissism witch hunt and shove it up your ass
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 10:57:29 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209577 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Ok maybe that's a bit harsh. Your test though seems to be trying to paint a very specific picture. It asks the same question like 6 times with different wording. I bet they all count towards the exact same thing. These tests are almost always horrible but if you want more accurate results you need to ask questions about specific situations and provide more context so you can truly judge their character
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:00:17 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209578 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Also good job posting your survey to sites full of trolls such as forchan genius
Matilda Sinkinwell - Fri, 16 Nov 2018 11:33:53 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209579 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Lol. I started to fill in the craziest answers possible and I realized this thing is literally trying to label me a school shooter. I didn't submit
Graham Honkintirk - Sat, 17 Nov 2018 15:15:11 EST ID:ZGNH5R/T No.209580 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1701 year old Denobulan Trisexual cogenitor gender reporting in. I just drew Guitar Hero charts for my answers.

Infinity by John Pockford - Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:14:35 EST ID:2HazwbDc No.209524 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1540520075608.png -(148592B / 145.11KB, 1003x915) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 148592
When you think of infinity do you think of a loop, or do you think of an endless unbounded happening, like pi, for example.
If things are, as they seem, infinite(i suppose thats an assumption) do you think it loops back into itself or stretches on forever.

Pic unrelated, but we should probably start a revolution pretty soon.
9 posts and 1 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Beatrice Brannerpin - Wed, 31 Oct 2018 15:41:43 EST ID:y8yyDs2e No.209543 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1541014903489.jpg -(100289B / 97.94KB, 699x1011) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.

I don't understand, only 1.11 trillion? Don't get me wrong, that's a lot, but I heard that some research, by the government, suggested free Healthcare for everyone would cost way more than one trillion and that just doesn't make sense compared to the the op pic. I beginning to think everyone is mixing the two meanings of a trillion, and in addition to that, also mixing trillions and billions.
Beatrice Brannerpin - Wed, 31 Oct 2018 16:09:06 EST ID:y8yyDs2e No.209544 Ignore Report Quick Reply

Nvn, I didn't read the title of the image
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:17:43 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209545 Ignore Report Quick Reply
I see it as a sort of loop, but the loop itself is not what makes it infinite. It's the fact that the loop can grow infinitely in between the 0 and infinity point. Infinity is always infinity(or zero), so what is really infinite in this view is the numbers between infinity and zero, and could just as easily be expressed as straight line. Pic related.

I also see infinity/existence as the experience of the expression of zero itself. A loop inevitably returns to its origin on every axis. Philosophically I kinda theorize the universe as having a net-zero value(in terms of energy, quantity, etc.) As long as the equation itself equals zero from a dimensionless point of view, somehow the process of it resolving itself is what results in dimensional existence, time, space, life, awareness, etc... In other words existence is like the temporary illusion of asymmetry returning back to its source, which in mathematical terms happens instantly but also over an infinite amount of time.
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:26:41 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209546 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1541071601706.gif -(129347B / 126.32KB, 288x288) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
forgot pic
Albert Peddlefuck - Thu, 01 Nov 2018 07:28:59 EST ID:VBH3q3ZR No.209547 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1541071739706.gif -(927295B / 905.56KB, 800x600) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Another good one. Both animated btw.

Youtube Philosophy by Phoebe Chicklehod - Sun, 30 Sep 2018 22:33:32 EST ID:zh7QJYof No.209476 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1538361212768.png -(313519B / 306.17KB, 600x372) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 313519
Lately I've been looking at video essays on youtube. It's a pretty fun genre and it's useful for taking a break from reading all the time. Have you got any interesting youtube channels about philosophy? I would rather that it wasn't divulgation (like Kant's philosophy in 3 minutes or something like that) but rather something original, though soundly philosophically grounded.

Contrapoints - Marxist trans girl, who's sort of anti-rationalist. She studied philosophy and neurosciences. Pretty fun stuff.

Zero Books - Publisher of Mark Fisher, among others. Really critical of Peterson, and really into Vaporwave. Lots of popular cultural critique.

stallion Philosophy - Still has really few videos, but they are fun and well researched. Cultural critique and capitalist realism. Their last video on World music is really good.
Thomas Gangerworth - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 18:05:35 EST ID:kbqhsVlv No.209488 Ignore Report Quick Reply
not necessarily video essays but if you like the above three you'll probably like this one too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6dZvcECIrk Sissyphus Redeemed. He doesn't seem to post videos anymore but the channel is still there and he is a very smart guy -and not in that joe rogan sophist way.

there's also Destiny https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC554eY5jNUfDq3yDOJYirOQ who unlike SR^ is a complete layman but very aware of it and admits it often, nonetheless he is also a smart guy. Again it's not essays so much, just debates, talking to retarded alt-right.

Three Arrows https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UCCT8a7d6S6RJUivBgNRsiYg and Shaun https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UCJ6o36XL0CpYb6U5dNBiXHQ are both more proper essay style youtubers but are more about politics than philosophy. Still worth looking at tho. Also HBomberguy https://www.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions/UClt01z1wHHT7c5lKcU8pxRQ which is more focussed on gaming but very entertaining and also responds to the alt right.

thats pretty much all i got
Hedda Goodfuck - Tue, 16 Oct 2018 22:57:21 EST ID:ehCGSF3V No.209502 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Angie Speaks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qkU-evkvMo&t=0s
Peter Coffin is really good too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT2iU9pAI_Y&t=1300s
stallion Philosophy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJfurfb5_kw&t=0s

Meditation by Phoebe Goodforth - Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:45:31 EST ID:/XQxUE3u No.204775 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1453218331804.jpg -(552057B / 539.12KB, 1920x1200) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 552057
Hey guys I'm just starting to learn how to meditate. So far I can go up to 3 minutes and after that I can't focus any longer. But, I'd say I'm starting off good.

How many of you here meditate on a daily basis? In what way does it help you? What is your favorite type of meditation?

I'm learning sleep meditation and zen. I want to broaden my horizons and love myself again. With this meditation I hope to achieve a higher level of being and be able to like myself and have a positive outlook on life.
130 posts and 15 images omitted. Click Reply to view.
Fanny Blanningtut - Wed, 22 Aug 2018 09:55:25 EST ID:NZFKQ1By No.209431 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Started meditating yesterday. I feel a bit better. Going to commit to this and do it everyday, twice a day. When I was disciplined and constantly meditating it did something to my mind and I became very happy and positive and it is the greatest way to positively cope. That's why i did it and now doing it again.
Sophie Sarryway - Wed, 12 Sep 2018 11:02:49 EST ID:w+O1EhEW No.209446 Ignore Report Quick Reply
If anyone can answer this question for me I would greatly appreciate it.

Everytime I try to meditate I start itching which prevents me from meditating. It's been happening for the past 2 days. It's really starting to piss me off. Maybe it's all psychological? Maybe it's not?

Any insight on this that anyone can enlighten me with I would deeply appreciate it.
Lillian Woffingbeck - Fri, 14 Sep 2018 21:44:54 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209447 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Various physical phenomena in the body naturally occur when you meditate. They have to do with the random chatter of your brain quieting down (which is what itches are in the first place, 'noise' in your tactile sensory network) so essentially it is a trick your mind does on yourself to get you back into doing things. Ignore it, it is definitely psychological if it only occurs when meditating and you don't always meditate in some special environment.
Thomas Dunderlotch - Sat, 15 Sep 2018 01:28:53 EST ID:w+O1EhEW No.209448 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Thank you for your input. I never thought of it like that. I'll take note of that.
Martin Hovingputch - Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:32:32 EST ID:P0o8ahaw No.209493 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Anyone here meditate?

Free College In The USA by Isabella Foggleford - Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:28:10 EST ID:qum7+esS No.209429 Ignore Report Reply Quick Reply
File: 1534807690961.jpg -(9043B / 8.83KB, 259x194) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 9043
What if you could make college free and then make admission to colleges be based purely on merit, but with a twist: you are compared only to the others at your own school to determine if you qualify for admission to a college rather than comparing you to the whole nation. Say you get the top scores and grades on your tests in your high school, but for national averages, your test scores/grades would still be too low to get into the top schools traditionally, under the new system, you would get admission because compared to your peers you did the best and therefore deserve to be in a top school. If one school has bad teachers or not enough funding, why should the students suffer? They should be judged against those who had an equal playing field, ie those in their own school rather than those who may have gone to some fancy private school with personal tutors and lots of fancy programs and who had advantages they couldn't access.

Now imagine what would happen if you did this. Suddenly all the schools packed with great students would empty out as the parents took their kids to poorly performing schools so they had a better chance at college admission. People act like segregation and school integration is an issue America dealt with in the past, but we didn't really deal with it at all. We did a little, got things moving in the right direction, then basically stopped trying and claimed we fixed the problem while the communities we live in remain highly segregated which keeps racial minorities trapped in poverty as wealthy whites never interact with them and therefore never hire them to do anything for them and spend money at their businesses. Furthermore, people can gain a bunch of value simply by having the value of their house go up because their neighborhood improves. They sit there and do nothing, but other people move into the neighborhood and start fixing pot holes and weeding the sidewalks and mowing the lawns and painting stuff and hiring security and installing floodlights, and suddenly they have more money because the value of their houses goes up.

In my mind this is an elegant solution to many of the social issues plaguing America. It would get around the affirmative action boogeyman an…
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.
Hugh Girringhall - Mon, 27 Aug 2018 19:55:51 EST ID:tvXthEG2 No.209433 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Wealthy people live in areas near their job. They don't want to move because they can't get paid 100k a yr in the podunk working as a walmart greeter.

Also, this is silly because a lot of colleges in the US are very small. If college was based on 'pure merit' but only based on relative merit, then if they only accept 4k students a year and there are 50k schools in the nation, you're back to where we started.

Putting that aside. IMO two things will happen.
  1. people retire early (ya rite...)
  2. People just find loopholes in your plans, described below

They will simply invent a new school to put their kids in. This can be a private school (probably the easiest to do) or a public one (much harder, but possible) to lower the pool and backdoor around your social engineering plans. This would encourage a lot of balkanization of school systems around wealthy parts of the country, increasing costs.
Thomas Pisslewell - Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:27:41 EST ID:pdpqZQMH No.209472 Ignore Report Quick Reply
but then you wouldn't be accepting the best qualified students.
Hannah Goodford - Tue, 09 Oct 2018 01:48:35 EST ID:VhdWon+z No.209487 Ignore Report Quick Reply
1539064115058.jpg -(80717B / 78.83KB, 926x960) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>admission to colleges be based purely on merit, but with a twist: you are compared only to the others at your own school to determine if you qualify for admission to a college rather than comparing you to the whole nation.

Why not just drop the requirement in general and go off the GPA requirements of the school you are applying to. Why should they give a shit about what you "are" in comparison to the rest of your "group."

>your test scores/grades would still be too low to get into the top schools traditionally, under the new system, you would get admission because compared to your peers you did the best and therefore deserve to be in a top school.

The quality of schools is different, not only from state to state but from school to school. The furthest it seems you could push this would be some kind of standardized grading system for the nation. That is to say, you cannot keep adding artificial shit.

> If one school has bad teachers or not enough funding, why should the students suffer? They should be judged against those who had an equal playing field, ie those in their own school rather than those who may have gone to some fancy private school with personal tutors and lots of fancy programs and who had advantages they couldn't access.

The shouldn't suffer the consequences that is true. But that doesn't mean that those that do have the resources should suffer a loss either. Life isn't fair and the best we can do is continue to eliminate those gaps in offerings, textbooks, desks, teachers etc. That's more of a funding thing however.

>Your second paragraph.

It seems to me that you want to create an incentive to get people to relocate in order to get their kids into terrible schools so that they can stand out more and get better chances of getting into school? That's rather strange I think. Would that just make the kids who don't stand out have less chance to succeed? Or learn?
Comment too long. Click here to view the full text.

Pages Next>>
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report Post
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.