You shouldn't listen to Sophists because they make you weak. They will say things like [Stoicism isn't real].
"I refuse to believe that anyone, regardless of their IQ, is any good at telling themselves how to feel."
Reality: the emotions are merely a logic system that feels different. If you learn the language (typically through sufficient reps of the lunar set) you can just talk to it. If it says something inaccurate, you can correct it and watch your feelings change in real time. (If you can't just correct it, usually it means you're wrong and the limbic system isn't; your evidence sucks and it's not buying it.) I rather suspect the lunar set has strict IQ thresholds, however. Without [x] you'll fail to do enough sets and without [y] you can't even do a set consistently, with good form. (I don't know what x or y are.)
Geoffrey Miller (probably primalpoly) is also wrong, as per the epistemic presumption and the human default. Altruism is impossible because psychological egoism is true. EA is irresponsible, left wing, and therefore destructive, unless some epic-tier lord is currently corrupting his little corner of it to do good.
Personnel is policy. EA reliably attracts narcissists and psychopaths, because the emotional system is in fact a logic system and can tell right away that Effective Altruism is neither altruism nor effective. Healthy folk steer clear of self-defeating endeavours, guaranteeing EA will be a pile of genetic trash. Any non-psycho lords in EA will be temporarily confused; only there by mistake.
P.S. It's super weird that the language of the emotional system does not come installed as a factory default. How the hell does that even evolve?
P.P.S. Psychological egoism is true because it turns out the subjective is subjective. You can't feel other people's feelings, or they would be your feelings and not another person, contradicting the premise. "Altrusim" works if you are motivated by motivations you don't have.
It is normal to be aware of this at the emotional level, which is why those who go all-in on altruism look so suspicious.
"I refuse to believe that anyone, regardless of their IQ, is any good at telling themselves how to feel."
ReplyDeleteSo that person refuses to feel that anyone is any good at telling themselves how to feel.
The baseline quality is not IQ.
ReplyDelete(From https://suttacentral.net/pp2.3/en/law)
"6. What sort of man is blind?
Here a certain person does not possess that sight whereby he can discover and attain that wealth which has not been attained, or can augment it, he has not even that insight whereby he can distinguish good and bad, the blameworthy and the blameless, the superior and the inferior states and the admixture of dark and light qualities. Such a person is said to be blind.
What sort of person is “purblind”?
Here a certain person who has the eye of knowledge whereby he can attain that wealth which he could not attain before and can moreover augment it, does not possess that mental vision whereby he can distinguish between the good and the bad, the blameworthy and the blameless, the superior and the inferior states as well as discover the admixture of dark and light qualities. Such a person is said to be “purblind”.
What sort of person is two-eyed?
Here a person possesses that eye which can help him to bring that wealth which he could not attain before and also to increase it, as well as that insight which makes it possible for him to know the good and the bad, the blameworthy and the blameless, the superior and the inferior states, and the admixture of dark and light qualities. Such a person is said to be two-eyed."
So that person refuses to feel that anyone is any good at telling themselves how to feel.
ReplyDeletelol, quite