Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Subject
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


420chan is Getting Overhauled - Changelog/Bug Report/Request Thread (Updated July 26)

Infinity

View Thread Reply
- Thu, 25 Oct 2018 22:14:35 EST 2HazwbDc No.209524
File: 1540520075608.png -(148592B / 145.11KB, 1003x915) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Infinity
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.
15 posts and 4 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phyllis Deblingsark - Fri, 01 Mar 2019 15:50:10 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209614 Reply
>>209612
>> It would suck if time actually looped.
If time proceeds infinitely, then it must also loop infinitely. Since time is just a description of the changes of space, and the number of possible transformations a space can experience is finite (since space is quantized and the speed of light limits the volume of particles which can interact in the lifetime of the universe) then given infinite time, space will experience identical transformations of its space (loops) an infinite number of times during that duration (for a mathematical analogy, consider that any random sequence of numbers, of arbitrary length, appears an infinite number of times in the remainder of pi, but always with different numbers and amounts of numbers between.)
But since time is a measurement of transformations of space, and even with infinite time we see that all transformations and sequences of transformations recur, has time actually progressed at all? If it is only a measurement of change, and in the final count no change occurs (or all changes that happen eventually undo themselves; the sum of the calculation is always zero) then is time really measuring anything at all, or is it more a perceptual illusion, a way for the finite to try to interface with infinity?

My point being to suggest that saying time flows in an infinite line and saying it flows in an infinite loop both result in the same conclusion, that time does not flow at all; a paradox.
>>
Jack Wepperson - Wed, 01 May 2019 04:02:47 EST agUXn1jU No.209666 Reply
>>209524
An endless unbound happening caught in loop within a loop of itslelf cancelling saod loop but creating a mirrored loop of itself bound by time. ie infinite symbol

historical accuracy of Foucault

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 11 Jun 2019 23:38:07 EST u+iaeV9p No.209689
File: 1560310687254.jpg -(94684B / 92.46KB, 385x640) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. historical accuracy of Foucault
There is absolutely no historical evidence for what he's saying in this book and the overwhelming consensus of historians is the exact opposite of what he proposes. What am I missing here? Discipline and Punish and the History of Sexuality are relatively sound both philosophically and historically and the underlying arguments he's making in this book are reasonable. Where did he get his understanding of history for this? Did he just not really care and that's the point or what?
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Matilda Ginderpadging - Wed, 17 Jul 2019 09:44:50 EST LwxsxyPf No.209723 Reply
>>209689
>What am I missing here?
it's about the development of institutions which confine the 'other' and seperate him from the rest of society. The importance of Foucaults work is more in the methodology. Just google it I guess.
>>
Augustus Blythelock - Wed, 14 Aug 2019 02:04:35 EST vI2KG7aE No.209743 Reply
>>209689
Foucault was right about mental illness but was a giant fedora tipper

Materialism

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 30 Jul 2019 19:17:30 EST nQTynWUg No.209728
File: 1564528650563.jpg -(39778B / 38.85KB, 284x400) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Materialism
Is death the end, /pss/?

Is there something shining beneath the skin of the material world, or are we bound to our skeletons as if we're prisoners?
5 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Lydia Goodway - Tue, 06 Aug 2019 00:37:07 EST Pr3KJWoH No.209735 Reply
i don't think the conscious mind is able to conceive of not existing. except perhaps when full """ego death""" (i dont really like that term due to its associations) occurs either through years of meditation or heavy drug use (temporary),

so whether or not there is anything beyond death, we are using a limited computer, our brain, which i think inherently presumes it will always exist as a consciousness and gets an error message when asked to contemplate non-existence. this doesn't disprove there is life after death, but is a constraint on our ability to draw any real conclusions.
>>
Charlotte Brangerwug - Sat, 10 Aug 2019 09:07:08 EST DMUEGBzG No.209737 Reply
>>209735
>i don't think the conscious mind is able to conceive of not existing.
I think you're right. But the question is does that matter? Is not existing even a thing? I know your point is that if not existing is a thing then we can't imagine it and it's natural to be skeptical about what you're saying. But also not existing could just be nothing. If our mind doesn't exist do we?

If you believe
>I think therefore I am
Then if your conscious mind does not exist you don't. I mean even if we are just what the universe is doing at this time and place, when the wave breaks it's not a wave any more. The energy has gone and so has the water and there is nothing.

If the conscious mind does not exist we do not. When we try to conceive not existing we get nothing because for our mind it is nothing.

Favorite Philosophers?

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 01 Mar 2019 14:52:39 EST KGYHppHw No.209613
File: 1551469959744.jpg -(288762B / 281.99KB, 1600x1067) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Favorite Philosophers?
Tough question i suppose.

Don't have a favorite myself, but i really like Max Cafard and his expansion of the Situationist's concept of psychological exploration called a Derive, into Surregional Exploration. His other essays skirting many philosophers and critiquing them was a nice introduction to all of these concepts I was ignorant of at the time.

Anyways, what's your favorite philosophy or philosopher?
8 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Graham Gevingsat - Sun, 07 Jul 2019 09:56:33 EST NrnzfFOx No.209716 Reply
nietzsche is the only real answer here
>>
Barnaby Blunnershaw - Mon, 08 Jul 2019 21:54:15 EST DK1GZlb6 No.209717 Reply
Camus all the way bitch.
>>
Archie Gockleford - Sat, 03 Aug 2019 06:43:52 EST 5y5Cpc7D No.209732 Reply
>>209613
Ken Wilbur, among others. He's not a great philosopher, but his concepts gave me somewhere to go from bleak existentialism. I felt like I knew a little more about the shape of the world; it gave me some meaning to work with.

I truly hate to ask,

View Thread Reply
- Fri, 08 Mar 2019 19:32:45 EST 24rhF4zL No.209617
File: 1552091565098.jpg -(121108B / 118.27KB, 800x530) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. I truly hate to ask,
but what is the difference between a whistleblower and a snitch?
18 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Phoebe Drottingfoot - Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:39:29 EST Pr3KJWoH No.209721 Reply
>>209720

i disagree. you could whistleblow privately, like reporting unethical stuff to an official.

snitching is when you were in on it then betray your criminal companions

whistleblowing is when you discover bad things and tell on them
>>
Caroline Duckleshaw - Sat, 27 Jul 2019 06:12:38 EST qum7+esS No.209726 Reply
Snitches are ratting out the people to the government. Whistleblowers are ratting out the government (or some big corporation) to the people. It has to do with power. If you're snitching to someone with more power about someone with less power, you're a snitch, but if you're shining light on the secret mechanisms of power in government or finance or something that negatively affects the general people who are subject to that power, you're a whistleblower.
>>
Thomas Mommerhatch - Sun, 28 Jul 2019 06:40:03 EST 25i6jWYd No.209727 Reply
>>209726
This is a pretty good definition. Though I feel like snitching also involves a level of "it doesn't really hurt anyone but you told them anyway". You witness a murder or report being robbed you're not a snitch. You report some guy selling drugs or a medical professionally ending the life of a terminal patient who wants to die will only be able to suffer for a few hours/days/weeks if they don't, you are snitching. Though I guess the murderer might disagree but in the big picture...

Snitch has negative connotations. Also if someone is doing something that hurts others, they were previously the ones with more power using it to hurt others. Then are you both? I know the police and government have a sinister side (of variable depth) but they have their uses and using those to protect yourself and others doesn't make you a shit.

Smoked, went to the dentist and discovered it is more likely a god exists than not

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 14 May 2019 05:44:19 EST IjqeBpm5 No.209671
File: 1557827059677.jpg -(15822B / 15.45KB, 512x613) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Smoked, went to the dentist and discovered it is more likely a god exists than not
There are an infinite number of universes that have formed out of nothingness, existed, and collapsed in on themselves. We might be living in one.

There are also an infinite number of universes in which the lifeforms or meta-lifeforms that evolve in them over an infinite amount of time become at last able to create their own universes.

What sort of world these new gods would create is unknowable. However, we could imagine that there might be some number which create a universe similar to their own, rather than one entirely different.

Those who create a universe similar to their own reinforce the "evolutionary strength" of their universe. Those who do not, erase it.

By closely mirroring the successful conditions that led to them ascending to godhood themselves, the new gods make it more likely that their own universe will itself eventually create its own god-spawn.

And these god-spawn will, of course, create their own universes, and some of them will further reinforce the already-successful model, spawning yet more new gods.

Therefore, the likelihood that we are living in an "evolutionarily successful" universe, which eventually leads to the stage of evolution of its lifeforms ascending to godhood, is strong.

The likelihood that it was formed out of nothingness is small, but possible. The same goes for it being created according to rules that will not result in the ascension to godhood, as these universes would spawn no "children," and be the final descendants of that series of universes.

We can conclude that it is likely a god exists. What is the nature of that god? It's unknowable. Whether it's a guy monitoring a universe server farm, a bearded old man throwing lightning and interfering with the lifeforms, or a transcendental and indifferent All, we probably have no way to know. But it is exceedingly likely that the god exists.
2 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Emma Gummleshaw - Mon, 20 May 2019 16:10:28 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209676 Reply
>>209675
Agreed except for the thing about heat death. Check out my post about time in the infinity thread for a longer discussion of this idea, >>209614
but from a physics standpoint, if we assume the big bang emerged from a random quantum fluctuation in a larger domain (as is the prevailing theory if you want to keep from going into m-brane/p-brane stuff) then you don't actually need any energy to create a universe, just an extremely vast (non-)amount of nothing for an extremely long period of (non-)time. A heat-dead universe provides exactly those conditions.
>>
Eliza Mongerkad - Thu, 30 May 2019 17:12:01 EST zsQIZH1z No.209677 Reply
>>209671
This is basically the same as the "We're probably living in a simulation" argument.

The Hood Science

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 10 Jun 2019 02:55:52 EST jnVpm8WV No.209686
File: 1560149752859.jpg -(266277B / 260.04KB, 2040x1596) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. The Hood Science
of protecting children. So, I want the kids in my hood to not be like me so much or at least not in a way that pisses off their parents or gets them in jail. I also have to be Jesse from fullhouse to my nephews and Mr Rogers to the kids in my building as well as my authentic self. How do I simultaneously encapsulate a positive role model as well as be the scumbag that I am in a way that doesn't make me feel like I am plastering on this fake smile and a completely fake person all the time, but also in a way that doesn't make me an easy target for disingenuous social workers trying to take me down for my alternative lifestyle?
>>
Beatrice Bluckledock - Wed, 12 Jun 2019 20:14:09 EST Pr3KJWoH No.209692 Reply
drink, smoke, and do drugs in privacy. try to be intoxicated in privacy or in adult-only zones. be nice and as sober as you can around kids. there are gray areas but start with that

BWP Bump While Philosophizing

View Thread Reply
- Tue, 14 May 2019 21:54:25 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209673
File: 1557885265331.jpg -(114270B / 111.59KB, 1100x618) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. BWP Bump While Philosophizing
Thought /pss/, slow as it is, might do well with a more general 'I was thinking/reading about this philosophy thing today' thread. We might get more content if people didn't feel so constrained to staying within a single topic, or had a place for discussions that don't quite warrant a whole topic of their own. Like all BW* threads, only bamp if you're philosophizing, no dumbposting. It would be p cool if we just kept bumping with new, different topics and maybe brief discussion instead of getting snarled into our traditional mires for all saying that will do

Hey, so to start off, I was browsing other boards and seeing shitty posts and thinking about the Santayana 'Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat it' concept in terms of game theory. I think its reasonable to say that, because history is a collective process, it only requires a certain percentage of the population to not remember history for it to repeat. I looked for like a minute for some scholarly treatment of this concept viz game theory but couldn't find anything, so I wonder if it's really true even in the case of a simulation and what the actual percentage range might be?
1 posts and 1 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Lydia Goodlock - Tue, 04 Jun 2019 19:15:29 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209683 Reply
>>209681
>>Tell the kids they can't watch TV and open a history book
Yeah, but who wrote the history book? I don't think the problem of teaching history to future generations is as much in the media it is conveyed by but what information is available and taken seriously, and what sort of critical thinking capacity the general public has. I mean, there's probably some dude out there who won't let his kids watch TV because it's full of 'liberal lies about race mixing' and gives his kids the Turner Diaries to read before bed.
>>
Thomas Dubblelock - Fri, 07 Jun 2019 03:00:52 EST dj+OKlwT No.209685 Reply
1559890852757.jpg -(2194251B / 2.09MB, 3264x2448) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>209673
Considering whether many people listen to specialists who have access to this knowledge or preserve it through practice, people may be destined to repeat past mistakes or reinvent the wheel.

Maybe there is a certain collective unconscious threshold. What of latent or inherited knowledge? I don't know.

Between just a couple generations presently it seems like alot of useful wisdom and knowledge was lost. If certain specialists who keep certain fires going are valued by society then alot will continue to be known and utilized despite a majority of people who aren't knowledgeable about what-have-you. An institution with a public relations focus that translates technical jargon into layman's terms helps.

That essay comparing a most pit to the kinetics of gaseous particles and a study of human collective behavior defined two types of participants, one being active and subject to replicating the behavior of others nearby, the second being passive and "not subject to the flicking motions or random forces." Anyways, I wonder if knowledge could be modeled similarly to trace certain informations spread from person to person. It's interesting how (or if) a crowd reaches critical mass. https://youtu.be/hO8MwBZl-Vc most people are certainly the core and spirit of the show and have a significant effect on the crowd as whole despite their participation or not in the moshpit.

is accounting really a social scence

View Thread Reply
- Sun, 28 Apr 2019 18:50:49 EST 6J+MJ1Xf No.209659
File: 1556491849921.jpg -(13584B / 13.27KB, 225x225) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. is accounting really a social scence
what u thik bro
>>
Nathaniel Serryfoot - Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:32:31 EST +nIjK/tT No.209662 Reply
>>209659
No of course not but it doesn't belong on any one board currently. You could probably post topics on accountancy in several places depending on the details.
>topics about accounting standards, laws, audit, fraud that sort of shit would fit on our law board surely?
>topics about numbers not adding up or possibly some of the metrics, measurements maybe even t accounts might belong on our maths board though they'd be pretty pedestrian, maybe even our tutorials board if you wanted advice on how to solve a certain problem or process a certain action but that'd probably never get picked up
>topics about ethics and more more philosophical stuff (there isn't much to it, but accounts also means stories or sources and that definitely applies to some accounts, they record what happened in certain terms and how it was interpreted.)

If you can guess I'm an accountant. It's not a social science but I think some topics fit here less awfully than others.

I have a degree in economics which is a social science though. It includes decisions concerning resource allocation and the latter is also an element in some parts of accounting. Though accounting is more about supplying the info than actually making the decision.

If we had a business board most of the above would fit there. Economics might, but people see it as about money whereas it's about the best solution to an impossible problem. Resource allocation and that will involve a lot of ethics, subjective values and pseudo philosophy too.
>>
Jack Wepperson - Wed, 01 May 2019 03:56:47 EST agUXn1jU No.209663 Reply
>>209659
Accounting is a social science. The best accountants know how to account correctly and society itself turns a blind eye based on social aspects of culture. Accounting for beer in Roman times is like accounting for business dinners today

Share your thoughts on death

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 24 Apr 2019 14:28:02 EST nhtcgMTU No.209653
File: 1556130482679.jpg -(194445B / 189.89KB, 737x367) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Share your thoughts on death
I think the longer you live, the better your afterlife is. On top of the afterlife being reserved for very special souls. (didn't mean special in terms of being pure-of-heart and sin-free)
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Ian Honeystock - Fri, 26 Apr 2019 10:24:19 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209656 Reply
1556288659932.jpg -(173018B / 168.96KB, 555x720) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
Everything comes out of nothing. Everything goes back into nothing. Nothing cannot be destroyed, and contains everything, and will forever. In infinite time, everything that ever could be will be again and again endlessly. But there is nothing but pure chaos in the arrangement. The order only emerges from the vastness of randomness and causality. That's 'samsara.'

There are signs there may be more than that, and I think most afterlife beliefs are our feeble attempts to understand shadows beyond the edge of human understanding, and perhaps the nature of our 4 dimensional perception of reality. I think there may be fully logical and 'natural' explanations for phenomena such as instances of accurate past life recall in children and accounts of hauntings. There's strong evidence that life naturally evolved mechanisms for manipulating electromagnetic and quantum fields, in ways we have virtually no understanding of. I think the possibility is open that we naturally evolved a 'observer state emergency ejection system' and that the apparent experience of traveling through afterlives and experiencing reincarnation is just stories we invented to explain what was happening. I think this corresponds with your idea, OP, that the longer lived or more 'special' your soul is, the better your after-life. The more complex your observer state is, the more entrained to your brain pattern the electromagnetic fields are, the better chance you might have at skipping your observer state over to some fetus just achieving proto-consciousness. The implication, unfortunately, is if humans do indeed have some sort of naturally occurring reincarnation mechanism that only works through wonky electromagnetic waves and quantum trickery and not some sort of higher-dimensional or metaphysical principle, then we are probably eradicating it with the increasingly high energy electromagnetic radiation we flood the planet with. Alternatively, 'supernatural' phenomena could be the result of impressions in time caused by some imperfection in our understanding of time or causality, or the result of influences from other adjacent world-lines. The possibilities are many, the answers are few, the debate is fierce, and it will probably be that way until the end of time.

Luckily, in any case we would still have the perennial-samsara after-life, we can assure ourselves of that from first principles fairly succinctly, but again, that's chaos, with no memory of what came before. It's another life, but this life would be utterly gone until you happened upon it again after an unimaginably large number of others.

Of course, there could also be nothing-nothing, forever. Its hard to see how, since nothing-nothing is how we got here in the first place, but, if so, the answer matters even less, so the possibility needs no further investigation.

I also have my own spiritual ideas about the after-life, but as they rest on top of some of the philosophical ideas here, I don't need to bring them up except here for full disclosure's sake.
Best afterlife: just become a robot and invent the afterlife for yourself through intense computation, or die trying.
>>
Cyril Parrygold - Sat, 27 Apr 2019 01:10:57 EST NsFksadU No.209657 Reply
>>209653
The more you interact with people in the physical world, the more you can come back as a ghost and haunt them after you die. If that's what you're into.

Critical thinking and Logical fallacy cards

View Thread Reply
- Wed, 27 Mar 2019 08:26:30 EST 55/SlMlx No.209635
File: 1553689590542.jpg -(190903B / 186.43KB, 750x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Critical thinking and Logical fallacy cards
Sorry for posting a reaquest here. But I was wondering if sombody could post a scan of some (or all) of the deck of critical thinking logical fallacy cards from https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/. (I'm from Straya and the P+H is over $40 and well, fuck that.
Also, Please tell me about your favourite logical falacy and give examples of times where you've seen it.
1 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Isabella Hipperfit - Thu, 28 Mar 2019 16:36:42 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209637 Reply
You know that you can just download a pdf of all the cards straight from their own website, right? They ask for a donation but you can just give them nothing and still download it.

12 rules for life

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 15 Oct 2018 01:34:22 EST kbqhsVlv No.209498
File: 1539581662436.jpg -(13754B / 13.43KB, 650x365) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 12 rules for life
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?
27 posts and 10 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Frederick Shittingville - Tue, 19 Mar 2019 02:20:17 EST Pl6rJWm9 No.209627 Reply
Never paid him much attention but he is very pervasive and the way algorithms work in this day and age means watching 1 JRE podcast will lead to 100 pimp MRA MGTOW video recommendations on youtube. It is sickening and blatantly obvious how people get so easily radicalized now but whatever.

I don't agree with his weird relationship he contrives with IQ and life success and enjoyment. Apparently having a high IQ means you'll have a happy and successful life. I disagree with both from my experience. Maybe he has stats but I've never seen them nor has he discussed them in what I've seen. More intelligence leads to great or macro depression in my experience. IQ-poor types get far more emotional it seems and may have further extremes of unhappiness but it seems readily evident; the smarter one is, the more likely they will be a life-long depressive. Success is also meaningless in his context because he seems to apply it to job placement as if being in a neuroscience field makes you more successful than a landscaper.

That is the most off putting thing I've seen from him and it is about the only thing I've seen from him. For him to also be a clinical psychologist, I think he does his works a disservice by appealing to god so much as well. I don't think you have to be an atheist but his religious beliefs seem to influence his work far too much. I've noticed he likes to make the connection between living a meaningful life and being spiritual on some level. He just generally seems to be big on self-help psychology and I think that field in general comes with a lot of horseshit.

>I also don't like any appeals to god or higher authority in general.
>>
Phyllis Dambleman - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:20:56 EST OaolgcgK No.209628 Reply
1553084456368.jpg -(61498B / 60.06KB, 1200x628) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
lol he's selling lobster themed clothes now
>>
Reuben Brookwill - Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:30:10 EST 2LwLwSlz No.209629 Reply
>>209628
See, lobsters have like, serotonin, so I'm supposed to be an asshole.

/pss/ing away the days

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

or

>>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
8 posts and 2 images omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Graham Wondletotch - Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:45:44 EST 8gq7GAVV No.209603 Reply
>>209601
>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?
>>
Lillian Mablingnun - Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:02:00 EST EAaZgnMX No.209606 Reply
>>209602
You make a decent point, and I absolutely take into account what you are saying, but your point really doesn't contradict my point, as I was talking about everyone debating, not just professionals/masters on the subjects being debated. And you know why I'm more interested in everyone and not just the professionals? Because everyone has power, everyone has a vote in things like Democracy, everyone matters, not just the most genius.

>Because no one knows everything, clearly no one can have an intellectual debate.
No, but they can at the very least pull together most of what humanity knows on a subject, in terms of scientific data or historical data, before espousing their strong opinions. As an example, let's say something has occured hundreds of times in history with varying outcomes, yet someone pulls one or two examples of a time a certain outcome occurred, and then they make a broad sweeping statement, like 'this always leads to that! Look at my real examples! This is fact and logic!'

>Genuine intellectual discourse does occur!
Yeah, it does, at the very highest level, like two CERN scientists having a discussion. But the common man? The arm-chair intellectual, aka like 99% of people arguing on the internet? Zero intellectual conversations in their entire lifetime of making opinionated posts, probably.

See, this is one of the very examples I was talking about; you have one take on the idea, and you've got this whole big opinion based on it. You did everything in your power to make a point, but that point is based on very few intellectual points; the idea that intellectual discourse happens somewhere, and the idea that there are possibly infinite unknown unknowns. But did you stop and think about anything I just said? If you did, your answer sure doesn't show it. Like, right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse, you're just trying to disprove my statement, and you found 2 tiny ideas you decided to hurl in that direction.
>>
Nigel Pickfuck - Thu, 28 Feb 2019 20:37:43 EST em8IEj9O No.209611 Reply
>>209606
>right now we're not even having an intellectual discourse, you're just trying to disprove my statement
This is a common happening on chans in general I think. I think 420chan has the unique benefit of drugs occasionally pushing people out of those patterns, if that makes any sense.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck

View Thread Reply
- Mon, 08 Oct 2018 00:29:08 EST 4G6UWnoK No.209484
File: 1538972948176.gif -(405203B / 395.71KB, 499x370) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck
>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.
15 posts omitted. Click View Thread to read.
>>
Hamilton Choffinghirk - Fri, 09 Nov 2018 20:27:06 EST VBH3q3ZR No.209567 Reply
>>209566
>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 2LwLwSlz No.209568 Reply
>>209567
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 UsYodcqs No.209591 Reply
His personality is what antidepressants do to people at high doses.

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.