Muffet continues her anti-Geno smear campaign

[willtalk]

Again. Because society is beyond ignorant. This is an easy problem to solve. People don’t want to.

They don't want to because they will not acknowledge what the real problem is. People always want to attribute these sort of issues to ignorance. It is not ignorance when denial comes into play. The answer might be right in front of them but it does not good if they chose not to see it. Of course, it is the PC thing now to attribute any social problem on ignorance rather than to stubborn stupidity and denial.

The problem resides in peoples hearts not their brains. I seem to have a good memory that allows me to reflect on the pendulumic swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other. Justice towards people is dependent on doing the right thing each day of our lives rather than reactionary behavior. All this does is create a pendulum effect that keeps things continually unequal. You can not give one group of people their rights by taking away the rights of another group. Reactionary responses perpetuate dysfunction. All it does is fix on the problem via creating another. Of course, some people are adept at using this for their own purpose. It helps them to rationalize their own unjust behavior and bigotry because they are doing it for a supposed good cause.

 

[Engineer90]

They don't want to because they will not acknowledge what the real problem is. People always want to attribute these sort of issues to ignorance. It is not ignorance when denial comes into play. The answer might be right in front of them but it does not good if they chose not to see it. Of course, it is the PC thing now to attribute any social problem on ignorance rather than to stubborn stupidity and denial.

The problem resides in peoples hearts not their brains. I seem to have a good memory that allows me to reflect on the pendulumic swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other. Justice towards people is dependent on doing the right thing each day of our lives rather than reactionary behavior. All this does is create a pendulum effect that keeps things continually unequal. You can not give one group of people their rights by taking away the rights of another group. Reactionary responses perpetuate dysfunction. All it does is fix on the problem via creating another. Of course, some people are adept at using this for their own purpose. It helps them to rationalize their own unjust behavior and bigotry because they are doing it for a supposed good cause.

I agree. You can't fight darkness with darkness. You can't fight racism with racism. You can't fight sexism with sexism. Equal opportunity has always been the answer, not equal outcome. Someone once had a dream that all people would be judged for their character and not the color of their skin. Same holds for their sex.

I cringe when my company brags about their diversity. The goal should be hiring the best people, without bias and discrimination, not diversity. Touting diversity instead of successfully recruiting and hiring the best people is nothing more than virtue signaling. People do it because they have attached their value as human beings to their efforts to address a crisis or defend some oppressed group. Their egos don't drive them toward optimal outcomes but, rather, a perceived spot on moral high ground. Ego always causes people to be self-destructive and group ego causes groups to be self-destructive.

I have a co-worker that won a "Black Engineer of the year" award. He refused to accept it because he wants to be known as a good engineer, not a good black engineer. I love him. He is one of my favorite people to work with. He is smart, funny and real as hell.

 

[diggerfoot]

They don't want to because they will not acknowledge what the real problem is. People always want to attribute these sort of issues to ignorance. It is not ignorance when denial comes into play. The answer might be right in front of them but it does not good if they chose not to see it. Of course, it is the PC thing now to attribute any social problem on ignorance rather than to stubborn stupidity and denial.

The problem resides in peoples hearts not their brains. I seem to have a good memory that allows me to reflect on the pendulumic swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other. Justice towards people is dependent on doing the right thing each day of our lives rather than reactionary behavior. All this does is create a pendulum effect that keeps things continually unequal. You can not give one group of people their rights by taking away the rights of another group. Reactionary responses perpetuate dysfunction. All it does is fix on the problem via creating another. Of course, some people are adept at using this for their own purpose. It helps them to rationalize their own unjust behavior and bigotry because they are doing it for a supposed good cause.

This comes closest to my own understanding out of anything I have read from others here on the BY. I once researched for years how our social systems worked, from a natural systems framework of flows and feedback (eg, the flow of resources in an economic system and how information or misinformation maintains that flow). Once I became a caregiver for my wife with Alzheimer's I researched brain health instead. There is considerable overlap between the two. Being social, positive and active are important for both brain and social health. Indeed, those attributes have been found to be more important than diet or the absence of vices for superagers, people whose brain and emotional health remain vibrant well into their nineties and beyond.

We believe and act based on either what we experience or who we trust. In complex, mass society we place a lot of faith in who we trust, even to the denial of what we experience. The problem with this is that the more trust we have in authorities (whether the scientist, the interest group, the politician, the religious leader, etc) the more we will deny what our own experiences tell us and the more we empower trusted authorities to take advantage of that. We are never misinformed by the authorities we do not trust, nor do we tend to disruptively act when ignorant (we got to the moon despite a collective, overwhelming ignorance about rocket science). Like you stated, neither ignorance nor stupidity are the issues, at the heart are the trusts we hold in a complex society and how strongly we hold them. The more dogmatic the "followers" of an authority are the more corrupted the authority can and will become and the more they will manipulate the emotions of "followers," often in a coevolving process.

My two previous posts on here were deleted for good cause. If this gets deleted as well I apologize in advance. As a 24/7 caregiver who still researches but mostly keep to myself I unfortunately seek the BY as an outlet at times. Live well everybody!

 

[RockyMTblue2]

This comes closest to my own understanding out of anything I have read from others here on the BY. I once researched for years how our social systems worked, from a natural systems framework of flows and feedback (eg, the flow of resources in an economic system and how information or misinformation maintains that flow). Once I became a caregiver for my wife with Alzheimer's I researched brain health instead. There is considerable overlap between the two. Being social, positive and active are important for both brain and social health. Indeed, those attributes have been found to be more important than diet or the absence of vices for superagers, people whose brain and emotional health remain vibrant well into their nineties and beyond.

We believe and act based on either what we experience or who we trust. In complex, mass society we place a lot of faith in who we trust, even to the denial of what we experience. The problem with this is that the more trust we have in authorities (whether the scientist, the interest group, the politician, the religious leader, etc) the more we will deny what our own experiences tell us and the more we empower trusted authorities to take advantage of that. We are never misinformed by the authorities we do not trust, nor do we tend to disruptively act when ignorant (we got to the moon despite a collective, overwhelming ignorance about rocket science). Like you stated, neither ignorance nor stupidity are the issues, at the heart are the trusts we hold in a complex society and how strongly we hold them. The more dogmatic the "followers" of an authority are the more corrupted the authority can and will become and the more they will manipulate the emotions of "followers," often in a coevolving process.

My two previous posts on here were deleted for good cause. If this gets deleted as well I apologize in advance. As a 24/7 caregiver who still researches but mostly keep to myself I unfortunately seek the BY as an outlet at times. Live well everybody!

Dogmatic disloyal oppositions are dangerous too! Nice piece @diggerfoot . I do hope you have occasions for breaks in your 24/7 caregiver role. I'm sure you know there are organizations dedicated to lending support.

 

[diggerfoot]

Dogmatic disloyal oppositions are dangerous too! Nice piece @diggerfoot . I do hope you have occasions for breaks in your 24/7 caregiver role. I'm sure you know there are organizations dedicated to lending support.

Thanks Rocky! I always respect your input! Keep in mind that apathy or opposition may result from our own experiences conflicting with authorities, civil disobedience should not be condemned in a loving, responsible society. By definition, dogmatic disloyalty or anything dogmatic comes from placing complete trust in an alternate authority. Authorities exist in many forms in civilized society.

 

[sivad40]

They don't want to because they will not acknowledge what the real problem is. People always want to attribute these sort of issues to ignorance. It is not ignorance when denial comes into play. The answer might be right in front of them but it does not good if they chose not to see it. Of course, it is the PC thing now to attribute any social problem on ignorance rather than to stubborn stupidity and denial.

The problem resides in peoples hearts not their brains. I seem to have a good memory that allows me to reflect on the pendulumic swinging back and forth from one extreme to the other. Justice towards people is dependent on doing the right thing each day of our lives rather than reactionary behavior. All this does is create a pendulum effect that keeps things continually unequal. You can not give one group of people their rights by taking away the rights of another group. Reactionary responses perpetuate dysfunction. All it does is fix on the problem via creating another. Of course, some people are adept at using this for their own purpose. It helps them to rationalize their own unjust behavior and bigotry because they are doing it for a supposed good cause.

Why it assumed that when one group gets a right, that it was at another group's expense? I know why but I won't answer that question because I will mostly likely get political in answering own question.

Who was the head of recruiting at ND when McGuff and Tsipis were assistants there? Did they recruit the best players that ND had when they were there?

 

[billybud]

Sometimes I think we do not attribute enough to why we, as humans, are so tribal. Why we fear the "other".

I am pretty sure that a survival skill, aquired during our evolution, was to immediately recognize our group from "others".

A hunter running into another group in the woods would immediately need to ascertain whether friend or possible foe.

Folks do feel more comfortable around others that they see as "like".

And that is not my opinion...it is a medical fact. Blacks living among majority whites and whites living among majority blacks have higher blood pressure levels than their population not living in these circumstances. Stress is the theorized reason.

We have throughout our species history been fearful of the "other"....folk of different beliefs, folk of different skin color, folk different from our own folk.

There is also a built in tendency to perpetuate the genes of one's group. Studies on altruism have shown, in humans and animals, kin selection plays in.

Kin selection theory predicts that animals are more likely to behave altruistically towards their relatives than towards unrelated members of their species. Moreover, it predicts that the degree of altruism will be greater, the closer the relationship.

The theory has been amply proved in empirical studies.

To have natural programming is part of who we all are....being able to use our intellect and compassion to lessen their effects is who we are becoming.

 

[diggerfoot]

Sometimes I think we do not attribute enough to why we, as humans, are so tribal. Why we fear the "other".

I am pretty sure that a survival skill, aquired during our evolution, was to immediately recognize our group from "others".

A hunter running into another group in the woods would immediately need to ascertain whether friend or possible foe.

Folks do feel more comfortable around others that they see as "like".

And that is not my opinion...it is a medical fact. Blacks living among majority whites and whites living among majority blacks have higher blood pressure levels than their population not living in these circumstances. Stress is the theorized reason.

We have throughout our species history been fearful of the "other"....folk of different beliefs, folk of different skin color, folk different from our own folk.

There is also a built in tendency to perpetuate the genes of one's group. Studies on altruism have shown, in humans and animals, kin selection plays in.

Kin selection theory predicts that animals are more likely to behave altruistically towards their relatives than towards unrelated members of their species. Moreover, it predicts that the degree of altruism will be greater, the closer the relationship.

The theory has been amply proved in empirical studies.

To have natural programming is part of who we all are....being able to use our intellect and compassion to lessen their effects is who we are becoming.

The empirical studies to which you refer are by sociologists and psychologists based on a civilized context rather than what cultural anthropologists, particularly ethnographers, determined from observing hunters and gatherers in their original state. Had we been as fearful as you claim we may have still spread throughout the world but we would have been idiots everywhere due to inbreeding. Nomadic tribes were mobile not only physically but also people leaving one tribe for another and being welcomed. By such means did we have a healthy mixture of genes. Native Americans were noted, and even faulted and exploited, by European explorers for their hospitality. Yes, a tribe would hold tightly to its own beliefs and behaviors for its own survival, but were very open to anyone joining them, and were not very concerned about any other "tribe" holding the same beliefs. In fact, gods multiplied among nomadic tribes because they were open to incorporating the gods of the "other." In contrast, interest groups (whether political parties, religious affiliations, think tanks, ideological, etc, etc) would try to impose their beliefs and behaviors on others and have a resulting fear of the "other" and hold kinship with their own. What academics now try to brand as tribalism was once known, and more correctly labeled, as groupthink.

 

[reno tony]

OMG. MM made disparaging comments about Geno. What are we to do?

 

[huskeynut]

Does Muffet have an "ignore button?"

 

[CL82]

I agree I too was a minority as I raised all boys., it has made me a tough cookie. I had to be as:my husband traveled a lot due to his jobs. The guys all turned out pretty good even though I didn’t think I did that job well at the time.

Kids hear you and watch you and those memories rattle around in them shaping the person that they become. It's not always apparent when they are young but that just makes it all the more satisfying later in life.

 

[UConnCat]

OMG. MM made disparaging comments about Geno. What are we to do?

Actually this time she didn't but never let the facts get in the way of a good thread title.

 

[Engineer90]

This comes closest to my own understanding out of anything I have read from others here on the BY. I once researched for years how our social systems worked, from a natural systems framework of flows and feedback (eg, the flow of resources in an economic system and how information or misinformation maintains that flow). Once I became a caregiver for my wife with Alzheimer's I researched brain health instead. There is considerable overlap between the two. Being social, positive and active are important for both brain and social health. Indeed, those attributes have been found to be more important than diet or the absence of vices for superagers, people whose brain and emotional health remain vibrant well into their nineties and beyond.

We believe and act based on either what we experience or who we trust. In complex, mass society we place a lot of faith in who we trust, even to the denial of what we experience. The problem with this is that the more trust we have in authorities (whether the scientist, the interest group, the politician, the religious leader, etc) the more we will deny what our own experiences tell us and the more we empower trusted authorities to take advantage of that. We are never misinformed by the authorities we do not trust, nor do we tend to disruptively act when ignorant (we got to the moon despite a collective, overwhelming ignorance about rocket science). Like you stated, neither ignorance nor stupidity are the issues, at the heart are the trusts we hold in a complex society and how strongly we hold them. The more dogmatic the "followers" of an authority are the more corrupted the authority can and will become and the more they will manipulate the emotions of "followers," often in a coevolving process.

My two previous posts on here were deleted for good cause. If this gets deleted as well I apologize in advance. As a 24/7 caregiver who still researches but mostly keep to myself I unfortunately seek the BY as an outlet at times. Live well everybody!

I don't agree 100% with everything you said but I am glad you wrote it and I am glad it didn't get deleted so I could read it. Peace.

 

[Engineer90]

Everyday is white male's day.

Um, no. There are plenty of white males who struggle through life and no one is seeking them out to help them over anyone else because of their sex or race. Our path is far more dictated by our God given gifts, our efforts, our choices, our character and a little bit of luck and chance than our race and sex. We will never get to a sex blind and race blind humanity if we continue to treat and judge people based on sex and race. It just isn't possible. Don't fight discrimination with discrimination. A comment like that is discriminatory, in my opinion.

 

[Engineer90]

Why it assumed that when one group gets a right, that it was at another group's expense?

Are you talking about Muffet's comment? I assume so because I didn't see anyone here say, or even imply, that. I think most people see the difference between a right and a privilege. Where some go off the rails is when ego gets in the way.

 

[HuskyNan]

Does Muffet have an "ignore button?"

Lol, best post in this thread