3 ms·

I think maybe you're talking about something else, or believe that I am, or I'm misunderstanding you because it feels like you're trying to tell me that my _ima

I think maybe you're talking about something else, or believe that I am, or I'm misunderstanding you because it feels like you're trying to tell me that my _imagination_ is a parlour trick. Ive been on the internet for a long time and this is the first time that has ever happened. I value the time you put into explaining your position, however I dont think creative thought exercises like trying to explain why wall street is full of a-holes using evoluton is a parlour trick. Because there's no trick. It's just a thought. On a discussion forum. Where people discuss things.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> my _imagination_ is a parlour trick...there's no trick. It's just a thought There is a trick. You're claiming artistic license as a fictional narrator. That's fine! That's a thing! But it doesn't work when presenting explanations for the real world. One in which the stock market is a "scam" whose "primary value" is "to keep the sociopaths" busy while it "magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want" all while if someone other than "they" start winning "they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home" [1]. Evolutionary explanations of sociology have a long history of being deeply flawed. At best, they're arbitrary [2]. As explanations for the present state of the world, they aren't useful. As fictional devices, sure, why not. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336 [2] Caveat: evolutionary thinking works when one starts with real-world observations and supposes how they evolved. Cf: the evolution of altruism in humans [a]. It fails when one supposes evolutionary pressures to predict human behavior, e.g. natural selection and social competition exist, herego we should expect our leaders to be sociopaths. Observation, not supposition, before conclusion. [a] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25061670 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25061670
- fartcannon 4y ago
  I notice you left out the 'I think' from when you quoted me. That's how you were supposed to know it's not fiction, it's not a parlor trick, it's a thought. Kinda like brainstorming. Suggesting there is a 'trick' to what I'm writing implies (to me at least) that I'm attempting to deceive. I assure you I am not. And since we're quoting each other, you opened with, "It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world." I assure you I love getting out of bed. On the other hand, I kinda get the vibe the discussion you're having is a continuation of one you've had before with someone else and maybe you're projecting it on to me? I checked out your profile and now I understand! Haha. Fun times. Thanks for the links.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> my _imagination_ is a parlour trick...there's no trick. It's just a thought There is a trick. You're claiming artistic license as a fictional narrator. That's fine! That's a thing! But it doesn't work when presenting explanations for the real world. One in which the stock market is a "scam" whose "primary value" is "to keep the sociopaths" busy while it "magnifies wealth discrepancy which is what the sociopaths want" all while if someone other than "they" start winning "they invent a new game, or take the ball and go home" [1]. Evolutionary explanations of sociology have a long history of being deeply flawed. At best, they're arbitrary [2]. As explanations for the present state of the world, they aren't useful. As fictional devices, sure, why not. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31469336 [2] Caveat: evolutionary thinking works when one starts with real-world observations and supposes how they evolved. Cf: the evolution of altruism in humans [a]. It fails when one supposes evolutionary pressures to predict human behavior, e.g. natural selection and social competition exist, herego we should expect our leaders to be sociopaths. Observation, not supposition, before conclusion. [a] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25061670 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25061670

fartcannon 4y ago
I notice you left out the 'I think' from when you quoted me. That's how you were supposed to know it's not fiction, it's not a parlor trick, it's a thought. Kinda like brainstorming. Suggesting there is a 'trick' to what I'm writing implies (to me at least) that I'm attempting to deceive. I assure you I am not. And since we're quoting each other, you opened with, "It might be the inverse. Someone not wanting to get out of bed in the morning projecting that view onto the world." I assure you I love getting out of bed. On the other hand, I kinda get the vibe the discussion you're having is a continuation of one you've had before with someone else and maybe you're projecting it on to me? I checked out your profile and now I understand! Haha. Fun times. Thanks for the links.