medievaljedi - Tumblr blog

medievaljedi · 9 months

Text

Bad art and cultural depression

It seems that most modern movies and TV shows are becoming more childish and self-parodies by the day. And these movies seem much more interested in tearing down people and heroes we used to like, or places we’d want to visit in a fictional universe than in telling a compelling heroic story.

The hero is more or less dead, a shadow of himself, uniformly jaded and self-hating, and often inhabit dark, nihilistic universes in which the only sure thing is that anyone hoping for a better day is hopelessly naive and borderline stupid. Even with shows that try to be optimistic cannot be taken seriously. After all who could possibly, in 2023, think that the future might be better than the past? That’s a joke, right? So turn it into a joke, write a musical, and make the normal jaded zoomed humor about how everything sucks. Or just make reference to something that happened, any rely on the magic of Twitter memes to tell the joke for you.

What would someone living like this and with that attitude to life be but depressed? Everything sucks, nothing good is happening or can happen in the future, and anything that brings joy must be wrong. The depressed do this, they see only the negative of everything they like and do. And they’re less interested in fixing things.or even believing that things *can* get better, and actually seeking solutions.

Compare that to other media. I have of late become a big fan of Asian dramas and music. And part of the appeal for me is exactly what’s missing in American movies and shows. The hero is and will remain the hero, there’s no sense of waiting for the seemingly nice guy to stab his fellows in the back, hope that once those heroes work together to defeat whatever is making the world a dangerous place, they’ll marry the girl, and live happily ever after. They inhabit worlds where leaders are wise, serious, and not corrupt or power seeking, where doing the right things in Ernest pays off. Where you get rewarded for hard work and effort and being a part of a team. And where the entire aesthetic isn’t battleship grey bathed in red and falling apart.

#artfight

0 notes

medievaljedi · 10 months

Text

On the myth of critical thinking

Every school in the country considers critical thinking to be THE skill. Every course at every school from preschool to graduate school prides itself on teaching the Very Important Skill of critical thinking. But listening to debates on almost any topic it occurs to me that not only are we bad at it, but we’re actually much worse than our predecessors who often had much less formal education than we have and NO formal training on critical thinking at all. So then, I came to two very critical questions on critical thinking: why is it that students 100 years ago were so much better than we are, and why have our attempts to teach it formally failed so miserably?

One hundred years ago no one would have tried to teach thinking, everyone knew how to. Instead, they focused on teaching subjects, reading, composition, mathematics, sciences, history, and music. And because almost all communication of the time was in print, the printed word was the dominant way of interacting with the outside world. You’d read, a lot. You’d read the newspaper, books, magazines, and by doing so would naturally learn a bit about forming narratives and arguments simply by reading them. And these were not one-off Reddit rants; they were paragraphs of content, each idea built from the ideas previously discussed, building to a conclusion, and all along, as the author showed his reasoning, would invite the reader to form counter-arguments, or to question a connection assumed. Add in that the average student was expected to know certain science facts, mathematical formulae, historical events, or great persons off by heart, and following an argument about a topic would be much easier with relevant data in mind. When the argument was made that, for example, that life could arise on another planet based on silicon rather than carbon, the reader would know *something* of chemistry, perhaps that silicon is heavier than carbon, or that silicon like carbon has 4 valance electrons, and thus could begin to reason about whether life based on carbon makes sense. Or perhaps the question is one of alternative history— what if the South had gained independence, what if Red October had not happened? With names, places and events in mind, a theory can be developed.

A word here about memorization and rote learning. Having facts at hand is extremely important when trying to think. It gives the thoughts form in some sense by narrowing and focusing on known facts and laws governing the question in front of a person. If I know the powers a president has, I can answer quite quickly whether he’s allowed to do something you want him to do. If I know the physical laws of relativity and the distances of space, I can quickly answer whether interstellar travel is possible or not. If I know how to conjugate and decline and the word order in Latin, I can figure out how to say the things I want to say in Latin. On the other hand, if I don’t know the facts behind an argument, it’s down to speculation. Maybe warp drives can be real, I mean it’s a staple of science fiction. Maybe they’ll fold space like in Dune? This isn’t based on knowing anything about the subject, and without knowing, even speculation about what can be done is based more on whimsy than reality.

So why are schools so bad at teaching it? The problem for schools is that they’re not structured for teaching thinking. Kids are taught through most classes that the key to passing the class (and making the grownups happy, thus getting cool stuff from adults) is to learn how to give back what you were given exactly as it was given. And as such, they don’t really learn to use the knowledge they get in any real way. The second problem is that the real tools of reason can take years to learn. If you’re trying to make predictions, you need to understand statistics and probability. If you’re taking apart an argument, you need formal logic. If you’re working on creating a process, you need to understand algorithms. These tools individually can take years to learn properly. We don’t have time for that. So it’s on to parlor tricks.

Everyone has probably, at some point, been given the canonical list of logical fallacies. Things like Ad Hominem, Post hoc ergo Prompter hoc, appeal to authorities, slippery slope, red herring, etc. are dutifully learned as “this makes the argument wrong”. And likewise, students are taught to recognize “good sources” like newspapers or websites that end in edu. Schools like teaching critical thinking in this way because it can be easily taught and it certainly *looks like* thinking, and kids *feel like* they’re thinking critically. The textbook and curriculum people are happy because they’re selling lots of workbooks and videos and teacher guides. Administration is happy because they can point to money spent on critical thinking. The only problem is that this isn’t really teaching kids to think. In fact, it makes things much worse as people mistake the list of fallacies for mystical “I win” buttons, or an unorthodox source as an automatic “you lose” button no matter what else is in the argument made. And on the other side, they mistake an argument that doesn’t have obvious fallacies or unorthodox websites as true.

Now to a degree, knowing the fallacies and proper sources is good, especially if the person isn’t going far in education. Having some sort of bullshit detector is better than having none. Knowing that mainstream sources are better than random websites or that getting medical advice from MDs is better than getting the same advice from some random guy on Facebook. But of course it would be best to teach the real thing, if the students are capable of learning it. If not, I think it would probably be best to not lie to people and pretend that they’re learning to think rationally when they’re in fact learning to recognize obvious signs of bad faith arguing.

#critical thinking

1 note · View note

medievaljedi · 1 year

Text

I’ve been thinking about the Bicameral Mind and AI and I think Joyce is on to something, sort of. Which is to say that the noticed pattern is there, but he doesn’t interpret it quite right.

What I see in these stories that are used to describe a “bicameral mind” is something a bit more interesting. The stories themselves are extremely interesting because they seem to take everything that happens *literally*. Ares doesn’t just show up as a voice in some person’s brain. He isn’t just heard. He’s not even just seen and heard. He participated in the battle to the point of not only killing people, but being wounded and bleeding. Abraham doesn’t just hallucinate god, but makes god a literal meal that he (and his companions) eat. Zeus is literally born, is literally a baby who cries and who can be killed.

Even heaven and the afterlife are extremely literal. Hades is underground, and in fact can be visited through caves. Olympus is a mountain. The gods and the spirits of the dead eat and drink. Plato actually warns followers not to drink from the well of Lethe so they can remember who they were when reborn. Persephone is condemned to hades for every seed of a pomegranate she ate in Hades.

The people writing this stuff are taking everything that happens in these stories quite literally. The gods literally eat and drink, get wounded, live in physical bodies in physical places. The dead likewise live underground (where they were buried) in a place that, being underground can be visited through caves. This is very concrete thinking, and the beings thought about are concrete beings.

So my thought is that it doesn’t have to be a hallucination at all. It’s simply that in the era when these stories were first recorded, the people writing them cannot fathom anything beyond actual physical realities of life on earth. They cannot think abstractly. Life after death is literally that — a continuation of exactly what happens on Earth, complete with eating and drinking and in a physical world that while underground, isn’t that much different than life above ground. They write their gods as physically showing up because they can’t really conceive of a being that doesn’t audibly speak, and can’t comprehend one that doesn’t have a physical body much like a human does. They can’t understand the idea of an abstract reality where god or the gods are simply spirits that don’t have real bodies. They can’t conceive of a dead sprite who is just floating around.

What I think people miss is just how much our understanding of the universe has changed even since then. Our minds have learned to think about abstractions, and then to think about abstractions abstractly. When we still worked with machines directly, the idea was create a device to directly do one thing. A machine to make one type of part. Later we created a machine that we could give direct instructions to so it could do lots of things (and most people use a pocket version to play candy crush). AI is a step farther into meta cognition— not only are we not directly creating the thing, nor are we building something to create the thing, we’re not even creating a device we can give instructions to to make the thing. AI is creating a thing that we teach to understand things and thus it can figure out for itself how to make things.

In the year 1000 BC, everything was on a very low level, directly experienced by sight, smell, touch, etc. You raised sheep, and your idea of math was counting sheep adding new lambs and subtracting those eaten by lions. There was no need for a deeper understanding of that. Real things do real things. Once you get into having a government, you need to think abstractly, begin to use numbers to keep track of taxes, people, goods, and so on. As society gets more complex, you need to be able to think more and more abstractly. Not just taxes paid, but anticipating trends like weather, military activity, trade. Eventually as science answers more questions, you not only need to anticipate but shape events.

#blog post #bicameral

3 notes · View notes

medievaljedi · 1 year

Text

Mine is quesadillas. Cheese, whatever meat, hot sauce, panini press. Food time.

170K notes · View notes

medievaljedi · 1 year

Text

Introduction to Cognitive Functions (Socionics)

Function #1 – leading, program, primary, base, or dominant function. This is the strongest conscious function, and the most utilized function of the psyche. A person’s outlook and role in life is largely determined by the nature of this function. One is generally very confident in the use of this function, and may defend it when challenged. According to Bukalov, this is a 4D function.

Function #2 – creative or secondary function, is second in influence only to the dominant function. It assists the dominant function in achieving its essence. One is generally less confident with the use of this function than with his dominant function. As a result, the creative function is sometimes less instrumental when a person is challenged or threatened, or when dealing with new and complex tasks and data. This function is 3D or time invariant, because it produces something new which may never exist before.

Function #3 – role function, is a weak but conscious function. One generally tries to be at least adequate in areas where use of the role function is necessary. Moreover, one generally uses it in situations of social adaptation (e.g. introducing themselves to an unknown person). However, generally one has very little control or confidence over the role function, and criticism is painfully acknowledged with respect to it. Tactful assistance is required from someone else’s strong function to overcome the problems associated with the role function. This function is 2D or situation invariant, because it cannot adapt to the unusual situation beyond social norms.

Function #4 – the vulnerable function, or place of least resistance, is a weak and conscious function, in addition to being the weakest function of the psyche. One painfully perceives his complete inability to use this function, and reacts negatively to its imposition upon him. Tactful assistance is required from someone else’s strong function (preferably the Function 8) to overcome the problems associated with this function. This function is 1D (i.e. only personal experience is collected here, and it cannot be adapted even to the social norms.)

Function #5 – suggestive function, is a weak and unconscious function which is largely lacked.

One requires assistance from somebody confident in this function in order to overcome the difficulties it presents. When left to ones own devices, the suggestive function goes unnoticed. This function is 1D too, and one must be careful not to become subject of manipulation because of misuse of this function. Discussing aspects of this function makes person happy and trustful. (That’s why it’s called suggestive.)

Function #6 – mobilizing function. This is a weak and unconscious function which one often understands poorly.

Nonetheless, this function has a strong influence over one’s actions. Individuals requires assistance from someone who uses it confidently in order to understand it. Often an individual is only aware that they are totally unaware of how to use this function. At the same time, it’s a 2D function, so it’s capable of collecting a number of easy receipts for daily needs. Being successful in aspects of this function makes one happy and motivated. (That’s why it’s called mobilizing.)

Function #7 – observant, or ignoring, or restricting function, the function of personal knowledge.

This is a strong (3D) but unconscious function. One generally has a good grasp of this function, but attempts to limit its use considerably. Individuals will disregard this function when an argument calls for restraint or when it will be difficult to indulge in its essence. At the same time one uses this function to restrict somebody’s intervention to their privacy or territory, or other unsolicited interaction.

Function #8 – demonstrative or background function.

This function is so deeply rooted into the psyche that one is usually not consciously aware of its existence or utilization. It is as strong as the leading function (4D) and it tends to act silently to protect the weakest point of the dual person (see below). It can sound in situations of extreme irritation when the restricting function fails to break the unsolicited influence.

STRONG AND WEAK

Depending on our type, certain kinds of information metabolism will be strong or weak, meaning we find it easy or difficult to act on that kind of information effectively.Bukalov introduced the idea of Strength/Weakness being divided into four levels, known as Dimensionality which varies from One-Dimensionality (Experience) to having all Four Dimensions (Experience, Normativity, Situation and Time):

One-Dimensionality (1D) – Very Weak. These IM Elements can only be metabolised at the most basic and rudimentary level, meaning we are only open to our own Experience of that information and will thus come across as inept and indecent when using it ourselves

Two-Dimensionality (2D) – Weak. We have to work at these IM Elements to achieve adequacy in them. Usually their use will be tiring to maintain. We are exposed to the Normativity of this sort of information and thus are able to conform to basic standards and expectations but as a result will be rather conservative and stiff in its use.

Three-Dimensionality (3D) – Strong. We can easily and readily metabolise these IM Elements, acting on them as and when we wish. An experience of Situation allows us to make judgement calls on this sort of information, knowing when it is best to adhere to basic standards and when to be more creative.

Four-Dimensionality (4D) – Very Strong. These kinds of information are so prevalent in us that they strongly dictate how we move and communicate in the world. Such information carries its own sense of development over Time with decisions being made as numerous, specific instances on a global scale in the greater interest of that IM Element. People can easily be recognised by the IM Elements assigned to these strongest functions.

VALUED & SUBDUED

Depending on our type, certain kinds of information metabolism will be valued or subdued (not valued), meaning we will appreciate those kinds of information in our surroundings or reject/avoid them. By combining the Strong/Weak and Valued/Subdued dichotomies, we form the four blocks which the eight functions can be separated into:

Ego – Mental, Strong and Valued. The most apparent part of our personality. IM Elements in the Ego Block are those which we actively bring to the world, conducting ourselves and affecting our surroundings according to them.

Super Ego – Mental, Weak and Subdued. The painful expectations of society on us. IM Elements in the Super-Ego Block are those which we are expected by others to use but which we have no wish for and no ability to deliver. As a result, these kinds of information are a constant source of neurosis.

Super Id – Vital, Weak and Valued. The unconscious needs we find help with from others. IM Elements in the Super-Id Block are those which we are generally blind to but which we find ourselves being drawn to when supplied by others. We enjoy these kinds of information and find ourselves appreciating people who readily provide them.

Id – Vital, Strong and Subdued. The rejected approaches. We look down upon IM Elements in the Id Block as the alternative but incorrect ways of doing what we accomplish in our Ego. Instead of pursuing these kinds of information, we unconsciously carry them out as side effects of our natural motives, fulfilling the need with proficiency but without appreciation.

INFORMATION METABOLISM (IM)

These are theoretical constructs that convert (metabolise) certain kinds of information into behaviour. Each is geared towards a certain kind of information which is then acted upon via the process of Information Metabolism.

Ne (Extroverted Intuition) - Intuition of Ideas : Considers the essence of objects and the multiple possibilities contained within. This instils an attitude of opportunity-seeking, pursuing freedom of choice and maximising the possibilities as well as tolerance of multiple, alternative viewpoints.

Ni (Introverted Intuition) – Intuition of Time: Focuses on the likely flow of causes and effects from the past through to the future. This instils an attitude of foresight and prediction, attempting to conceive of how events will develop over the long term and adapting oneself to benefit from these predictions.

Se (Extroverted Sensation) – Sensation of Force. Scans the environment for items of desire and motivates assertive action towards claiming those items. This instils an attitude of lust and combat, pursuing one’s ambitions in the real world and conquering threats to gain more territory.

Si (Introverted Sensation) – Sensation of Senses. Refines sensory experiences down to those that are most enjoyable, seeking to increase pleasure in the moment. This instils an attitude of aesthetic and comfort, adjusting oneself to the environment and making small changes to the environment so that it is most pleasing to the senses.

Te (Extroverted Thinking) – Logic of Procedures. Actively develops methods by which processes work more productively. This instils an attitude of efficiency, readily absorbing relevant information and using that information to make the environment work better and instructing others on how to do things that lead to profitable effects.

Ti (Introverted Thinking) – Logic of Laws. Orders and structures the environment according to rules and principles, creating classificatory systems wherein objects are granted logical meaning. This instils an attitude of consistency and principle, adhering to one’s principles and avoiding situations where these rules might be compromised.

Fe (Extroverted Feelings) – Ethics of Emotions. Actively expresses emotions in order to affect the mood of the people in the area, instilling enthusiasm to create group cohesion. This instils an attitude of dramatic expression and group motivation, readily making people feel the way they should be feeling.

Fi (Introverted Feelings) – Ethics of Relations. Consults one’s personal sentiments in relation to external stimuli, ascertaining whether the thing is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and being able to pick up on similar sentiments in others to form meaningful relationships. This instils an attitude of sincerity, requiring one to act true to one’s personal feelings on matters.

Summarised from: Source 1 , Source 2, Source 3

803 notes · View notes

medievaljedi · 2 years

Text

https://www.darkrationality.net/index.php?topic=44.0

Something I came across that I found rather interesting. So this author among others has noticed that a lot of rightist leaders are perverts of various forms, funding and actually doing all kinds of kinky things that most normal people would find offensive like sex tourism, pedophilia, and so on. He contends that the issue is that the people doing so are simply trying to shock the Overton Window to the right. There’s just one, very obvious problem — such material is absolutely repulsive to normal people. No normal person is going to become more interested in a political movement upon discovery that it’s thought leaders find first graders sexy. If anything, I would expect the discovery of such things to move the Overton window Left.

It also doesn’t make sense that this is some sort of invasion. These people were absolutely central in the movement something those opposed would never do. No left leaning person would spend time writing for Breitbart, going on Rogan, and recruiting thousands of angry young men to be rightists. Someone with such talent would instead recruit those same angry young men into Bernie-bro populism (which is also fairly popular among young men). So it’s quite unlikely that Ylanopolis is a plant. This is organic.

The answer is in the dissident nature of the movement. Dissidents need all the help they can get to move forward. And this makes them attractive to perverts of almost any stripe imaginable because a group short on members is more likely to put up with bad behavior to keep its numbers. Kicking out big name recruiters from a movement that needs as many people as possible to gain power is an own-goal of epic proportions. So, they tolerate it, and those who do it. Then of course as a safe haven for perverts, you attract more of them. And it turns out that when you have a safe haven you end up not only attracting, but funding crazy perverts doing sick things. Lie down with dogs, wake up with fleas and all of that.

1 note · View note

medievaljedi · 2 years

Text

Why is it that America seems unable to get its shit together on any topic? Why is it that we can’t seem to deal with any subject with seriousness, take on problems that previous generations wouldn’t have had any problems dealing with?

The truth as I see it is that we’ve been in decline for most of the 20th century and that eggs laid in that era are coming home to roost in this century. A spell of sorts was broken in the world wars in which people no longer believed the fundamental conceits of Western Civilization, that Christianity is valid, that humans have the ability to conquer and tame nature, that a properly educated person was capable of self-determination and responsibility, and that technological progress is not only good but desirable.

The first cracks in this foundation showed themselves as Nazis and Fascists. Their heresies were to deny the claim made by both Christianity and Roman philosophy that humans, all humans posses a soul and rational individuality. Instead of this, they chose a strong man to decide for them and denied the humanity of Jews. Therefore mass murder. Humans became animals, automatons to be ordered, nudged, coerced, or killed.

The great wars and the Nazi/Fascists killed much of our belief in progress, and the heavy casualties inflicted by Christian Europe and by democratic powers ultimately discredited both. After the Wars, nobody would publicly take Christianity seriously. The mases still went to church, at least for a little while, but modernist thinking held that you shouldn’t take it outside of the four walls of your church. By the end of the 1950s it no longer informed public morality. By the end of the 1970s, it was an anti-religion, something that the cool kids defined themselves in opposition to. If the stodgy backward Christians thought drugs, alcohol, and free sex were bad, then do all of those things. Liberalism did no better. Regulation and regulations, and unelected mandarins to create new ones sprouted everywhere to protect people from themselves.

These changes have damaged political and social cohesion. What I mean by this is that while most other civilizations still believe in their social and political theories, the West not only no longer does, but believes that their own tradition is to be actively fought against by the taste-makers of Western culture. Thus any unity that could be derived from the entire culture at least understanding that certain ideas are agreed upon. Other cultures still hold their ideas. The Middle East still believes in Islam. There are Christian’s and Jews in those countries, but even so, the agreement is that Islamic law is the basis for their society. In Asia, even though most people don’t literally believe in Confucianism, it still takes the basic ideas seriously. Having such a framework allows people to make decisions within their framework. Without a framework, there’s nothing to build on.

#politics

1 note · View note