Phi for All

! Moderator Note These posts were split from a different discussion. Rather than being related to the original topic, they turned out to be a discrepancy over some terms used. The original conversation can be found here.

But are you legitimately scared, or are you just maintaining a bias you got from a fake news story? Thousands of people believed that story, and one of the weirdest hallmarks of confirmation bias is that when people prove you were wrong, it actually makes you more convinced you're right. Based on this, I predict you still secretly think people are being forced to accept surgical implants.

It's not usually infractions of any sort that have zero tolerance. Schools can adopt zero tolerance policies on specific infractions, like firearms, and not with actual violence, like punching someone out. But you're absolutely right about such black and white perspectives. According to a study by the National Association of School Psychologists, 79% of schools have a zero tolerance policy for physical violence, and the same percentage have one for tobacco. The punishments are the same, suspension or expulsion from school, which puts the kids at an even greater risk since you have to be an active student to use after school programs that might help. And it seems plain to me that the motivations and character of a student who sneaks a smoke on school property are quite different from those of a kid who beats a fellow student up.

I'd like to define conflict. I think conflict is inevitable. There's too many of us not to disagree often. It's aggression that's avoidable as a poor resolution to most conflicts. Aggression is what adds stress to normal instances of conflict. I think you're right about regular exposure to different perspectives being healthy. It's a mental challenge to step outside your comfort zone and talk to people who don't share your POV. I guess the key there is to remember that an open mind can take in new information as needed. It's difficult to learn from someone if you start a conversation with the premise that everything they're about to say is wrong. This adds some new layers to the discussion (thank you!). In a working relationship, is it better to be same-goal oriented, same-talent oriented, or same-mind oriented? It would seem, in your case, that you have a broader skillset as a team. But is that preferable to a relationship where you have the same skillsets and can challenge each other to get better, to grow in your skills? I've always thought the complimentary relationship was best, but it makes sense that people with the same skillsets can challenge each other to grow within those skills more effectively. Two neurosurgeons will learn more about neurosurgery if they're together often, right? But in a personal relationship, those two might not be the best compliment because they wouln't have a broad enough skillset to handle non-neurosurgery incidents together. I have a bias that people who share like views shouldn't close themselves off to other perspectives. I don't think it's healthy to immerse yourself solely in a single culture. But cultural heritage is very important to lots of people. Can you surround yourself with people from your own culture and still expect to grow your knowledge effectively?

Using a Hollywood movie as a starting point?! It's clear to me how uninformative that will be.

At least in the US, 24/7 news programs play a big part in this perception. Violent crime overall has been dropping significantly since the 90s, including school violence. But ask the average citizen about the schools and all they remember is the graphic news coverage of every single violent event in the whole country. I find it a bit ironic that it was Bill Clinton who gave the media moguls the right to own media as well as other businesses, thus paving the way for our present non-informative, money-motivated, if-you-scare-them-they-will-come news broadcasts, and it was also Clinton who worked to improve a lot of the after-school programs that are being praised for helping reduce violence in schools. You'll almost never hear about the good that happens if the media can find something bad instead.

Or what you want to be you, or what could be you if you put in the kind of effort others have. You're not there, and won't ever be until you go back and study mainstream science until you know enough to be a theorist. You don't have the basic knowledge it takes to "assimilate disparate facts into coherent theories". In fact, you reject many of those coherent theories, theories that have proven worthy countless times, but don't make sense to you because your studies of them are incomplete. A theorist asks themselves, "How does this fit with that?", but they have to know this and that very, very well before they can begin to use their theorist powers effectively. You have the drive, maybe the mindset, but you got lazy with the schoolwork (assumption based on "I did not like attending school"). You don't have the core knowledge of the methodology and how it's used to build upon what we know, to strengthen it. Your frustration comes from trying to disprove certain principles without trying to understand them first. You look at something you don't understand and you assume the knowledge is wrong. Worse, you're convinced this makes you some kind of Galileo being persecuted by an angry church. You assume some kind of out-of-the-box solution is necessary before you question whether your own understanding may be flawed. This is definitely not what a theorist would do.

If I take a Humanist stance, accepting that I can't really know anything about god(s) if they do exist, and that they don't seem to be consistent enough to merit much allocation of resources if they do, then I'd like to know how various religions will view my stance. If I side with humanity, and invest my efforts at understanding into flesh and blood people, are religions going to help me or hinder me? In the US right now, we're becoming more sensitive to people and businesses that are neglecting their duties as citizens in favor of what's right for their religion or business. Corporations are hiding profits from taxation, and reducing the middle class that typically paid the lion's share of the revenue that keeps the country going. I think humanism (and history) tells us we're much more powerful in cooperative groups that help each other. Many religions foster this concept, but many promote political and social agendas that call more for personal responsibility. They don't support government welfare, and many social programs that help keep our society on an even keel. They believe you're only worthy if you pull yourself up by your bootstraps, as most of them believe they've done. How can humanism survive when so many people in positions of power use religion to shape a society of subordinates rather than peers?

You're actually very close to an understanding here, if you can focus on this part right here for a while. Please bear with me. The folks here who DID enjoy school, who studied a LOT of science as well as the methodology used, they picked up something that you didn't (I'm sorry, but it's true). They learned along the way how to spot what deserves to be questioned and what can be accepted. Science knowledge is like a jigsaw puzzle cut from the skin of an onion and all it's layers. It's very intricate but the more you study one area, the more likely other areas will make more sense. The other aspect you're ignoring is that many people here don't "instantly accept" what's in the books; they learn what the book says, they learn it thoroughly, and then they perform experiments to see if it supports what the books say. You have this idea in your head that people who study science just absorb knowledge without questioning it. There are probably people like this but not the majority. This is something you keep telling yourself to make all your questioning seem legitimate. You believe you are The Skeptic, not easily swayed or fooled because of your mighty logic. This is a very strong image, but it makes you question everything, and that's not really sustainable, is it? You're questioning people who test these principles every day, but you're really just a very interested amateur (like a lot of us!) who has latched onto specific pieces of science without an adequate framework of study to support you. That means things aren't going to make as much sense to you as they do to people who studied lots of science in school. How did I do? I'm really hoping I said this in a way that will resonate without seeming condescending. You're obviously smart, but you're just as obviously frustrated with certain aspects of your studies.

! Moderator Note Thread locked temporarily for staff review.

What you do is not discussion. You're not having a conversation if you ask questions and then don't listen to the answers. In my years here, I've seen a lot of people do the same thing. You think mainstream science is hidebound to their textbooks, the same books you rejected when you were in school. You've found some inconsistencies which have caused you to question the whole of science rather than question your own skills. You hear phrases like "think outside the box" but don't realize that you need to know the box very well before you can be effective thinking outside it. In answer to your question though, you could probably find a site where somebody will just agree with everything you're saying. I think this is what you're looking for, since you reject mainstream answers. You're guilty of "my way or the highway", but you don't have the benefit of thousands of scientists working in reality to support you. Your best bet, for the way you practice science, is to start a blog. That way you can turn off the comments and nobody will try to show you where you're wrong.

I'm not sure how the virtual reality proposition would work with the idea of colonization. If the couch is too comfy, most people won't get up. If your concern is for physical restraints, can we use your virtual reality wish for some physiological enhancement tech?

What if you get to live on Earth no more than 100 years, then you have to move out? You get booted from the "nest" and have to go colonize a new home.

! Moderator Note After review, clarity has not improved. Putting words together and tossing them like a salad is inimical to good conversation. Please review your source material more carefully, to avoid having your threads go in the Trash.

! Moderator Note This is a mainstream science area. Rejecting the current best understanding is not an option. You must understand "the box" if you ever hope to think outside it. Thread closed. In the future, if anyone thinks a thread has become unproductive, report it rather than commenting in the thread.

Thank you, Iota!

We wish you the best of luck in all your endeavors. Thanks for briefly stopping by.

I don't think anything reliable can be taken from the footage at all. It's questionable evidence at best, given absolutely nothing else physical to corroborate it. And since it very well could be faked.... We're just too good at finding patterns, and ignoring how many times the patterns fail to fit for each time they do. How many other details can't be seen that should be seen if this isn't a suit? Are we latching onto a calf muscle when other muscles should certainly be present?

You really should stop making up new phraseology and just study what others have already pioneered. You'll find people communicating about their ideas in a more seamless fashion, because they're all on the same page with their definitions. You seem like a smart person with good ideas; you don't need a new alphabet to be taken seriously. None of what you're saying is new, but the way you're saying it is, and I think you're mistakenly proud of that. Just saying something in a new way doesn't make you a visionary, it just makes you hard to understand. Learn what's in the box before attempting to think outside it. The box is known as the box for a good reason; it holds our most valuable stuff, and it's completely awesome.

1. A secular education for every single person on the planet. 2. A handkerchief to wipe away my tears of joy when everyone has a basic modern education. 3. A desalinization device I can wring out my handkerchief into to obtain fresh water instantly.

What you're saying has far too many caveats and requires a whole lot of explaining. Isn't it more rational and accurate to say "The planet as a whole is currently essential to our needs and must be carefully nurtured"? This would remove some of the ambiguities surrounding what different people consider "good". Being more precise is a hallmark of human communication. We can pack more information into our communication with precision, such as saying, "We all need water that has a Maximum Contaminant Level of x", rather than saying, "We all need clean water". Does that make sense to you, do you see the difference? This whole greater/lesser good/evil nomenclature is clunky and open to far too much interpretation. Your message is drowned out in all the misunderstandings. Your signal isn't getting through the noise you've purposely created. A new "mentality" isn't likely to form without more precision. After all, you've seen what happened with all the interpretations of religious doctrines. Ambiguity is not your friend.

Why do you think harsh conditions makes creatures evolve into humans? What makes you think our earlier ancestors didn't suffer in harsh conditions? You really should study evolution, you have a lot of misconceptions about it. You're only considered "advanced" in your own environment, surrounded by other humans and all your tools. As I said before, you aren't more advanced than some bacteria if we were to place you in an environment where they thrive and humans don't. Advanced is a subjective term. Once again you demonstrate how changing definitions really messes up a good conversation. Now you're using "advance" to mean move forward, where I was clearly using it to mean "a higher order" the way you first used it. Too frustrating. You keep responding to what you want me to mean, rather than what I wrote. No. I'm not using "good" at all, for the reasons I've told you about twenty times. And again, since you think there is someone there to "judge you at the end", you're no atheist. Far too many assumptions and misconceptions on your part, and since you get to torture the definitions of any word you choose to use, this is a pointless conversation. You can just keep shifting the goalposts and we learn nothing.

So true. And we've been imagining things we can't see but suspect are out there ever since we formed tribes around a campfire. When gods got squeezed out of the gaps in our knowledge, I think we substituted a more rational type of being to be curious about. Earth is the only planet we know that abounds with life, yet only one species is capable of intentionally going offworld. We're highly intelligent, probably because we had a very unique combination of agile hands, a cooperative nature, and extraordinary communication skills (among others). I realize the OP is more aimed at aliens on Earth, but it always intrigued me to think about how another intelligent life form, capable of offworld travel, might evolve on another planet. Would it require the same amount of biodiversity we have? Motivations for space travel are also interesting. In broad strokes, I see two main factors, Necessity and Exploration. I think there would be a big difference in aliens who came to visit depending on whether they need something they can't get at home or they're just out cruising around to see what's out there.

You can talk about anything you want to in Speculations. The special rules were created so those discussions don't end up circling the toilet. IOW, think of Speculations as being on life support, and if you can't provide enough the plug gets pulled.

! Moderator Note Thread closed temporarily for staff review.