Youtube comments of TheDionysianFields (@TheDionysianFields).
-
1100
-
253
-
128
-
90
-
87
-
83
-
71
-
53
-
42
-
40
-
33
-
31
-
31
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
18
-
17
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@we4r119 You could say, "Sorry, but I'm focused on other things right now." Because if you weren't focused on other things, you'd certainly give a guy a chance, right? Because surely you're not all about looks and the superficial, right?
Are you suggesting that men should approach women that they don't find appealing?
Should we be happy about being shot down and just tuck our tails and move on? Should women be able to reject at will (and without reason) without prospect of a verbal repercussion?
These are all valid questions, no matter how harsh you think they sound. Yet women will say, men just need to get over their fragile egos. But it's not about that...the reality is that there's a lot more pressure on men in regard to success with the opposite sex. Much of which we put on ourselves, but it's still there. We're ingrained with the idea that you simply can't be a man unless you score with women.
My issue is the women don't even try to understand this stuff. They seem to be in their own world.
Note: I in no way support the idea of a man trying to intimidate a woman who rejects him, and men should always strive to take things like a man. But as the OP pointed out, it takes a hell of a lot of courage, so if I react with a harsh word or two at being shot down without a hint, well, at least don't act surprised.
P.S. You have a good point about the impact of prior abuse. That's not to be overlooked.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ltmund The OP made a blanket statement about cultural diversity, there's not really any denying that. Two or more cultures = cultural diversity (technically, just two).
Cultures don't need to mesh to exist side by side. Only cultures built around religion would seem to be a problem (which aren't many at this point). However, from their POV, it's cultures that are NOT built around religion (or, perhaps, are weak in their religious convictions) that are the problem.
My personal belief is that any culture that doesn't have discipline, understanding, flexibility and curiosity as its cornerstones, along with self-responsibility at its core, is incompatible with ALL other cultures.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
First of all, this is WAY better than the hit count suggests. It’s a conversation that’s likely to challenge everyone’s thinking at some point. Scott’s a true blood leftist, yet refreshingly old school. His weakness lies in his stance on inclusivity...it’s very noble but somewhat naive.
In terms of personal motivation (within the American system), exclusivity has always been a primary driving factor. We value what’s difficult to attain, and if 76% of applicants are admitted to a university, the chances of a student feeling like part of an ‘elite’ are basically nil. In short, exclusivity generates the potential for the type of pride that this nation was built on (but, obviously, inclusion/exclusion should be based on merit only).
The other issue I had was regarding balance. You can’t devote 20 years of your life to work without serious consequence, particularly if you have a family. That consequence may be as simple as your son resenting you and being intent/content to live in your basement and cause you to question your life choices (which you should). I would say that anyone who makes (or strives for) the top 1% will end up with a life that can never be brought back into balance. Much better to teach kids that they don’t have to be part of that particular elite to feel proud and live a fulfilling life.
In all, a great talk on an important issue. Tom provided a good counterbalance to Scott’s leftism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When PUAs go soft: a brief youtube commentary
Robert Greene's right, boys. Taking an interest in a woman's interests and showing her that you've paid attention to what she likes/dislikes is beneficial to your sex life. But this is so far removed from--and incompatible with--the "bypass" seduction techniques you came here for, as you'll discover.
Greene himself is a boy who never grew up, and is hence still allured by the idea of getting away with something forbidden. But that's not going to happen anymore as he's clearly getting old and losing his PUA edge...or is he just attempting to give it mass appeal by merging it with romantic sensibilities. A nice try, but there's no middle ground...no best of both worlds. As a young man (or old man) you have to choose, or you'll find that you fail to snare any of the good women OR the bad girls (or seduce any of the good women into being a bad girl for the night). Alas.
Can we just read his (older) books? Maybe. But the other thing to remember is that times have changed. A lot of Greene's ideas/techniques worked well in the 80s but women are more closed off now. There's no "willingness to be wounded" going around and lower animal urges seem well-suppressed (perhaps well-sublimated for some).
All things considered, we should be as wary of hitching our social/sexual wagons to Green's star, as too Andrew Tate's. In the video, Greene commits the ultimate faux pas when he proclaims that "resistance" is part of the seductive equation. Of course this is true, but the way he says it implies that when a woman is being resistant she may just be trying to seduce a man. In a time of #MeToo, such utterings as this and the aforementioned "willingness to be wounded" line can only paint Greene as being a bit sleazy, as he (rightfully) calls every feminist on the planet to arms.
Too bad, I found a lot of Greene's fundamental philosophical ideas quite resonant.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@giveryourall5413 Peterson's words weren't contradictory. He's saying that a fraction of men end up with all the women based on an inequality of opportunity . Below average men aren't even being given a chance. JP feels that this hurts the family unit, hurts children. Enforced monogamy would help equal out opportunity and hopefully have an effect on outcome as well (but no guarantees).
There's no such thing as pseudo-philosophy. Time and time again Peterson tells us that he's simply trying to communicate what he believes in a clear and honest way. That's the most we can ask of anyone. Throughout the process, JP adhere's to the psychological truths that HE has discovered and uncovered. These truths are a fusion of the works of many, including Jung, Freud, the existential and humanist psychologists, Rogers, Maslow, etc.
In your eyes, Peterson is pretending to be the end-all authority on life and existence. Ha...no more so than you or I when we post our comments on Youtube, Facebook, etc. If you say something and people listen, you keep talking. It's not complicated.
By your thinking we should call Nietzsche and Kant pseudo-philosophers and ask every minister to step down from the pulpit and shut up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Major issues here.
This video doesn't track for me because of a man named M. Scott Peck, upon whose work you (ironically) based your most recent video. Not only did Peck (a conservative mind) write The Road Less Traveled, but he went on to write a book called A World Waiting To Be Born. This book clearly posited an alternate reality that's within our access, and one that's radically different from the world we currently know (and are, perhaps, trapped in).
My feeling is that you've over-simplified Nietzsche, whose own work often alluded to a "great beyond" IMO. If acceptance was the central theme for Nietzsche, there would be no Overman and no progress even. We would all lead simple lives and build meaningful relationships with each other that would suffice all of our needs. There would be no reaching for something more.
Despite my own longings, I try to entertain this "simple life" as being an end in itself. But I can only entertain one or the other as the premise for life. Life is either about gentle acceptance or crashing through barriers...barriers that block us from a higher world or reality.
You can argue that there's a gradual progression to that world, but I have my doubts and I don't believe such represents Nietzsche's work (not that I'm saying he had things figured out).
As far as nihilism itself, that's certainly an issue. I just don't see a direct connection with positing "other worlds." In fact, I would be much more inclined to nihilism if I thought this crappy world was all there is.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@mattduncan3304 Yes, curiosity carries a risk (in every case). But I DO believe the only way it's satisfied is through first-hand experience.
If we must use (cheap) operant conditioning, it should focus on rewards rather than punishment. So, no, none of those things are acceptable motivators IMO. They may be necessary at times (execution notwithstanding), but produce no net positive results.
Shame is probably the worst of all because it pushes us into a "child" state of mind, as it was used most frequently by our parents growing up. Any society that treats its population like children is doomed to get a society of children.
Having said all this, I need to add one caveat. I believe there's a natural amount of shame produced when we do something like overeat (severely or consistently), or have sex with someone who wouldn't care if we got hit by a bus tomorrow. Hence, I don't support a society that tells people how healthy or beautiful they are when they've obviously been overeating, and neither do I support a society that tells women how strong and independent they are while they've been sleeping around.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@salparadise1220 Depression is certainly real, but keep in mind it's based on a somewhat subjective view of one's life and agency. Things aren't always as bad as we think. I would also say that “believing” in a better tomorrow is different than holding “hope” for one. Let me know if that's too fine of a distinction, but it's almost like there's an inherent desperation in the concept of hope.
Plus, hope takes us out of the present moment, which is where the action is.
My overall hypothesis is that hope isn't just a cope, but that it often functions as a drug. As long as I have hope, what else do I really need? Hence, it can be a tragic trap of sorts, as things further decline--but at such a gradual rate that we don't notice.
I think it's just better to step up and take responsibility for whatever the situation is, and take action toward resolving it. We are subjects--but not victims--of life. Meaning that life always offers us a way, as well as something in our current scenario worth appreciating.
Hope feels too passive for me. Whereas belief feels more interactive,
even though I can't fully control what I believe.
Think of it this way. Donald Trump can keep promise us a better tomorrow and string people along with hope, all the while things are deteriorating beneath the surface (or in plain sight!). Now he's poised to do so for another four years, at which point we could be past the point of no return. All in the concept of hope...all because we WANT to believe.
To keep it all very simple: make your own hope.
“Turn you to the strong hold, ye prisoners of hope.” - The Bible
For me, the stronghold is my own will, faculty and ingenuity. But I do feel hope is necessary/beneficial for those who truly are helpless, such as children.
Man, I have a lot to say on this topic.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I was young.
I didn't know any better.
I got involved.
At first, it was glorious, what we had. Something far beyond the transactional. Agency, empowerment, independence...they were all mine. But as romances do, it soon faded.
But then we moved into a new phase where the transactions--though they were just that--were solid and reliable. I trusted it. And how much more when it began solving my problems, one by one.
The elation.
I felt my mind start to ease. The promise was there. This thing I'd become enmeshed with had demonstrated true power and value. It had stood by me.
And I said to myself, "This must be what it feels like to be truly loved."
And then something happened. It finished solving all of my problems, or what I thought were my problems. Only for me to discover that it had led me unprepared to a set of larger issues that I hadn't been aware of.
And then, like the bad lover that it is, it left me. Out there. I could still see and hold it, but its power...it's loyalty...it's beauty...had simply transferred out. Eventually, it left physically as well.
Money.
It's the disillusionment that stings the most.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
TLDR: "So, if you're trying to train a dog...."
That's right. YOU'RE the dog he's trying to train.
First of all, when someone's operating within such a narrow band of philosophy and psychology, he should be citing his sources. In this case, Ayn Rand and B. F. Skinner. People deserve to know what they're being fed.
Taken on her own, I have no major issue with Ayn Rand. However, Skinner IS problematic on his own, and when combined with Rand we get a pretty awful recipe: objective results are all that matter and the path to them is basically to ignore the black box and treat ourselves like DOGS. Who cares why we do the things we do, as long as those things advance our position in society?
Wow.
My hope is that even AI will have more nuance and diversity than the material (and advice) being presented here. And I'm disappointed in Tom for buying into most of it.
But hey, maybe Alex doesn't even know whose work he's co-opting. Maybe he's simply a guy who's just smart enough for his own good, but both too smart and too dumb for everyone else's (trust me on that). Of course, even if that's true, where should his ten fingers be pointed?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1