topic
discussion notes
-
- Jordan mentioned they can be changed, such as making a child that hates broccoli now like it
-
Sweden - Tim Pool
-
Agreeableness
-
Vs Competitiveness, Conflict
-
Assertiveness Training for high-agreeableness
-
Sensitivity Training for low-agreeableness
-
Male vs female differences
-
Males - want to eliminate the problem - perhaps due to fight vs flight threat response?
-
Females - want to relate the problem - perhaps due to tend & befriend threat response?
-
-
Agreeable people are liked, but not respected.
-
Low in a social dominance hierarchy → need to be agreeable OR agreeable → not respected → low in social hierarchy?
-
Learn the rules → be agreeable → then, allow yourself to be more assertive and become respected (learn the rules of the game, play it and then change the rules)
-
-
Male vs female differences
-
Male preference for activities
-
Female preference for non-activities
-
Seems related to neuroticism trait
-
High neuroticism is risk averse, so prefers non-activities, explains makeup link
-
Low neuroticism likes risk, so is okay with activities
-
-
-
Islamic values and implementation versus western values and implementation
-
Islam is conservative values enforced with harsh legal penalties
-
Daniel Defoe - A treatise of marriage - chapter 1 - conjectures
-
Protection from temptations causes weak willpower, but more pure people
-
Exposure to temptations causes less pure people, more strong willed people
-
Jews do well on willpower, as have moral protections against high distractions
-
Christians generally fail on willpower, as low moral protections against high distractions
-
Muslims do poor on willpower, as protected from temptations from their state so no opportunity to develop individual resistance
-
-
-
Free speech vs speech limits
-
Dangerous to allow it and dangerous to suppress it
-
Individuals who are afraid of their own forbidden thoughts and banish them to the back of their mind, are they more likely to have the same view on a societal level = want to limit free speech?
-
Trusting the people enough to allow them freedom (of speech and other things). If you limit people’s ability to decide for themselves, they become weak. If you allow them to build up their own self-control/willpower, some will fail and some will become strong.
-
The risk of free speech is that bad ideas can propagate fast and lead to violence – is it worth it?
-
If allowed, can be countered
-
If not allowed, will lead to an underground movement and resentment.
-
Violent ideas being able to propagate might be a symptom of a problem that the state should fix → removing the symptom doesn’t solve the problem, only hides it.
-
-
Seems western nations, thanks to education system, can trust their citizens more with ideas than countries with poor education systems
-
We limit the free speech of children via parental discretion (manners, respect, etc) and relax the restrictions as we recognise the child’s intellectual development
-
Autism / theory of mind / words weapons
-
Two parents strapping a bomb to their 4 year old child, and telling them the devil is across the street and they must walk over there and press this button to go to heaven
- These words are illegal in most countries, even western, as it is an incitement of violence against an impressionable crowd - however, if the children were educated adults, it would not be illegal words, as the adults have been granted the responsibility of agency, and thus we would persecute the adults on different grounds - their intentions, rather than their words
-
-
Internet
-
Makes it possible for underground movements to grow if they are suppressed by a state (by limitations of free speech)
-
Things we don’t want on the internet (e.g. child porn) will always exist in some form. What can we do about that?
-