[-] daltotron 1 points 1 day ago

Why is the person who is upset more valued in the discussion than the person who isn’t?

I find this a lot, to be an assumption, and I think the assumption makes sense. It's less that they are or aren't valued more, but more that the person who isn't upset is taken to be the reasonable one which will be more receptive to longwinded posts about what they should or shouldn't do.

[-] daltotron -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

you have been continuously killing brown people nonstop for what? at least 50years now?

Would be more like 200 something, no? Since the inception of the nation, basically, right? Edit: actually, scratch that, it would be before the nation was even formed, as soon as the colonies were first beginning to be settled. I think before that they were generally too low on the totem pole and too weird as far as strange religious sects to go around and kill people, but I could be wrong.

[-] daltotron 3 points 1 day ago

There is no symbol that can realistically do this. The symbol is just the vessel, and it's subject to change. Defund the police, turns into, well, the police just need more training, turns into, well the police are underfunded, turns into, fund the police. There's not like, a way by which you can easily meme your way out of it, because it's just what happens. The best defense has always just been a kind of moving target.

[-] daltotron 1 points 2 days ago

Hayes is not a checkout aisle self-help book lol he pioneered multiple major branches of CBT

I mean, both can be true, right. It's not uncommon for pretty popular scientists to get into kind of the grift economy after a little while. Jordan peterson has how many citations to his scientific papers or whatever? But then he still rolls around and spews a bunch of bullshit that's sort of framed under the guise of his psychological background, and you can still tell is pretty easily influenced by his jungian type bullshit. I dunno, been a while since I actually looked into him, but it shook my ability to trust psychology more as a field, after that one.

I admire the skepticism but you haven’t read it and clearly haven’t taken time to fully understand it. he isn’t making prescriptive claims. he’s speaking on behavioral science. “A happens, then B tends to happen. C happens, then D tends to happen. do what you will with this info.”

No yeah for sure I haven't read it, don't claim to have read it, I'm just extremely skeptical of that kind of book, which presents science to the public at large, because most of the experiences I've had with that sort of thing have been damaging psuedoscientific bullshit that I slowly have to talk my friends out of. Which becomes much harder when they think they know things on a topic because they've read like one book about it. I don't even try to talk them into a different stance, I just try to talk them out of the kind of, oversimplified takes which they tend to get from these types of books. Steven pinker type books, "Guns, Germs, and Steel" type books, "The Bell Curve" type books, "How to Win Friends and Influence People", "Poor Dad, Rich Dad", shit like that. Admittedly not all of those are science guys, and some of that shit's kind of old, but, you see what I'm getting at, it all blends together for the public. Pop psychology, that's probably the term for that specific type of book, and uhh, yeah, that book gave me that kind of vibe.

If I'm really being skeptical, than, not evaluating anything else, because I just got up and still haven't finished my coffee, the first study at the end of your post has two experiments. The first has a sample size of 34, the second has a sample size of 44. I dunno if I would say that you can really extrapolate anything from such an incredibly small sample size, to be honest. Especially one that's like, taken from standard college campus volunteers. I know there are lots of scientific studies that rely on sample sizes which are pretty small, and I would throw that criticism at those studies, too. Shit happens in nutrition and exercise science too, I know for sure, which is why you see shitty fad diets circulate so much. I dunno, maybe I'll read the rest of the paper, but that's just like my general, me throwing shit at psychology as a field, right? But, maybe more, like, maybe more to, I think, some sort of point, if I have it, right:

and we humans clearly need treatment.

Like what do you mean by this? Because you're looking at this through "treatments", right, and I dunno if that's the correct lens with which to view most people's problems that they have in life. I mean it's not a fuckin, incredibly new take, right, but like, you have a society where you're expected to work 9-5, probably more, hours, five days a week, probably go in on a rental with your significant other, or increasingly, with your significant others, for like, 60 something years of your life? It's not a shocker when we're experiencing increasing amounts of depression at large, then, to me. That people have problems with that. I mean like, does changing society at large, qualify as a kind of patient treatment? I suppose my problem, if I'm really trying to have one, is just kind of that like, there's not really any amount of psychological help which makes it better that your fingers are getting crushed in industrial machinery. Psychological help, in that case, just looks like copium. I don't think psychology can help a lot of those problems, I think the best it can do is put a band-aid over a crippling tumor, which is nothing.

If you were to ask me what we were to do with the mentality I have, I'd probably want to incredibly balloon sample sizes and drastically increase the amount of evidence that we're collecting, compared to just like, some guy's written observations on like 50 people in some random experiment. Probably though, this is impossible, because school funding does not look to be going up anytime soon and google isn't gonna share their massive amounts of data they're collecting on people, and even if we had a glut of data to go through then we'd probably still be having to come up with and apply some sort of framework to it. At which point we just end up with a bunch of hacky bullshit, where you just take the noise and draw something in it and then say that this was somehow a natural occurrence, so you'd also need more rigorous standards for what conclusions we're actually able to draw from the noise.

Then, even if you were able to do that, you'd still have no real way of distinguishing, say, one set of noise from another set of noise, to compare the two and draw a conclusion, because we're just playing with like, one set of data, in a vacuum, compared to another set of data drawn from a vacuum, and there's too many variables which might effect one outcome compared to another. So you'd probably need to be gathering pretty rigorous data over the course of many years before you'd be able to draw a real conclusion. Even then, the data might not be good enough, I dunno if you'd have enough information.

I'd maybe lean more into neuroscience to try and cut out some of the external noise, some of the factors that might fuck your shit up, but then that's also not quite a good method because it doesn't really cut out the external noise so much as ignore it, and you can still end up finding FMRI signals in a dead fish.

So, I dunno, probably I'd just use science for maths and astronomy and physics, stuff like that, and then otherwise I'd dismiss it, in looking for philosophies and methods with which to live my life or shape my being around. Or, you know, try to take it as it comes, and not really accept claims at face value. I've tried mindfulness, and I've found it wanting, because it just caused me to dissociate whenever I encountered an outcome I didn't really like, and then instead of responding to things naturally, and flying by instinct, it causes me to kind of be like, the guy who smokes weed and then becomes hyper-aware of everything they're doing but then their actual behavior devolves into nonsense.

Then, when I got farther than that, and I started to observe that behavior in the abstract, then it just sort of struck me as like, none of this realistically gives you a particular value judgement, right. It's fine enough to just say, like, ah, well, think about it more, evaluate your life more, think about the long term consequences a little more. But, that train of thought doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to be making the correct judgements, and even over a lifetime, it might very well be that I could try everything and still come to the wrong conclusions, wrong judgements, or the right conclusions and right judgements, or whatever. I could be a hyper-conscious CEO evaluating my own life totally inaccurately and still be getting by fine and dandy, and I could be a homeless guy with accurate takes but still have a shit life. It's basically nonsense, to just be like, oh, well, think about it a little bit harder, just be a little bit more conscious, because that isn't nailed down to anything in particular.

[-] daltotron 3 points 3 days ago

Nah, we're never gonna get to idiocracy. The movie's premise rides on the idea that intelligence is a heritable trait, or a measurable quantity. It is more the case, I have observed, that people are idiots by necessity. You know, it's uhh, difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. It's pretty easy to just call everyone stupid, and then move on, but it's much harder to understand specifically why they're stupid.

[-] daltotron -2 points 3 days ago

I mean that's definitely just a checkout aisle self-help book, though. Psychology, along with nutritional science and some other softer, more survey-based fields, has been suffering a pretty massive replication crisis, where something like 50% of papers are totally incapable of being replicated, depending on the journal and subject.

So I dunno, I'd generally be pretty skeptical of anything a book like that says about how you have to live your life or what you should be doing or how you should be doing it. Even if it's something like "mindfulness", right, generally thought to be a therapeutic practice, which we're extracting from zen buddhism or whatever, just like carl jung travels around and extracts a bunch of "archetypes" from other cultures and then supposes that they're universal when really it's all just kinda some schizo bullshit canon he's coming up with on the fly.

I uhh, I don't like the scientific paint that is painted onto psychology and psychotherapy, is I guess what I'm saying. The attempt at formalization. What is just as good for one person, to be mindful, is probably something that someone else should rather not think about at all. Maybe even as a functional adaptation, a functional delusion that they can go on believing, and still end up having a fulfilling and uplifting life for everyone around them.

[-] daltotron 1 points 4 days ago

Sony also made their bottom button the default “confirm/execute” button and the side right button the “cancel/backout” button. It just feels more intuitive to me.

Here to note that this wasn't the way it was meant to be, on their controller, hence the common confusion you tend to get with a lot of games. I think it comes about as a result of them maybe trying to tread more of a line between the two, as, though we forget, there were more in the race than just nintendo, sega, and later, sony, back in the day, and nobody had really "settled" the layout. Sega, obviously, went for a layout that is basically opposite to nintendo. I don't know if it's purely a region locked thing, or if it's a game-by-game sort of thing (which seems like a stupid move but whatever), but the button layout in america, for playstation, has tended to conform more to nintendo's layout, than to sega's. I dunno why, maybe it has to do something with the popularity of certain consoles to certain regions, or something along those lines.

In any case, O is originally meant to be confirm, the X is meant to be cancel, which I think makes slightly more intuitive sense, pictorially. The O is the positive, the X is the negative. Obviously, over time, this sort of became swapped based on region, and actually, the PS5 is the one in which it's actually become universal that the O is the cancel button and X is the confirm button, for the japanese. Which is probably fucking infuriating, for them, I'd imagine.

[-] daltotron 7 points 4 days ago

I think I find myself wanting a little bit of a tactile dot or something on the button, so as to more easily intuit which one to press. You could even retain the switch's ability to flip around the controllers, if you just put all the tactile dots on the outer radius of all the buttons. Like, put a little bump on the top of the top button, put a little bump on the bottom of the bottom button, etc. The only thing I can't really figure out is how you might refer to that in a game, or refer to that visually in a way that makes sense, other than maybe just building that association over time. But yeah, having them be distinguishable tactily is, I think, a good idea.

[-] daltotron 2 points 4 days ago

Sega had the dreamcast with an "A on the bottom", basic xbox style layout about 3 years before the xbox came out, as an extension of their genesis six button layout. With how friendly sega has been with microsoft historically, and especially the similarities between the classic "duke" controller and the dreamcast controller, the increasing focus on online play, I think maybe there's a through-line from the classic sega button layout and the modern xbox button layout.

[-] daltotron 2 points 4 days ago

I mean it kind of, instinctually makes some level of sense to me. With nintendo's stuff, the A button is on the right, and the B button is on the left, so you're reading it right to left, instead of left to right. Hence, the accompanying swap in X and Y.

view more: next ›

daltotron

joined 10 months ago