do you respect differing opinions?

[zinfamous]

Yet many of the richest individuals in the world take on debt to make even more money.

Are you saying that individual debt is somehow different than economic/trade debt?

 

[realibrad]

Actually you are not "free" to think for yourselves. That is robbed from you by your upbringing. You are brainwashed by your parents into a worldview. The vast majority of people retain that worldview and pass it on to their own children. When you argue with somebody, you are arguing with their parents/peers/pastors who indoctrinated them.

Worldviews are almost impossible to tear down because they involve the emotional part of your brain.

Then how are you atheist? I would imagine you were given the world view that there was a god, and yet you do not believe that is true.

I was taught many things and I do not believe those things today.

 

[Genx87]

Then how are you atheist? I would imagine you were given the world view that there was a god, and yet you do not believe that is true.

I was taught many things and I do not believe those things today.

/mind blown

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Yea but you are still going to die.

No, without being a slave to a fucking bank I am going to LIVE!!!!

 

[realibrad]

/mind blown

Always happy to blow people.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, without being a slave to a fucking bank I am going to LIVE!!!!

Goodness, isn't he proud of his opinion. You are so much better than those fools who compose your family.

 

[Moonbeam]

Actually you are not "free" to think for yourselves. That is robbed from you by your upbringing. You are brainwashed by your parents into a worldview. The vast majority of people retain that worldview and pass it on to their own children. When you argue with somebody, you are arguing with their parents/peers/pastors who indoctrinated them.

Worldviews are almost impossible to tear down because they involve the emotional part of your brain.

And you will never get in touch with yourself if you are afraid to feel.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, I avoid and eschew debt. Paid off our mortgage 12 years early and saved over $150,000 in interest. I pay cash for a new car or I don't buy it. And I am the only person in my immediate family who has never filed bankruptcy.

Life is so much better without having some debt hanging over your head.

Holy crap! Nobody in my family (including first cousins, aunts and uncles, grandparents and granduncles/aunts) has ever filed bankruptcy. Had an uncle who spent a decade paying off debts from a failed garage.

Yet many of the richest individuals in the world take on debt to make even more money.

Kind of a different model. There it is typically "all your risk, mostly my profit" rather than the wealthy actually taking on the debt alone.

 

[cbrunny]

Yes, I avoid and eschew debt. Paid off our mortgage 12 years early and saved over $150,000 in interest. I pay cash for a new car or I don't buy it. And I am the only person in my immediate family who has never filed bankruptcy.

Life is so much better without having some debt hanging over your head.

I know a grand total of zero people that have ever declared bankruptcy. That includes loose acquaintances.

 

[interchange]

You can tell me all day why 2+2=3 but you will still be wrong. People who do not rationalize are not able to have opinions. How can you know that what is not proven to be true can actually be true. How, for example, would a person lacking self awareness have any idea that he or she did? Without a knowledge of unconscious motivation how can you actually know anything. What you will have for opinions are unconscious unexamined assumptions.

I'm trying to follow this the way you intend. You lost me a bit. One cannot have knowledge of one's own unconscious motivation. That's inherent to the definition of unconscious. Perhaps you meant to say that one could have awareness that they are unconsciously motivated, or perhaps even that something unconscious is motivating them in a specific instance, yet in either case it could not be specific awareness of that which is unconscious, merely that there must be something unconscious at play.

And, more generally, if this is the enemy, how are you to ever know that you have achieved complete freedom from unconscious motives (assuming such a thing were possible).

 

[Moonbeam]

I'm trying to follow this the way you intend. You lost me a bit. One cannot have knowledge of one's own unconscious motivation. That's inherent to the definition of unconscious. Perhaps you meant to say that one could have awareness that they are unconsciously motivated, or perhaps even that something unconscious is motivating them in a specific instance, yet in either case it could not be specific awareness of that which is unconscious, merely that there must be something unconscious at play.

And, more generally, if this is the enemy, how are you to ever know that you have achieved complete freedom from unconscious motives (assuming such a thing were possible).

I maintain that it is possible and that one can be 99.999% sure of it.

There is a story of two famous sword makers in Japan and a contest people conducted to see which was the greater master. A sword from each was stuck into a stream and leaves dumped into the water. The leaf that hit the first blade was cut in two, but the a leaf went around the other. The latter was declared the winner. The mind that is awake meets no resistance. If resistance is felt, there is unconscious issues involved.

 

[CZroe]

i just witnessed a discussion where two people disagreed, but it was very civil. at the end, one of the people mentioned that they respected the other person's opinion.



it made me stop and think that i rarely think about respecting other opinions. and i think it might be a good idea to approach discussions with that attitude.



do you think respecting different opinions is a strength or a weakness when it comes to political discussions?

Stop respecting my opinion. It tickles.

 

[Greenman]

You don't understand that people are not aware of their unconscious motivations, that some people, yourself probably included, live in a comfortable bubble, unaware of what they really feel. These are the people who suffer from Stockholm syndrome, the ones who have accepted the norm and defend it brown shirts neatly pressed. You live on a shining surface of a lovely ocean never suspecting the life in the depths. Wrapped in the silk of the world, the cocoon that encases your soul will never unravel and release the butterfly. Those angry folk whose emotions you don't like feel what you deny and remind you of what you won't see. Their lives are full of bitter fruit, their will to conform to the system compromised from a young age. There but for the grace of God go I everywhere I look.

OK

 

[interchange]

I maintain that it is possible and that one can be 99.999% sure of it.

There is a story of two famous sword makers in Japan and a contest people conducted to see which was the greater master. A sword from each was stuck into a stream and leaves dumped into the water. The leaf that hit the first blade was cut in two, but the a leaf went around the other. The latter was declared the winner. The mind that is awake meets no resistance. If resistance is felt, there is unconscious issues involved.

What is a free mind doing on Anandtech forums?

 

[brianmanahan]

What is a free mind doing on Anandtech forums?

a question we must all ask ourselves, and which moonbean shall answer

 

[Blue_Max]

You can tell me all day why 2+2=3 but you will still be wrong. People who do not rationalize are not able to have opinions. How can you know that what is not proven to be true can actually be true.

An absolute truth can be proven via evidence. Unfortunately, many groups believe what their collective group believes in full denial of what is proven real.

Many of these beliefs are very popular and very zealously defended, despite overwhelming evidence that proves them wrong. Some of these popular myths, like the "pay gap" are so common you'll get ostracized for not believing in them, despite thousands of economists disproving the theory with mountains of provable data.

The litmus test should be "reals before feels", not vice-versa like we see today.

 

[Moonbeam]

What is a free mind doing on Anandtech forums?

There's a lady who's sure all that glitters is gold
And she's buying a stairway to heaven.
When she gets there she knows, if the stores are all closed
With a word she can get what she came for.
Ooh, ooh, and she's buying a stairway to heaven.

There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure
'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings.
In a tree by the brook, there's a songbird who sings,
Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it makes me wonder.

There's a feeling I get when I look to the west,
And my spirit is crying for leaving.
In my thoughts I have seen rings of smoke through the trees,
And the voices of those who stand looking.

Ooh, it makes me wonder,
Ooh, it really makes me wonder.

And it's whispered that soon, if we all call the tune,
Then the piper will lead us to reason.
And a new day will dawn for those who stand long,
And the forests will echo with laughter.

If there's a bustle in your hedgerow, don't be alarmed now,
It's just a spring clean for the May queen.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run
There's still time to change the road you're on.
And it makes me wonder.

Your head is humming and it won't go, in case you don't know,
The piper's calling you to join him,
Dear lady, can you hear the wind blow, and did you know
Your stairway lies on the whispering wind?

And as we wind on down the road
Our shadows taller than our soul.
There walks a lady we all know
Who shines white light and wants to show
How everything still turns to gold.
And if you listen very hard
The tune will come to you at last.
When all are one and one is all
To be a rock and not to roll.

And she's buying a stairway to heaven.

As to your question, I'm here to ask you to examine what might be the unconscious feelings that prompt you to ask that question.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[interchange]

As to your question, I'm here to ask you to examine what might be the unconscious feelings that prompt you to ask that question.

That's my job, Moonbeam. Quite literally, I mean.

I'm curious why you have determined that such a prompt was needed?

The short of it is that humans (well at leas this human) benefit from a sense of mind of the other, and some personal context for their motivations is helpful.

But that's me examining your potential motives.

Personally, there is some sense of potential for exertion of a false authority on something that is my own experience. An all too familiar experience, sadly.

 

[Moonbeam]

Tell me what you feel. Your words are heady and difficult for me to decipher. This is what I hear:


i: That's my job, Moonbeam. Quite literally, I mean.

M: I hear umbrage, as if I were saying something you feel is beneath your dignity to hear, that I am saying something that implies you have failed to deliver in some way. This only confirms to me my need to tell you what I told you because this very reaction is exactly what I would expect from somebody who does not see their motivation. You appear to be protecting yourself from something.

i: I'm curious why you have determined that such a prompt was needed?

M: You say you have a job and appear to be defensive about being told to do it without any awareness that the job you have may be beyond your capacity to perform.

i: The short of it is that humans (well at leas this human) benefit from a sense of mind of the other, and some personal context for their motivations is helpful.

But that's me examining your potential motives.

M: I do not know what you are saying here. This human, you, benefits from a sense of mind of the other, and some personal context for their motivations is helpful.

You have asked me a question. I answer as I think is best. I am not interested in couching my answer in ways that conform to what you think you require. I answer according to what I think you require.

i: Personally, there is some sense of potential for exertion of a false authority on something that is my own experience. An all too familiar experience, sadly.

M: Yes, this is a problem for people who have ego. My aim is to show you it. I hope you didn't expect it to be pretty. What to do, ask yourself, if I hold up a mirror and all you see is my arrogance?

 

[Blue_Max]

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

Exactly. Facts are something that is absolute. Proven. Undeniable.

Someone who believes something despite all evidence/facts is in the wrong. Yet it happens all the time. "Feels before reals" and all that... :\

It's been the experience of myself, and those far greater than I, that nothing can convince said people of their error - they believe what they want to in spite of evidence provided. Providing more (even mountains of) evidence is pointless, as they're immune and will only get offended by it.

The only time I've seen people turn from such a hard stance is when whatever they believed somehow turned on them and caused them some kind of pain. THEN they re-evaluate.

 

[zinfamous]

An absolute truth can be proven via evidence. Unfortunately, many groups believe what their collective group believes in full denial of what is proven real.

agreed: creationists, republicans, gamergaters, evangelicals, stormfronters...all sorts of essentially identical groups act this way.

 

[interchange]

Tell me what you feel. Your words are heady and difficult for me to decipher. This is what I hear:


i: That's my job, Moonbeam. Quite literally, I mean.

M: I hear umbrage, as if I were saying something you feel is beneath your dignity to hear, that I am saying something that implies you have failed to deliver in some way. This only confirms to me my need to tell you what I told you because this very reaction is exactly what I would expect from somebody who does not see their motivation. You appear to be protecting yourself from something.

I'm a psychiatrist. It's my job. Literally.

i: I'm curious why you have determined that such a prompt was needed?

M: You say you have a job and appear to be defensive about being told to do it without any awareness that the job you have may be beyond your capacity to perform.

What did I say that appeared defensive? Although a generic answer of "everything" is correct, I'm not sure it is helpful to me.

i: The short of it is that humans (well at leas this human) benefit from a sense of mind of the other, and some personal context for their motivations is helpful.

But that's me examining your potential motives.

M: I do not know what you are saying here. This human, you, benefits from a sense of mind of the other, and some personal context for their motivations is helpful.

You have asked me a question. I answer as I think is best. I am not interested in couching my answer in ways that conform to what you think you require. I answer according to what I think you require.

I thought you might have been interested in my engagement in your discussion. If one lacks an ego, then why else might they ask?

An alternative explanation is not interest in the answer but rather interest in the communication of a need to explore such an answer. Which is the other question I had. Why have you assumed that I need such a prompting, and had not been considering this and other motives all along? Or I suppose that is defensive in its own right. More prudent to simply state that such a prompt is unnecessary for me.

i: Personally, there is some sense of potential for exertion of a false authority on something that is my own experience. An all too familiar experience, sadly.

M: Yes, this is a problem for people who have ego. My aim is to show you it. I hope you didn't expect it to be pretty. What to do, ask yourself, if I hold up a mirror and all you see is my arrogance?

Then I would see my own projective ego-defense. It is interesting that you have imagined that what I might project to you is arrogance.

To cut to the chase, I am not certain that it is possible to shed one's ego-defenses entirely, and I am similarly not certain that such a thing is desirable. Nonetheless, I do value complexity and understanding motivations and emotions and exploring them as a shared experience. Since you speak in this language and have proffered a degree of advancement, I'm curious.

 

[Blue_Max]

agreed: creationists, republicans, gamergaters, evangelicals, stormfronters...all sorts of essentially identical groups act this way.

Creationists/evangelicals sure.

Republicans, stormfronters(?who??) I dunno. Not my area of expertise.

Gamergaters, however, provided mountains of evidence that showed the claims against them are false. Almost every accusation made by the anti-gamer crowd from the very beginning was proven BS, and no charges have been laid against anyone, despite prominent anti-GG leaders going all the way up to the U.N. to cry they were supposedly victims of violence and threats. Far more bomb threats to speaking events have been made towards gamergaters than there have been towards Sarkeesian and the like. Worse, some of the threats to the anti-GG side have been proven to have been made by themselves to promote their own victim narrative.

As I said in the previous post, those who refuse to believe the mountains of evidence are doing so in a state of active denial. Cognitive dissonance. Despite dozens of walls of evidence, detractors are (as you demonstrated) still convinced gamergaters are evil. Why? Certainly not based on the evidence available, but because gamergaters refused to accept the dogma force-feeding, which deeply offended the 'progressive' forces behind anti-GG.

And as we all know, to them; If someone is offended, the other person must be guilty of offense. Gad, what a horrible doctrine.

In the larger picture, that's why things are getting so divided these days... man vs. women, left vs. right, progressives vs. non... it's very easy and seductive to get pulled into an "us vs. them" mentality that overrides all rational thought and the ability to process data & achieve a logical conclusion from it. Wars have been fought for less.

 

[realibrad]

I'm a psychiatrist. It's my job. Literally.



What did I say that appeared defensive? Although a generic answer of "everything" is correct, I'm not sure it is helpful to me.



I thought you might have been interested in my engagement in your discussion. If one lacks an ego, then why else might they ask?

An alternative explanation is not interest in the answer but rather interest in the communication of a need to explore such an answer. Which is the other question I had. Why have you assumed that I need such a prompting, and had not been considering this and other motives all along? Or I suppose that is defensive in its own right. More prudent to simply state that such a prompt is unnecessary for me.



Then I would see my own projective ego-defense. It is interesting that you have imagined that what I might project to you is arrogance.

To cut to the chase, I am not certain that it is possible to shed one's ego-defenses entirely, and I am similarly not certain that such a thing is desirable. Nonetheless, I do value complexity and understanding motivations and emotions and exploring them as a shared experience. Since you speak in this language and have proffered a degree of advancement, I'm curious.

He believes he has shed his ego when he found the real "god". He has a circular logic that he knows truth because he knows nothing. He knows you have an ego because he knows "god" and he also knows nothing because he has shed his belief he knows anything.

Its rather complex.