Can We Look At Bigotry Like A Virus?

[Seil]

I Am Legend - The Bob Marley Scene (http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=YK-4SgpAJRs&playnext_from=TL&videos=uEFmNaizh68)

He believed he could cure racism and hate, literally cure it by injecting music and love into people's lives. One day he was scheduled to perform at a peace concert, gunmen came to his house and shot him down. Two days later he walked out on that stage and sang. Somebody asked him why. He said the people who were trying to make this world worse are not taking a day off. How can I? Light up the darkness.

Looking into it a bit more, I found out that in 1976:

Two days before "Smile Jamaica", a free concert organized by the Jamaican Prime Minister Michael Manley in an attempt to ease tension between two warring political groups, Marley, his wife, and manager Don Taylor were wounded in an assault by unknown gunmen inside Marley's home.

Taylor and Marley's wife sustained serious injuries, but later made full recoveries. Bob Marley received minor wounds in the chest and arm. The shooting was thought to have been politically motivated, as many felt the concert was really a support rally for Manley. Nonetheless, the concert proceeded, and an injured Marley performed as scheduled, two days after the attempt.

It's a neat idea about hatred and bigotry, but I don't think that you could literally inject love into a person. Well.... you could, but that's too much of an adult discussion for the forums.

But can we look at bigotry like a virus? I have very minimal experience with looking at the human brain, so I was wondering... could we look at bigotry as a virus? Something to be cured chemically? Obviously there are mood altering drugs on the market, and each alters or introduces chemicals to the brain.

If it is possible to do so with prescription medication, why is it not possible to alter the brain in such a way that someone could love instead of hate?

Also, Mac, I'll try to keep my trap shut during most of this. (=3)

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Brain is far too complex for that. It wouldn't work. Best you coul do is jsut put people on a chemical high but that is damaging long term.
You're better off looking at the societal causes of hate and bigotry.

[Archbio]

Wasn't that how 28 Days Later started?

[tacticslion]

Brain is far too complex for that. It wouldn't work. Best you coul do is jsut put people on a chemical high but that is damaging long term.
You're better off looking at the societal causes of hate and bigotry.

This is pretty close.

Really, it boils down to personal choice to accept or reject what is handed to you, and how you choose to look at something, combined with people's innate ability to take something - no matter how good the basics and intention - and screw it up, royally. While you could make an alegory of hate like a virus and love like a cure, you're not going to be able to do so on a physical way, unless you've got some really wierd reality-altering powers (specifically the ability to instantly re-arrange all the synaptic configurations in a brain), and even then you could only cure a specific instance in the now, instead of curing it "forever", because people will still make choices and problematic mental-emotional associations over time - there's no way to cure that.

Ultimately, prejudice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice) is going to happen, and bigotry from it. Prejudice - having a judgement before real experience - is not always a bad thing. For example, I am prejudiced against taking a lava bath. I submit that I've never tried it, have not researched it, and, regardless of promises that if I stay in one for an hour or longer I'll never have to worry about being sick again, I'm not interested in either, because I've got a prejudice. Bigotry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry) is prejudice taken to the next level. Because prejudice can be a good thing in the appropriate context, people being people will always find a way to abuse it and bring it into bigotry. Unless we find a way to cure the human ability to make mistakes - no, we can't eliminate it entirely.

That said, what we can do, is - as a group - work so that the socio-cultural (and, if you share my world-view, spiritual) influences that aid in maintaining and promoting bigotry are eliminated*, or at least diminished to the extent that bigotry is the province of the few. As it stands now, however, there are so many types and forms of bigotry (I presume you mean racial, but there are even many kinds there) held by so many people across various strata of society, that it will be a long and frusterating climb.

*This may be impossible, in the end.

Edit: hey, Archbio, be careful! While you make a funny point, this might be too-serious thread for that kind of post (I'm not sure, so you'll probably want to ask a mod).

[Amake]

Grant Morrison has touched on the same subject. If we consider humanity a single organism, all kinds of destructive thoughts, emotions and behaviors can be viewed as diseases. And the good thing is, the more we're subjected to them, the better resistance we build against them. We're self-perfecting in that way. One might argue a benevolent god allows evil to exist for that reason, if one wanted.

I guess the question is if we should let nature take its course or try to speed up the process with creative drugs. It might just be my conditioned reflex to say no to drugs, but it seems to me the process would give better results if it's allowed to take longer. However hard it may be to look at, say, some rabid xenophobe and not try to help him think better, I don't really believe you can force any lasting enlightenment on anyone.

[Seil]

Well, touching on Archie's idea, and going on what Barrel said, I imagine we'd end up in something like Equilibrium, or at the verl least Dazed and Confused.

That being said, as a culture, I find that the elder generations always seem most at odds with things - from the small stuff like technology and tattoos and piercings to the larger stuff like bald-faced racism.

When I went to high school, a lot of my friends focused on experiential learning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiential_learning) in order to make their decisions, and on the whole were easy going, tolerant people.

[Hanuman]

See: Equilibrium

As for experiential learning... that's 7 syllables... Zen is one.

[DFM]

Wasn't that how 28 Days Later started?

My god, all these cages are full of love monkeys.

[Meister]

Equilibrium
The theme of being made to be physically unable to feel or express emotions regared as negative reminds me more of A Clockwork Orange, actually.

[DFM]

All I really remember about that movie was the author guy saying "She was very badly raped" because it's like saying she was very badly murdered.

[Premmy]

The fact that this thread was started with a quote from a movie in which the black guy was the ONLY one to die is kinda hilarious.

[POS Industries]

The fact that this thread was started with a quote from a movie in which the black guy was the ONLY one to die is kinda hilarious.
Well, technically his family also died in that helicopter crash scene but yeah that doesn't really make it any better.

[Magus]

But can we look at bigotry like a virus? I have very minimal experience with looking at the human brain, so I was wondering... could we look at bigotry as a virus? Something to be cured chemically? Obviously there are mood altering drugs on the market, and each alters or introduces chemicals to the brain.

If it is possible to do so with prescription medication, why is it not possible to alter the brain in such a way that someone could love instead of hate?

Did you not see Serenity and how bad shit happens when you do that and everyone dies because they no longer have hate and anger and lust to keep them alive OR they go absolutely insane and become space cannibals?

[Thadius]

Wait. A topic on NPF discussing how to make the world a better place? What is the internet coming to?!

But more seriously. I'd like to think that portions of my current mindset are a step towards a world without bigotry and racism. I don't discriminate against anyone based on skin tones or personal beliefs, which are a few issues in the world today. Rather, I choose to discriminate against specific people based on their actions towards myself, along with their actions towards the public at large.

However it is at that point that my mindset fails. I hate everyone indiscriminately until they prove they have a brain and use it. Maybe I could work on it, but it's much less effort to hate everyone.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Couldn't hate be an evolutionary instinct? There was a time where our ancestors needed to outperform each other and bigotry and the like came about as a way of motivating us to compete against each other.

[Magus]

I don't know, I always wonder what some of the ancient empires could have accomplished if they assimilated their conquered peoples into their culture and made them full citizens instead of colonizing and oppressing them. I was just thinking earlier today about the immigration issue and how quickly the economy could grow if we granted amnesty to all the illegal immigrants and started taxing them, and increased immigration. GDP would have to go up and I think it would go up a lot.

Now, if we were in a time period of armed expansion, like empires in the past, think of how powerful and widespread an empire could become that promised, with complete proof, a better life than their foes' people's were currently having, with no threat of cultural destruction, etc. Like, if Rome hadn't committed genocide against Carthage but just, y'know, killed off the royal family and then taxed all the Carthaginians...but at a lower rate than they had been getting taxed at. And just made them Roman citizens. Things would've went way better for the Roman empire if they'd had that policy instead of oppression and abuse.

So to say that "hate" in the past allowed people to be successful is true, but it seems like it could be even more successful without the hate and more logical thinking, i.e., "hey, we could tax these people instead of killing them, AND have them fight for us because we're so nice to them".

[Hanuman]

The theme of being made to be physically unable to feel or express emotions regared as negative reminds me more of A Clockwork Orange, actually.
Maybe if you split the concept of feeling and expressing into the two parts of the movie, but it was my impression that because the protagonist was a sociopath it was only by making him feel negative emotions that they stopped him from expressing it on others, though I believe the ending suicide was an example of both feeling and expressing his inner demons.

[Ecks]

I am the smartest person ever.

Yes, yes you are.

Seriously, Magus touched on EXCELLENT points. I've often wondered that myself.

The answer to why they didn't do things that way, is of course, Pride, that wonderful, and yet horrible little bitch who ruins all great things, be they man or empire.

[Nique]

Belife is not the same as a disorder. I don't see how you can 'cure' a belife. It's more like you have to fight it.

But it is a lovely thought.

[Hanuman]

I was just thinking earlier today about the immigration issue and how quickly the economy could grow if we granted amnesty to all the illegal immigrants and started taxing them, and increased immigration. GDP would have to go up and I think it would go up a lot.
That'd be helping America by hurting the American dream, and we all know Americans love the dream more than the country.

I don't see how you can 'cure' a belief.
Epic-Cure-Us (or Epicurus for short)
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

[Nique]

I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say so please forgive me if there's something I'm missing but it sounds like the beginning of a religious discussion based on a quote that, while thought-provoking, is ultimatly a vast oversimplification of it's topic and sure to rile up someone's dander. Which is what we probably don't want to do.

Again though, maybe I just don't understand what you're shooting for.

[Hanuman]

Again though, maybe I just don't understand what you're shooting for.
Who is the mass to argue with the infinity within you, your beliefs are sacred and your own, you will question them how you want, when you want and however much you want.

We guard beliefs at a fundamental level of thought, and we breed the acceptance that it's alright to build a wall between doubt and a person's world-view, as humans are fragile and without these walls we could risk breaking a few eggs.

[Premmy]

Yeah, so what he's Shooting for here Nique is:
the beginning of a religious discussion based on a quote that, while thought-provoking, is ultimatly a vast oversimplification of it's topic and sure to rile up someone's dander

[POS Industries]

Hey Lev, cut out the god talk and dander riling.

[Hanuman]

Lamens, got it.
I was talking about that how we view viewing is regarded as guarded.

It has the side effect of having offensively expressive views, as we allow people to follow their own ideas of how things work.

Make sense?

[Magus]

I was talking about that how we view viewing is regarded as guarded.

Putting it in the form of a Dr. Seuss poem is not in laymen's terms! That's like the opposite!

Also what I said earlier was not exactly smart because that's technically what all these colonist empire's thought they were doing, but they failed miserably at it. You'd have to do it perfectly and fairly or else it would just be hypocritical. Given human nature I'd say that's exactly why it didn't happen and we got all the oppression and what not.

Ideally, though, it would've worked out swell.

[POS Industries]

Lamens, got it.
I was talking about that how we view viewing is regarded as guarded.

It has the side effect of having offensively expressive views, as we allow people to follow their own ideas of how things work.

Make sense?
No.

Please start your argument over from the beginning in plain english so that we all know what the hell you're talking about.

[Premmy]

Lev wants us to know that he is a/Was raised by/Hangs out with a lot of Hipp(y)ies and he thinks that's a really big deal.

[bluestarultor]

I'm just going to stop in with my traditional "look at our ancestors" bit that Gun touched on.

Simply put, every animal has an "us versus them" mentality and humans are no different. We compete over resources and so we are forced to define who is in our group. Bigotry is just an extension of that by way of stereotyping, which serves as an easy way to throw a template over a large group that one could never know individual by individual. It's not a direct result, mind you. It just combines stereotyping with strong negative emotions like fear and hatred that extend from competition, but are subsequently blown out of proportion.

This really isn't all that hard to understand from an anthropological standpoint. Example: cats and dogs. They share the same prey and territory and therefore are hard-wired to compete. Even animals of the same size have a high probability of not getting along, resulting in chases and standoffs. Socialize them together from an early age and they get along just fine. By doing that, you allow them to include each other in their respective "in groups."

This is really why shows like Sesame Street are so diverse, because it exposes kids to people of other races at an early age and presents them just like anyone else. The idea is that it gets racial acceptance's foot in the door. The ultimate result comes from outside factors as well, but the attempt to socialize children that way is admirable.

[Premmy]

This really isn't all that hard to understand from an anthropological standpoint. Example: cats and dogs. They share the same prey and territory and therefore are hard-wired to compete.

Actually, Cats and dogs generally don't get along because their means of communicating(sounds, body language, odors) are almost complete opposites to each other.

Dog wags tail=HAPPY!
Cat twitches tail= Pissy

Cat makes low rumbling noise= HAPPY
Dog makes low rumbling noise= very, very angry

Cats and dogs raised with each other from a very early age get along fine, as they understand the differences with each other.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Blues, you totally got what I was trying to say. You just earned massive amounts of respect. But really, pretty much all of these arguments are valid and there's no way we'll all come over to the same line of thinking.

[bluestarultor]

That's probably the first positive reaction I've gotten for saying this stuff. Makes me all warm and fuzzy inside. *^-^*



Cats and dogs raised with each other from a very early age get along fine, as they understand the differences with each other.

Basically the entire point here, just substitute communication differences for, uh, hey, communication differences! Whaddaya know?

Jibing aside, that also should include cultural differences, but yeah, the entire point is that if you actually understand how someone else operates, you're not going to hate them all. They essentially are absorbed into your in group.

[Hanuman]

Lev wants us to know that he is a/Was raised by/Hangs out with a lot of Hipp(y)ies and he thinks that's a really big deal.
Because hippies and fireswords go together like ____ and ____.
But a good question would be, who doesn't like love and freedom?

Ok POS, I'll try and break it down for easy digestion:

1) World View
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/Images/WorldviewLoop.gif

Basically the diagram indicates the world view loop, as you can see because this is a loop system and that the value influences the perception people have a self gratifying sense of world, to the point where there actually develops an aversion to the changing of this loop, people who don't constantly re-evaluate this synapse loop will just run it deeper and deeper into the literally physical makeup of their brains, similar to someone walking in a circle until they wear the ground in. As time goes by these uncheck self-assurances accumulate and start becoming toxic towards the expansion of one's world view, but by being so assured that we are right we are actually just assuring ourselves we cannot change, and because change is the essence of life and progression, in essence our brains stop growing and stagnate.
Because of this fact we create PHYSICAL phobias, which are a little like emotional phobias or emotional trauma links in the brain to feeling, it's a phobia that the path you've worn down so much is wrong, but as a self defense measure it avoids this.

SOCIALLY, in most modern cultures we are pretty liberal, we accept that everyone can think and do as they wish and that if people think they are right, then that's their choice and really nobody can say otherwise what they think, and because we as a society are accepting of this, if it is easier it usually becomes the standard.

So, basically, you stop reforming, which leads to slower, shallower and ultimately less meaningful thought processes (meaningful meaning that it has meaning to multiple different views you consider simultaneously), this is essentially mental obesity, and it forms a lethargic approach to adaptive thinking, which forms the same loop catch-22 to healing one's state.

Imagine if being fat were suddenly socially accepted and in many circles admired and/or improved your social standing within others in the group?

No argument gets shrill so fast and with such baseless passion as one questioning world view.

Mental Rut = Change Phobia

[Premmy]

Lev wants us to know that he is a/Was raised by/Hangs out with a lot of Hipp(y)ies and he thinks that's a really big deal.

[Fenris]

I am seeing a thing I do not understand.

[Premmy]

You're obviously smoking the wrong stuff, it makes perfect sense to me.

[POS Industries]

Ok POS, I'll try and break it down for easy digestion:

[INSERT CRAZY DIAGRAM AND FUCKING PHD THESIS HERE]
http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o159/posindustries/facepalm/datageordi.png

[Amake]

Why do some people react to foreign cultures with animosity and some with curiosity?

I've been wondering about that for some months. I don't think it's as simple as learning tolerance, though that obviously helps. But tolerating something is just staying neutral to it. Most people either want to learn and incorporate in their world things, ideas and/or people who are different, or want to shut them out.

[Archbio]

Imagine if being fat were suddenly socially accepted and in many circles admired and/or improved your social standing within others in the group?

Kind of like in the Neolithic, then.

[Magus]

Lev is saying that our liberal society is so acceptant of diverse viewpoints that we even accept bigoted ones and allow those people to remain bigoted without calling them out on it, or even reward bigoted people (think of a lot of southern governments in the post-Civil War, lots of bigots were rewarded for their views by being elected to positions of power), and so society as a whole is bigoted because we don't call people out on being intolerant.

I think that's what Lev is saying.

I disagree, though, I think we here right now are talking about being bigoted in a bad way and while there are lots of people in little insular communities where being bigoted is a good thing, I think society as a whole has made it pretty clear it's not good at all and is not a desirable trait to have. I don't think society as a whole is encouraging bigoted behavior...or at least the side of society I agree with. Of course, since Arizona will probably reward their governor with another term for signing that racist immigration bill, it's probably a step backwards, since other people could see that as "Oh, if I support isolationist, racist viewpoints I might get elected to government, I'll go do that now".

But I don't think creating incentives for racist behavior is as bad as it used to be. I don't think our society is liberal in the sense that we are so sensitive we even accept racist viewpoints as "possibilities", although at the end of the day we have to tolerate these people instead of driving them out with fire and sword. I don't think we are so PC we can't call them out for being racist douchebags, though, or pick apart their arguments for racism incredibly easily and expose them as fools.

[Hanuman]

THE BRAIN IS A SERIES OF TUBES.

Ok, let's take the most simple analogy I can think of.

Imagine your brain as a forest, you walk through it every day nonstop.
The more you walk through any one way, a path forms under where you step, if you follow a path for long enough it has trouble growing back and imagine you want to follow a trail more the more it's developed, and that the more you follow the beaten trail, the more you fear straying from it and the more difficult it is you you to even think about trekking back into a less beaten path.

Your "World View", how you see the world, is made up of the shape and location of these trails, some people have trails that dead end into clearings, some people have trails that loop into themselves further carving the beaten path below them, and some people just don't have much of a developed trail because they don't like to entertain any one side of a world view.

Now, imagine bigotry is like a patch of poison oak (you can't kill it with a machete and you can't break it down, you can only avoid it), bigotry is not like a little vending machine in your head thats totally isolated, it's actually a part of an already existing pathway, since we are thinking about it as bad, we are thinking about it like poison oak.

Every time you walk that path, you have to be careful not to touch it, OR you could just stroll right through and not care, but the only way to really stop the problem is A) change the path slightly (very difficult for those with completely barren paths) or B) Choose an entirely new path.

What I was saying, is that things don't just float around in your head like vegetables in a bowl of soup or anything like that, they are carved into you like circuitry or an operating system, it's not a file you can just delete or rename, it's actually coded into you.


More on the tech metaphor, he uses the word "culture" to explain your synapse pathway formation, he also talks about the shamanistic approach to reset the brains programming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

[Magus]

Wouldn't psychiatric help work better than shamanism?

[Amake]

things don't just float around in your head like vegetables in a bowl of soup
That's just if you don't get your mind blown hard and often. I've always thought it important to keep a light and breezy head where thoughts don't just float like in soup but soar like the wind!

PS. Shamanism is what psychiatry would be if the man hadn't banned LSD, yo.

[Hanuman]

That's just if you don't get your mind blown hard and often. I've always thought it important to keep a light and breezy head where thoughts don't just float like in soup but soar like the wind!

PS. Shamanism is what psychiatry would be if the man hadn't banned LSD, yo.
LSD isn't the best tool, but yes you are describing a pretty pathless mind =]

Wouldn't psychiatric help work better than shamanism?
Depends what your problem is, if your problem is that you can't get over a little speed bump in your life, like your lover left you or your boss is mean, then go cry about it, but if you were raised into a head you generally dislike at a fundamental level, then no amount of talking it over will re-write you code, AKA talking it over wont do anything, but if you take the plunge and hammer away you can kind of start branching off paths from your main one, what the shaman does is he erases the paths if it's needed, but more than the he evaluates what is needed.

[tacticslion]

Sheesh I write lots. I'm sick, really should be hopped up on meds, but am probably running a very low grade fever. Go figure I'd write a ton of stuff. Apologies for dyslexicating any spelling or going on tangents in what's below, as well as any offense - none is meant (although mild rebuke and instruction is, as I'm a pompous, arrogant, patronizing right wing zealot who thinks he knows best). So: I'm putting stuff in swap tags. Three different arguments, three different tags.

Number 1: But tolerating something is just staying neutral to it.

Nope, that's not Tolerance, though that's an unfortunate repeated element of the "Tolerance" movement. Tolerance isn't neutral. It's recognizing that someone else is wrong, but not hating them. Tolerance is actually something all people need to have.

I don't think our society is liberal in the sense that we are so sensitive we even accept racist viewpoints as "possibilities", although at the end of the day we have to tolerate these people instead of driving them out with fire and sword. I don't think we are so PC we can't call them out for being racist douchebags, though, or pick apart their arguments for racism incredibly easily and expose them as fools.

See, this is Tolerance: he accepts people as people, doesn't hate them, but certainly doesn't agree with them. He's non-neutral, but not hateful.

Number 2: THE BRAIN IS A SERIES OF TUBES.

Ok, let's take the most simple analogy I can think of.

Imagine your brain as a forest, you walk through it every day nonstop.
The more you walk through any one way, a path forms under where you step, if you follow a path for long enough it has trouble growing back and imagine you want to follow a trail more the more it's developed, and that the more you follow the beaten trail, the more you fear straying from it and the more difficult it is you you to even think about trekking back into a less beaten path.

Your "World View", how you see the world, is made up of the shape and location of these trails, some people have trails that dead end into clearings, some people have trails that loop into themselves further carving the beaten path below them, and some people just don't have much of a developed trail because they don't like to entertain any one side of a world view.

Now, imagine bigotry is like a patch of poison oak (you can't kill it with a machete and you can't break it down, you can only avoid it), bigotry is not like a little vending machine in your head thats totally isolated, it's actually a part of an already existing pathway, since we are thinking about it as bad, we are thinking about it like poison oak.

Every time you walk that path, you have to be careful not to touch it, OR you could just stroll right through and not care, but the only way to really stop the problem is A) change the path slightly (very difficult for those with completely barren paths) or B) Choose an entirely new path.

What I was saying, is that things don't just float around in your head like vegetables in a bowl of soup or anything like that, they are carved into you like circuitry or an operating system, it's not a file you can just delete or rename, it's actually coded into you.

More on the tech metaphor, he uses the word "culture" to explain your synapse pathway formation, he also talks about the shamanistic approach to reset the brains programming:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c8an2XZ3MU

Wouldn't psychiatric help work better than shamanism?

Yes, it would, in theory. The problem Lev is pointing out is the point at which someone literally breaks their mind in. The forest in his analogy - a given person's mind - is where we traverse. Walk the same path long enough and things can no longer grow in that area - in otherwords, nothing new can enter, and it's really difficult to change: it can be done - with the proper implements, such a hoe, rake, and other things - you can actually reclaim the land for the forest and allow it to grow back, but it takes hard effort at that point. The brain is similar. Further, if we identify the "problem spots" in our brain (such as the bigotry/poison oak) with care (and some itching - something most people don't want to face) we can actually destroy those things so they don't grow back and replace it with something else. So, in those ways it's a pretty anapt analogy.

That said, Lev's analogies, graphics, and quotes have had several failures in communication and more than a few logical fallacies (including the presupposition of the finite to truly comprehend the infinite - as a mathmatician friend once told me, one of the key causes of mathmaticians to tend to go insane moreso than in other fields). He's got a fair idea of why people become so entrenched they can't get out, but he fails to see why they get there in the first place.

To return to one of the strengths of the "forest path" analogy: that of making a path. Lev's contention is that when people walk the same road too many times, they fall into a rut - the forest path. My counter-argument is that the "rut" is actually quite useful. Those who've created it know where they're going, can get there faster, easier, and better. Our brains are similar in that they physically reconform to neural pathways we follow a great deal. That's why many people specialize in college - they think on one thing long enough and they get really good and really fast at it and don't get lost in bewildering forest "maze". Not all paths are equally ideal, and sometimes different people can be taking a similar path, but arrive at different locales (conclusions) - two scientists in a similar field can interpret the same finds completely differently. Similarly, not everyone's "forest" (read brain) has the same physical make-up - some have the analogous "poison oak" while some don't (or have it in a different spot). Nonetheless, the path needs to be made and, unless you have training, you can't always recognize "poison oak" (bigotry/other problem) when you first blunder into it (or even always easily afterwords). It may take quite a few times passing through that same "patch" (problem) and recieving the "itch" (negative consequence) before identification can occur.

Although I could be misreading, it seems Lev is against this kind of path-making? To me (to use cliche phraseology) that smacks of keeping an "open mind" so "open" that you can't keep anything in it. I'm not against having an open mind (or more than one well-trod neural pathway), but you have to actually use your mind or it's becomes worthless. Similarly, Lev has a well-trod neural pathway that allow him to skillfully wield fireswords, and philosophically holds that most traditional World Views (as expressed by broadly termed Western Culture) are inherently bigoted against change - similar to how his own view seems bigoted against the concept of changelessness (again, I may be wrong, but this seems to be what's being said).

Even if he does accept that rutted (neural) pathways are very useful, the quotes, graphs, and wording he's using are provocative in negative (disparaging) ways. And Lev's smart - I'm sure he can figure out other ways to saying what he wants to, although at the moment he seems to be relying on cliches.

Number 3: Even if "competition" is not inherently evolutionarily superior, humans (and really all thinking creatures) probably have a competitive nature. Why? Because: we think, evolution (presuming we're going with that) doesn't. Given thought processes, we're likely to select those who compete for resources. We (tend to) select the "best" (competition) mates (those that please us visually, mentally, physically, or whatever), select the "best" (competition) students for scholarships, the "best" (competition) athletes for our sports teams, and "best" (competition) candidate for the presidency. Oh, but those are too cultural? Okay, let's look at: we select the "best" (competition) sheep to breed, the "best" (competition) crops to grow, the "best" (competition) animals to tame, and the "best" (competition) people to hang out with. This competative instinct isn't just about finite resources (although there's that too) it's about the drive to improve ourselves. Still not satisfied? We're on an internet forum argueing about whether or not "competition" is a valid, inherent part of our nature. Without a competative drive to "prove" our point, we'd not be arguing this at all. We'd just go "okay, yeah, you're right, who cares" and move on. Competition isn't going to go away. We have it at personal levels and at corporate (I don't mean financial business, "corporate") levels. We have it at every element of our life, just as we have cooperation. Given an evolutionary system, both would become important, even as they seem contradictory. Limited resources or not, we will still compete. Competing doesn't even mean "struggling hard" for something - it can be passive. Jamestown nearly failed because people passively "competed" to do less than others while still reaping the benefits of a full days labor.

Okie, I'mma go die and/or haunt another thread with my far-too-many words and low-grade fever. Probably while hopped up on meds. Mmmm... meds.

[Amake]

If you don't hate someone and don't love them, I'd call that being neutral. Do you mean there's a fourth option? I don't see it. >_>

[tacticslion]

If you don't hate someone and don't love them, I'd call that being neutral. Do you mean there's a fourth option? I don't see it. >_>

See, it's not "hate" v. "love" v. "neutral". I can hate someone and tolerate them. I can love someone, feel they are very, very wrong (and making a terrible choice) and still "tolerate" someone. I can also be completely ambivalent about someone (neutral). Tolerance requires an emotional involvment in some way - you have to care about their choice/action/belief for some reason. Neutrality doesn't.

[Hanuman]

The problem with Lev's arguments and their strengths.Lev is pointing out is the point at which someone literally breaks their mind in. The forest in his analogy - a given person's mind - is where we traverse. Walk the same path long enough and things can no longer grow in that area - in otherwords, nothing new can enter, and it's really difficult to change: it can be done - with the proper implements, such a hoe, rake, and other things - you can actually reclaim the land for the forest and allow it to grow back, but it takes hard effort at that point. The brain is similar. Further, if we identify the "problem spots" in our brain (such as the bigotry/poison oak) with care (and some itching - something most people don't want to face) we can actually destroy those things so they don't grow back and replace it with something else. So, in those ways it's a pretty anapt analogy.Er, Anapt? Yes, the bigotry is actually more like emotional baggage, it can be released and untangled from your processes but we cannot actively remove or regrow land consciously, we can either identify and stray or wall off (walling is very dangerous in the long run) the problem areas to force a re-route. The forest will regrow on it's own as the synaptic pathways reform.

Although I could be misreading, it seems Lev is against this kind of path-making? To me (to use cliche phraseology) that smacks of keeping an "open mind" so "open" that you can't keep anything in it.It's not that things don't grow in a pathless forest, it's just that to those who don't train on walking without the path tend to slip and fall like a cityboy trying to crawl up or down a muddy slope filled with roots, the pathless will recognize the roots and where the path can be stepped on, he can walk or run in a straight line, where as the pathed will have a difficult time. It's a matter of preference.

Or tldr, you could compare the path to int and the pathless to wis, and I am 100% biased to wis over int, so I agree with the assumption that I have a path, analogybreaking or self-contradictory as it is.


If you want the real definition to tolerance, southpark did it rather well. http://www.xepisodes.com/episodes/614/The-Death-Camp-of-Tolerance.html

[Amake]

Tolerance means to act neutral, I think I said. My point being that it doesn't affect you feeling curiosity or animosity towards different people. Seems like we're on the same page, tacts.

[tacticslion]

Er, Anapt? Yes, the bigotry is actually more like emotional baggage, it can be released and untangled from your processes but we cannot actively remove or regrow land consciously, we can either identify and stray or wall off (walling is very dangerous in the long run) the problem areas to force a re-route. The forest will regrow on it's own as the synaptic pathways reform.

Sorry, I see how what I said was easily misinterpreted. That's not entirely what I meant: I meant we can work to repair the damage and let our nature take over the rest. We can work to make it more likely that the forest will regrow more quickly, allowing our paths to work better. We can't "will ourselves better" by the "power of our consciousness" or anything so silly. We can, however, break up the hard-packed earth (packed so because we've trod it so often) and replant seeds. Effectively we can go a different rout until it seals itself up, or we can weaken the mental pathway and seed it so it grows up faster.

It's not that things don't grow in a pathless forest, it's just that to those who don't train on walking without the path tend to slip and fall like a cityboy trying to crawl up or down a muddy slope filled with roots, the pathless will recognize the roots and where the path can be stepped on, he can walk or run in a straight line, where as the pathed will have a difficult time. It's a matter of preference.

Nay, I say thee: simply wandering through the forest isn't always good enough. A path allows you to use "horses" and "carts" (tools for processing larger-scale things) and you can take others with you on that path (or help them develop similar paths). The pathless will do great, but if they have a heavy burden to carry, they must either move very slowly or fall often. Also, beyond this, you're right, the analogy begins to break down.

Or tldr, you could compare the path to int and the pathless to wis, and I am 100% biased to wis over int, so I agree with the assumption that I have a path, analogybreaking or self-contradictory as it is.

I would be biased toward wisdom over intelligence too, however that's not entirely accurate, although I see what you're saying. You would err on the side of intuitive elements instead of carefully worn treads. I'd refudiate this by saying that if we don't have have those carefully worn paths, we wouldn't have a society - we'd fail to have viable forms of communication, as we'd all be attempting to "intuit" everything. No, each person needs their own well-worn neural pathways, otherwise we'd still be at square one - a square at which no flaming swords, internet, or other things for pleasure could exist, as we'd be not have anything but intuition. In other words, while wisdom is superior, we need both, otherwise we have nothing.

Tolerance means to act neutral, I think I said. My point being that it doesn't affect you feeling curiosity or animosity towards different people. Seems like we're on the same page, tacts.

But that will never stop me from being an over-bearing pompous arrogant, self-rightous argumentative wind bag! Who's full of himself! (Alt: 'kay, I see your point, I just didn't read it that way)

[Hanuman]

The pathless will do great, but if they have a heavy burden to carry, they must either move very slowly or fall often. Also, beyond this, you're right, the analogy begins to break down.I'd say that follows more into the realm of skill, Int skill = faster travel, wis skills means ignoring obstacles and simplifying the route to the most A to B.

I would be biased toward wisdom over intelligence too, however that's not entirely accurate, although I see what you're saying. You would err on the side of intuitive elements instead of carefully worn treads. I'd refudiate this by saying that if we don't have have those carefully worn paths, we wouldn't have a society - we'd fail to have viable forms of communication, as we'd all be attempting to "intuit" everything. No, each person needs their own well-worn neural pathways, otherwise we'd still be at square one - a square at which no flaming swords, internet, or other things for pleasure could exist, as we'd be not have anything but intuition. In other words, while wisdom is superior, we need both, otherwise we have nothing.Refudiate?

The old societies worked just fine, and didn't destroy the planet. I represent the path metaphor as disparaging upon the rampant growth of Int over Wis because we as a people aren't fucking mature enough to deal with it, 500 years ago we were drinking booze instead of water... this is not a long time!

C'mon you apes, you want to die tomorrow?

[Premmy]

The old societies worked just fine, and didn't destroy the planet
they would have, they just lacked the means.

[tacticslion]

I'd say that follows more into the realm of skill, Int skill = faster travel, wis skills means ignoring obstacles and simplifying the route to the most A to B. See, while I love DnD, "skill" and "wisdom" weren't really as seperate as we're making them out to be in modern times. Wisdom is, in fact, an acquired skill. Not in DnD, but in real life, you have to learn to make wise choices. That's what learning "the right thing" is for.

Refudiate?

The old societies worked just fine, and didn't destroy the planet. I represent the path metaphor as disparaging upon the rampant growth of Int over Wis because we as a people aren't fucking mature enough to deal with it, 500 years ago we were drinking booze instead of water... this is not a long time!

C'mon you apes, you want to die tomorrow?... what? I'm not entirely certain what you're saying here. But not being aware of what I'm talking about has never stopped me before! So...

First: Yes, refudiate an over-emphasis on intuition than reason, but similarly not over-emphasize reason at the expense of intuition. We need both - an innate sense of right and wrong, as well as a rational thought processes. They're not mutually exclusive, but we often make them out to be.

Second: I see that from your perspective we've over-developed the intellect at the expense of the intuition, but the question is how do we develop - as a race - something that is inherently personal? We can't force people to be mature. That's impossible. As a race, we can't make ourselves mature simply by wanting it. Each individual has to make that choice and follow through. We can educate, guide, and aid as much as possible, but then that falls into apparent "INT" for you. Intuition can be grown as well, but it takes time and personal effort, and can't be "mass produced" because each person is different.

Third: As far as drinking booze instead of water: it was cleaner. Seriously, they'd likely die or at least get really sick if they drank the water. The booze killed the bateria that killed people. I'm a teatotaller - I don't drink alcohol at all. Yet similarly, I recognize that it was a valid and necessary survival tactic within ancient societies. A survival tactic that was learned by observation (wisdom-based in DnD) combined with logical conclusions (intelligence-based in DnD). Really it took both to survive, either that or pure, dumb luck - i.e. random chance that worked out "in our favor", which is unlikely. Also, 500 years is a very long time, just as much as it's not. Societies and civilizations rise and fall within 500 years - and have. At the same time, compared to all of human history? Not so much. But a very large number of accomplishments have occured - both intuitive and skilled - within that time. The problem with pure intuition is that it leads to a self-only improvement. Without the intellect, a particular entity's accomplishments benefit only themselves. Only with a communcable intellect can that intuition benefit the whole. Similarly, the problem with purely intellectual ("skilled") thought is that it fails to take into account right and wrong - it can learn to do something, but doesn't care if its a good idea or not. Both of those things are related in humans. Wisdom - recognizing right from wrong - helps us learn to use our skills better, that is properly. Intelligence, as you define it, simply allows us to have skills. As I define it, it simply allows us to know about our skills.

Also, I think this is branching into its own conversation that's getting away from bigotry and whether or not we can cure it like a virus. A new thread, perhaps, to restate our arguements and clarify our intentions while not derailing this one more? Alternatively, I could let you have the last word and drop it, your choice.

[Hanuman]

We have had many colorful strides into the future due to our progress, but my bias is made passionate by the price we have payed for it.

The water was dirtied by idiotic choices, they used an emergency tactic to solve what they broke by straying from their already developed ways.

First:
Did you mean repudiate?


Second:
We develop a culture who prides wisdom, this creates a 'soft power' void (the void is caused by a currently vacant social demand for) around wisdom and the low pressure area causes people to want to follow suit. Humans are VERY predictable, thanks to mirror neurons and how we base self worth.

Third:
I define int as mental power, "smart", where as knowledge I define as a grey area in-between, and experience I define as wisdom. The biggest problem I see with path making is that paths are contagious.