Posts by goldenjackal6

Exactly, people's takes are absolute garbage.

mistybison said:If empathy is underdeveloped, interpersonal relationships will inevitably suffer. Common sense simply cannot substitute for empathy, since our emotions often defy logic. At our core, we are highly emotional and irrational beings.

One only needs to look at the challenges faced by individuals with mild autism who are otherwise fully integrated into society—educated, intelligent, and successful in their careers. They often struggle to grasp why someone might take offense, because, logically speaking, there is no reason to. This frequently places a significant demand on those around them to provide extra patience and understanding.

Once again, you're leaning on prejudices and you're wrong. It doesn't replace the actual internal experience, sure, but it definitely works in terms of functionality.

Yeah, people are emotional and irrational. I mean, you've probably heard the term emotional intelligence—it's not actually about *feeling* the emotions, it's about recognizing them. Just being able to identify an emotion is enough to maintain healthy relationships. Affective empathy isn't some mandatory prerequisite here; it's actually more of an innate mechanism that kicks in precisely because humans haven't fully caught up yet. Despite what everyone thinks, evolutionarily speaking, most people are still stuck in a pretty infantile stage when it comes to actual comprehension.

mistybison said:If empathy is underdeveloped, interpersonal relationships will inevitably suffer. Common sense simply cannot substitute for empathy, since our emotions often defy logic. At our core, we are highly emotional and irrational beings.

One only needs to look at the challenges faced by individuals with mild autism who are otherwise fully integrated into society—educated, intelligent, and successful in their careers. They often struggle to grasp why someone might take offense, because, logically speaking, there is no reason to. This frequently places a significant demand on those around them to provide extra patience and understanding.

No, no, no, and absolutely not. An autistic person's inability to register or interpret social and emotional cues has zero connection to psychopathy. In fact, it's the opposite—psychopaths generally have incredibly high emotional intelligence, which is exactly why they're such notorious manipulators.

To put it simply: an autistic person doesn't understand because they *can't*, whereas a psychopath understands perfectly well but chooses to act like they just don't give a damn.

Thomas Nelson25 said:I think it's basically Narcissistic Personality Disorder at its core. Then, obviously, you factor in the environment and trauma.

But that example you gave, man? That was just a guy being extremely cold and rational.
Think doctors, medical pros, cops, military, politicians, corporate moguls... stuff like that.

Sure, you can call them psychopaths if you want... because yeah, some of them definitely are. Once you have power, you're going to find some sadists in the mix—it's just how things warp.

It seems like you’re just doubling down on this whole "psychopathy" thing based purely on your own biases without even bothering to address a single point I’ve actually made.

bluemason3 said:Another non sequitur.

It's also just incorrect. At most, you could argue the link between Intel and psychopathy isn't fully settled since research results vary, but meta-analyses actually point toward a negative correlation—psychopaths tend to be less intelligent than the general population average.

It’s mostly a myth born from media tropes and some early theoretical speculation that lacks any real research backing.

Once again, this has nothing to do with what you were responding to.😁

Look, I don't expect you to get it, and honestly, I'm done with this discussion. It's pretty clear you're just pulling arguments out of thin air based on biases you refuse to let go of.

Thomas Nelson25 said:Maybe you were thinking of those purely logical types.
Add some heavy self-control and maybe some intelligence to the mix.
Think about a top-tier research scientist out there running experiments... yeah, they probably aren't religious.

Psychopaths aren't exactly stable. Sadists, though? They usually deal with inferiority complexes, trauma, and all that.

No, like I said, those are just stereotypes cooked up by pop culture in movies and TV shows. Psychopaths who are sadistic and act on those impulses make up a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall psychopath population.

Just like with neurotypical people, the dysfunction in psychopaths is also driven by growing up in a broken environment. But for them, it isn't "trauma" in the classic sense; it's more about having terrible role models and a brain that shaped itself that way.

For instance, if you dig into notorious serial killers, you'll see a recurring pattern: their parents or guardians were violent, alcoholics, junkies, prostitutes, or religious fanatics, and as kids, they went through absolute nightmare scenarios that would make most people lose their lunch.

bluemason3 said:I disagree. At an analytical level, data processing is just too slow, making that kind of reaction highly inefficient. In many environments—especially those we were evolutionarily exposed to for much longer—the speed of an instinctive reaction offers enough of an advantage to outweigh errors in judgment. It’s better to jump at a twig in the dark out of pure instinct than to get bitten by a snake while you're still busy analyzing what it was.

The few examples we see of people whose affective or instinctive functions are impaired while their rational ones remain intact haven't exactly turned out well. They end up completely dysfunctional, even in a modern urban setting.
We simply don't have the cognitive bandwidth to make every single daily decision based purely on reason; if we did, society would grind to a halt.

Evolution is actually pretty brilliant, which is exactly why high IQ shows up so frequently among psychopaths.

bluemason3 said:That’s completely beside the point here. Psychopathy is defined by a lack of affective empathy and a lack of "normal" emotional connections with others—essentially just having a different kind of emotional life, not an absence of feeling altogether. That isn't part of either the theoretical construct or the diagnostic criteria (which, granted, aren't standardized since psychopathy itself isn't included in official medical diagnostic manuals, though certain traits have been profiled as dominant in research).

Using the word "normal" is really just a synonym for whatever trait most people happen to have. It doesn't mean something is inherently "good" when you step back and look at the big picture or try to plan long-term.

Affective empathy is only one side of the coin; the other is cognitive empathy. And honestly, depending on the situation, sometimes being driven by emotion works, and sometimes being rational is the move. Usually, being rational is the better bet.

bluemason3 said:I don't know. Theoretically, the construct of psychopathy implies low anxiety and low stress, as well as low empathy, but if I recall correctly, it doesn't mean immunity to anger or other feelings. Rather, one of the subtypes of psychopathy (which is more or less analogous to antisocial personality disorder, if I'm not mistaken) is characterized by poor impulse control.

You’ve gotta remember that most of the research on psychopathy is done on inmates in state prisons. It’s incredibly hard to spot functional psychopaths in the wild—most regular people wouldn't even realize they're dealing with one, and honestly, a lot of them don't even know they fit the profile themselves.

George Wood2 said:Should we strive to be devoid of emotion?

Until now, I had assumed this particular dilemma was reserved solely for Mr. Spock and the inhabitants of the planet Vulcan. What manner of individual could possibly exist entirely untouched by feeling? Perhaps some sort of mutant hybrid, a mere android masquerading as a man?

Psychopathy is basically a disorder where a person's brain functions totally differently when it comes to spontaneous emotional reactions.

Let me break it down: in neurotypical (non-psychopathic) people, the centers responsible for generating specific emotions send signals to other parts of the brain whether they want to or not. But in a psychopath, there's this "switch" that stays stuck in the "off" position by default—especially when dealing with anxiety-spectrum emotions triggered by stress.

There are pros and cons to that. For instance, psychopaths are practically immune to PTSD and can be incredibly high-functioning in high-pressure situations (basically, they stay extremely cool under fire). On the flip side, they can become absolute monsters if they were raised in a dysfunctional environment, which is unfortunately the extreme version we see most often in Hollywood movies. Because of that, "psychopath" is probably one of the most stigmatized terms today. In reality, most psychopaths are perfectly functional people who just seem a little "off" if you observe them closely; they aren't out there fantasizing about murder or anything crazy like people imagine when they hear the word. If you think about it, Mr. Spock and Tuvok are essentially highly functional psychopaths because they suppress emotions entirely and think purely through logic—that’s the definition.

bluemason3 said:That sounds pretty foolish and counterproductive to me. Fear exists for a reason; having too little of it is just as dysfunctional as having too much.

It’s better to stay stone-cold calm when a lion is attacking you.😁

Priests overcomplicate things. They’re always chasing after some nonsensical unicorns and trying to manifest these naive, impossible fantasy projections about what should or shouldn't happen.😁

Common sense can substitute for any spontaneous emotional function; you don't need to be gripped by fear to recognize a threat and react appropriately.

Besides, emotions are a double-edged sword. When you're terrified, you stop thinking straight and end up doing something moronic, like running away from a lion. That's the dumbest move ever, because turning your back and presenting an easy target to a predator is basically just telling them you're an easy meal.

driftingheron97 said:Wait, how the hell am I supposed to pull this off?

Pure psychopathy. 😁

Look, being religious isn't the opposite of being spiritual—it’s more like spiritual blindness. It's like someone mistakes a bunch of forced, ideological superstitions for actual depth just because both things happen to fall under the umbrella of "abstract concepts."

We’re still sitting on the sidelines, maybe a few million years away from actual transcendence.

Despite what everyone wants to believe, humans are basically just primitive pack animals with some pretty half-baked reasoning skills. The only thing making us look sophisticated to the outside world is our toolkit—specifically language and technology.

David Vaughn75 said:I’m throwing this out there for anyone who actually believes in an afterlife—but hey, if you’re a skeptic, feel free to jump in and tell me why you think it’s all nonsense too.

So, here's what's rattling around in my brain: do we actually get a physical body in heaven, or are we just floating around in some vague, spiritual void? If we do get bodies back, who gets the final say on what we look like—is it God making the calls, or do we get some kind of cosmic autonomy?
And what’s the crowd situation like? Are we talking about a private VIP lounge where it's just us, or is the place packed with other people and... I don't know, other beings hanging out in the same space?
Is paradise basically just some pristine botanical garden like Adam and Eve had in the Garden of Eden, or is it more like a non-stop, eternal rave where we can indulge in whatever we want without any consequences?

Anyway, how do you guys picture it?

Personally, I'm picturing a world totally free from religion and all those hypocritical gods.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Yeah... it's not even necessary, what's the point...

When it comes to personalized religions, I've been an advocate for that for ages—let everyone pick whatever fits them best, design their own thing, or just ignore the whole mess entirely. Just like bodies aren't one-size-fits-all, minds aren't either, so there's zero sense in forcing one standard on everyone.

That might be spirituality or a worldview... religion and morality can't just be "private phenomena," even if certain faiths keep splintering off endlessly.

Belief, behavior, and belonging ("believe, behave, belong") are the core pillars of any religion...

In plain English? It's just mind control, behavioral policing, and the comfort of hiding in a crowd.

rustymaker5 said:Science can't possibly be the sole gateway to truth, if nothing else because its supposed objectivity is a total myth when you consider that every single researcher is inevitably operating from a subjective standpoint... Certain scientific breakthroughs would almost certainly look completely different if they had been achieved by people with entirely different perspectives or worldviews. And honestly, the constant bickering and bitter infighting we see within academic circles just proves my point...
I’m not exactly a man of science myself, but these shifts hit home for me when I think about things like medical breakthroughs or the pharmaceutical industry. It seems like massive changes are brewing in those fields, where the standard American medical model—the kind we've all grown up with—is slowly being pushed aside in favor of something new, like personalized medicine... because people are finally realizing the human body isn't some universal machine, and that every individual is a unique psycho-physical entity, meaning a drug might work for one person but be totally ineffective, or even lethal, for another.
If scientists had actually embraced that kind of holistic approach much earlier, maybe half these illnesses wouldn't even exist, and we wouldn't be living in a world where medicine has "advanced" so much that they can find a specific pill for every single ailment imaginable.

In your own words, what does the concept of science actually mean to you?

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Not really. The author is just spinning their wheels by saying "that's not how it works" without actually providing a shred of reasoning to back up why they think that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

Based on everything we actually know, it’s pretty much been proven that it's the only way we have to find answers.

Personal whims and fantasies about "something higher" are just that—whims and fantasies—unless someone manages to prove otherwise.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Look, we're just talking about whether the headline actually matches what's written... and honestly, they're saying the same thing.

As for proving things or making an argument... you can't exactly prove or debunk the idea that "Science is the only path to truth" using science itself.
It's basically just a worldview or some kind of pseudo-religion... which means the claim relies on having a specific belief system, not just raw data.

That’s just wrong. It’s a classic projection from a religious mindset where people insist on something "indescribable" based on their own desires and fantasies. It’s ironic, honestly, because superstitious beliefs usually stem from an inability to wrap one's head around reality and hard facts.

James Miller2 said:Do you even understand American? 🤔

To me, it seems similar to Satanism. They share similarly nasty rules.

Extremely well, thanks for the ad hominem attack.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Wrong assumption—seriously. Go ahead, point out one single part of the actual text that contradicts the title.

The whole thing is a total mismatch. The title claims one thing, but the actual body of the text fails to provide even a shred of evidence or a solid argument to prove that science isn't the absolute final word on truth.

Lisa Jackson7 said:The only way they work is if people frame those specific myths as scientific truth... otherwise—it's not just difficult, it's actually impossible... from a scientific standpoint.

If you try to dismantle a myth using the lens of another myth, though, then sure, anything goes.

Science is the only road to truth? Don't be absurd

Once you strip those away, there isn't enough left to sustain a specific religion—because none of them actually stand on philosophical theism or any other metaphysics; they all lean on a mess of myths, paranormal claims, and belief in esoteric mechanisms, etc.

Look, religions don't just base themselves on philosophical theism or whatever metaphysics you want to throw at them.

Take Christianity, for example—it doesn't survive solely, or even primarily, on the idea that God exists, which it shares with tons of other religions. The core is the Jesus's myth—the sacrifice, the salvation...

Exactly...

..., esoteric initiatory "mysteries," pseudo-scientific attempts at proof through fake miracles (like I mentioned in an earlier post about flawed reasoning) and so on.

It's just this messy blend of methodological naturalism and mystical experience...

I’m guessing you did what you always do and stopped reading after the headline. 😁

loneskipper10 said:And yet, myths tend to be true.

Man, you clearly have zero clue what the word "myth" actually means.

Kenneth Taylor3 said:Mhm. So, just because we lack the equipment to test metaphysical claims—which is total nonsense, by the way—that somehow means we have to accept them? With certainty? Are you serious? Is that the expectation? That we should just nod along and say 2+2=4 even though we haven't even learned how to add yet? We don't even know what numbers or addends actually *are*. Should we just be making wild guesses?
There's the logic for you...🤣

You're contradicting yourself... you can't reject metaphysical questions as a whole, but you can reject "individual myths"... Based on what?

How can I not reject them? Read what I wrote above!

I try to avoid generalizations of that kind...

But...

And "common sense" can fail too... it isn't infallible.

Oh, and reason fails too, apparently, when it comes to scientific precision? Give me a break...
Sure, if you go off to get a PhD in Common Sense Failure Studies. 😁

You don't *have* to, but because of all the intellectual gaps created by the messy, fragile way the human brain is wired, a lot of people just accept it and start guessing... and that's how religions get started.

James Miller2 said:It’s a trap. I won't fall for it.

Actually, you already fell for it twice by dodging a dead-simple question both times.

Maybe a third stroke of luck is coming, but what kind of cultist scientists are we even talking about here?

James Miller2 said:Just Google it.

I'm not doing that. You tell me—what kind of cult are they running?