3 ms·

I would not advice reading about these topics, nor do I think they're rooted in science.

VLM 8y ago
They are rooted in science in the sense that they make predictions based on a sensible model that seem to match the past and predict reality better than any other available theory. They are not rooted in science in the sense of sophistry where they are anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist. Its impossible to express something new without being in conflict with established authority. Its actually a fairly normal situation for all paradigm shifts. Kuhn wrote a book about it named "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" about a half century ago; it seems a pretty accurate model for how real paradigm change happens in societies (as opposed to idealized theory). I'm not saying you're wrong and certainly not in any sort of value judgment but am saying that historically there seems to be no possible way for a paradigm shift to roll out without those relatively standard feelings and attitudes toward change you express. The legacy model seems to result in sad middle aged lonely cat ladies for no obvious reason; clearly that model doesn't work well enough; the paradigm shift proposes a workable model with successful predictions, perhaps workable solutions.
- m000z0rz 8y ago
  Okay, it's science in the sense that it makes predictions. So it's a theory. Is it science in the sense that the theory has been tested, and peer reviewed? As soon as you started in on the "anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist" part, I got the sense that you're somewhat invested in this being true. But science means more than proposing an idea; it means testing the predictions, looking for evidence, subjecting it to a critical eye and seeing if it withstands objective scrutiny. Is that the case here?
rglover 8y ago
Not rooted in science, perhaps, but in empirical evidence? Boy howdy. I used to be 260lb and invisible to most women. I decided to get my act together, start lifting weights, and dropped a significant amount (nearly 100lb over the last three years) and wouldn't you know: interest is through the roof. Couple that with a burgeoning business and money getting stable and it's point and shoot. Most men (people) don't like that reality because it means a few harsh truths about looks, status, and money. It also means you have to take responsibility for your results which is the antithesis to ideologies that push as-is self-acceptance and "good enough" ideals. That is to say, my starting to understand and accept this reality hurt beyond belief. It took the better part of a year to really swallow the changes that were taking place. You have a ranking and women especially are either subconsciously or (for a select few) consciously aware of it. Coincidentally, men are too (read: they don't like you climbing the ranks; their behavior in response makes this clear). I've lost a lot of friends in the process of getting my stuff together—people who I'd consider second family. Serious food for thought.

VLM 8y ago

They are rooted in science in the sense that they make predictions based on a sensible model that seem to match the past and predict reality better than any other available theory. They are not rooted in science in the sense of sophistry where they are anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist. Its impossible to express something new without being in conflict with established authority. Its actually a fairly normal situation for all paradigm shifts. Kuhn wrote a book about it named "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" about a half century ago; it seems a pretty accurate model for how real paradigm change happens in societies (as opposed to idealized theory). I'm not saying you're wrong and certainly not in any sort of value judgment but am saying that historically there seems to be no possible way for a paradigm shift to roll out without those relatively standard feelings and attitudes toward change you express. The legacy model seems to result in sad middle aged lonely cat ladies for no obvious reason; clearly that model doesn't work well enough; the paradigm shift proposes a workable model with successful predictions, perhaps workable solutions.

m000z0rz 8y ago
Okay, it's science in the sense that it makes predictions. So it's a theory. Is it science in the sense that the theory has been tested, and peer reviewed? As soon as you started in on the "anti-authoritarian and anti-conformist" part, I got the sense that you're somewhat invested in this being true. But science means more than proposing an idea; it means testing the predictions, looking for evidence, subjecting it to a critical eye and seeing if it withstands objective scrutiny. Is that the case here?

rglover 8y ago

Not rooted in science, perhaps, but in empirical evidence? Boy howdy. I used to be 260lb and invisible to most women. I decided to get my act together, start lifting weights, and dropped a significant amount (nearly 100lb over the last three years) and wouldn't you know: interest is through the roof. Couple that with a burgeoning business and money getting stable and it's point and shoot. Most men (people) don't like that reality because it means a few harsh truths about looks, status, and money. It also means you have to take responsibility for your results which is the antithesis to ideologies that push as-is self-acceptance and "good enough" ideals. That is to say, my starting to understand and accept this reality hurt beyond belief. It took the better part of a year to really swallow the changes that were taking place. You have a ranking and women especially are either subconsciously or (for a select few) consciously aware of it. Coincidentally, men are too (read: they don't like you climbing the ranks; their behavior in response makes this clear). I've lost a lot of friends in the process of getting my stuff together—people who I'd consider second family. Serious food for thought.