2 ms·

I am sorry, but your comment is so terse that I find it quite difficult to really understand. I am very interested in learning and growing, though, so maybe yo

I am sorry, but your comment is so terse that I find it quite difficult to really understand. I am very interested in learning and growing, though, so maybe you can help me understand what you were trying to say. This is what I got and my associated comments and questions: > You are dismissing a level you are apparently incurious about — that of why certain seemingly irrational responses happen. You seem to be saying: There's something (a) you think I'm incurious about (b) that also is relevant to this discussion. My thoughts: What exactly is this "level" you are referring to? I do have thoughts on "why certain seemingly irrational responses happen", but I'd first be curious to know what you are referring to. > Using “highly subjective” for something that is much better understood than you are implying is only an indicator of where you’ve chosen to draw your own boundary in pursuit of a constrained cognitive ability. You seem to be saying: There is "something" (a) that I qualified as "highly subjective" in my comment ("What raises strong emotions in people"), and (b) that me qualifying it as such is an indicator of a "boundary" (c) which I have drawn (d) in order to "constrain" my "cognitive ability". My thoughts: I am not sure where your argument against my statement is. How is "What raises strong emotions in people" "much better understood" "than you are implying"? What am I implying in your opinion? > It’s also an indicator of this limit that the two things you’re inaccurately taking as given are intimately linked: emotionality and reproduction. When things get too complex you conversationally reduce humans to emotional animals and end of You seem to be saying: (a) I am limited in my cognitive ability, (b) as evidenced by my inability to realize how emotionality and reproduction are linked, (c) the two of which I also "inaccurately tak[e] as given". I also (d) flee from complexity by referring to the fact that we are animals. My thoughts: How am I taking emotionality and reproduction as given, and how so inaccurately? Where do I dispute a link between the two? What are we in your opinion if not animals? Also, I read an undertone of both "you are stupid" and "you are evil" in your comment. Was that intentional or am I misunderstanding you here?

svnt 4y ago
The level I was referring to includes the emotional and embodied level of being. You seem to be parroting a Dawkins view of humanity which is a reductionist, incomplete view that people are fond of stating as fact because it supports their worldview (and often an escape from a religious upbringing). Apologies for the tone — it was a rushed response. I do not think you are evil or stupid. I do think that by stating your own learned limits of exploration as absolute facts you are making a common mistake of assuming that entire realities can be reduced to something that doesn’t need to be considered. There are some fairly clear classes of emotional response that are probably rooted in evolutionary function, however their evolutionary function is probably substantially altered from the animal roots (if each function has any) due to our recent and unique evolution. Behaviors that appear irrational in a modern synthetic evolutionary view are probably under selection at a different level of abstraction, or they may be evolutionary hybrids or merged palimpsests, but to refer to humans as animals in such a way is almost always done to condemn the behavior of others, excuse ones own poor behavior, and/or end the conversation.

svnt 4y ago

The level I was referring to includes the emotional and embodied level of being. You seem to be parroting a Dawkins view of humanity which is a reductionist, incomplete view that people are fond of stating as fact because it supports their worldview (and often an escape from a religious upbringing). Apologies for the tone — it was a rushed response. I do not think you are evil or stupid. I do think that by stating your own learned limits of exploration as absolute facts you are making a common mistake of assuming that entire realities can be reduced to something that doesn’t need to be considered. There are some fairly clear classes of emotional response that are probably rooted in evolutionary function, however their evolutionary function is probably substantially altered from the animal roots (if each function has any) due to our recent and unique evolution. Behaviors that appear irrational in a modern synthetic evolutionary view are probably under selection at a different level of abstraction, or they may be evolutionary hybrids or merged palimpsests, but to refer to humans as animals in such a way is almost always done to condemn the behavior of others, excuse ones own poor behavior, and/or end the conversation.