I agree 100%. In theory it’s good to consider all perspectives and not acquire hyperfocus/tunnel vision on any one plan or destination. But I n practice, people seem to find leaders with tunnel vision far more convincing and worth following than those who take a more multi faceted/ less focused approach to leadership IMO
Maybe that’s because, it seems like the practical reality of discussing ones attempts to be bias-free always comes off as disengenuous no matter how genuine those attempts may be. So fuck it man. Embrace bias :)
Is being raised by ones uncle really more popular than being raised by ones grandparents, on a global scale? Somehow I doubt it. In many Asian countries being raised by grandparents is the norm but being raised by an uncle would be more of an uncommon arrangement.
I find that unlikely. I mean, what if there are no brothers? If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move), there's about a 50:50 chance that a woman won't even have a brother to help raise the children.
Seems super unlikely to be the "most common" (by number of societies) arrangement when it only can work like 50% of the time in a society that DOES decide to do it. Was your Anthropology professor pulling your leg?
> If, for sake of argument we say there are always exactly two children per family (approximation for stable population size and if some brothers die or move),
Stable population size in any significant society is a very new thing, not historically common. Basing your assessment of historical likelihood on societies being assumed to have a trait that basically no premodern society did probably isn't reasonable.
I am from a part of the world - Kerala, India - where the matrilineal inheritance [1] was common up until about 50 years ago. This system worked as the GP described.
When I start to actually give a shit about politics I know I’m unhappy
It’s also a great way to rationalize why I write off all politically minded ppl as simply unhappy — when I am politically minded it is always solely the result of personal unhappiness — when I am happy I don’t care about politics
>As for Gates, he had the drive and interest to spend his time learning how to program and explore business while he was a kid. While most of his peers were likely using that time to watch TV or party. That's an essential difference and no amount of privilege is going to bridge that.
Dude his drive and interest was solely determined by his physical appearance aka the fact that he considered himself ugly. If gates could choose he would have been a good looking tv watching party chad. But he was an uggo so he statusmaxxed instead.
There is no such thing as an individual who is not susceptible to hypnosis because all hypnosis is self hypnosis. In fact you had to hypnotize yourself into believing that you’re not susceptible to hypnosis, which proves that the opposite is true.
On another note—
Actually, you do hear voices. You just don’t notice them because you assume that they are your “inner voice.” If you just gave the process of thinking your thoughts a different label, you could easily call it “hearing a voice.” I’m not trying to be a smart ass here, don’t you think that this is true ? IMO, the idea that “thinking thoughts” and “hearing voices” are just different vague metaphorical labels for the same internal phenomenon makes a lot of sense.
Agreed. It's not for nothing we talk about "thinking out loud". That suggests that there is some kind of vague awareness that thinking and speaking are not fundamentally different activities (compare: "feeling aroused/jealous out loud" which doesn't even make sense)
Sometimes I wonder if human acquired the ability to "silently" think thoughts only recently. That the ability to silently think evolved much like how the ability to silently read evolved (even today I sometimes run into country folks who have little ability to read without audibly reading, or cannot transfer their password from phone to computer without broadcasting it to everyone around)
Presumably audible thinking and audible reading were the original forms. Then silent thinking and silent reading evolved because of their obvious utility (it's fitness enhancing to be able to hide your thoughts from your enemy blah blah)
Fascinating comment all around. I fully agree. It never occurred to me that “silent thinking” and “silent reading” are relatively new phenomena. But after reading this comment it’s so obvious that they are.
Maybe that’s because, it seems like the practical reality of discussing ones attempts to be bias-free always comes off as disengenuous no matter how genuine those attempts may be. So fuck it man. Embrace bias :)