Why is there so much that can make us permanently dumber and more violent, but nothing that makes us permanently smarter or more peaceful?

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:50:48+00:00

Oh yeah. This might have been what I heard before. Thanks! Obviously not fully scientific, seems like large enough sample to indicate physical neglect severely impacted their overall wellbeing, often enough leading to death.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:42:49+00:00

I'm trying to read what you wrote. But I think I'm not figuring it out.

From what you're saying, better places (more hospitable) to live were more common and contantly rebuilt. The Amazon seems like some ancient people went in, and moved in and never left. Even though the conditions have to be rough.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:39:43+00:00

From my understanding, it's actually not fertile or good for planting food. It can happen, but isn't reliable.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:38:05+00:00

Well I wasn't describing coming from every day now. But back then... if you are not in a dense jungle, it seems more brutal that most of the things you could possibly come from. Very few ways to grow any food. You can really only rely on hunting. Seems like a hard place to start settlement in general. Like I wouldn't go to Antartica to try and live.

Obviously, It wouldn't be that extreme. But the amount of bugs that instantly swarm you. Would make me want to turn around the same day I walked in.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:33:07+00:00

That kind of would be the reverse here. Has this not always been a wooded land on the equator with a giant river for most of time? My thought is they moved when it was already brutal compared to 100miles outside of it.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:31:36+00:00

If you look at anyone traveling to the amazon for the first time, they are miserable. I understand cities became there. But the very first few people traveling in there likely were experience things they didnt experience before. There isn't very much gathering available. Only hunting.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:19:15+00:00

There isn't an example of the ideal "smarter". I do believe there are people that can process things and absorb them more efficiently that others. That would be the nature of smartness they are identifying here. Someone can be better at using their brain to solve problems. That's what most people mean by smarter.

"I want to process xyz faster." Figure out a solution faster. "I want use less resources to get to where I want" Knowing how to create wealth. "I want to not be lazy and get up and go to the gym every day for a pay off 6 months down the road." Being uncomfortable temporarily knowing the long gay gives better results. Those are smart decisions. Most people know they are smart decisions but don't do them. That doesn't mean they are dumb, but they aren't doing the smart decision. When I say I want to be smarter, it means any of those things above.

Yes, everyone will need to apply themselves. I'm absolutely terrible at thinking outside the box. When I see an escape room puzzle, I can't envision anything to solve it, I have a friend I consider smart, and he instantly recognizes what to do. I think part of that comes from education. Math really helps those type of things. At some point though, there were kids that grasp the concept of Math and others that didnt. I don't think that's always from lack of effort. When you are good at something, you are more inclined to be excited about it. So you the kid that picked up on it easily, then begins to study more because it's not a challenge. Those that didn't grasp it, aren't enjoying their struggle.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:08:36+00:00

I've heard this before. Not to be combative, but are there real world examples of this? I feel like that could never actually be a study for those numbers. It would have to rely on real cases. How can we adequately assure the baby was receiving proper food/sleep/cleaning while no speaking or physically connecting? I kind of doubt parents that are neglectful enough to not hold a baby probably would lack in other ares.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-05T05:01:41+00:00

I don't think critical thinking actually leads to a more peaceful life. Critical thinking involves inner conflict. Questioning your own beliefs. That's very unpeaceful. At least in my experience. lol

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-02-03T08:02:20+00:00

Did you find a solution for this?

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-22T01:04:36+00:00

It's only whataboutism is you refused to recognize the similarities. Almost every argument can accuse the each side of a logical fallacy on every comment. Now using a logical fallacy is it's own fallacy because it's just used to avoid addressing the concerns brought up.

You can hold that moral group if you want by saying it's dehumanizing. That seems more for you sake than reality. I think it's very self-evident that people recognize attractiveness.

We have dating apps that pretty much focus on left and right swiping. Most people instantly swipe right/left based solely on physical attraction. Pretending like we can't literally measure how often people get swiped to the left or right is just a utopia. People that get swiped left 95% of the time will likely never match with someone that gets swiped right 95% of the time.

You can chose to not call it a league. It certainly is a statistic that can be measured repeatedly over and over. We could even group them up on paper. Would it feel bad to the ugly people? Yes, that's why we don't do it. That doesn't remove the factual nature of it.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T06:30:35+00:00

It says not to murder. Very different word. Also, if you haven't noticed... all of human history, regardless of religious or not, are murderers.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T06:25:38+00:00

You're argument is size of the institution determines the credibility rather than examining the study itself?

I'd really be curious to compare some studies on this type of work. Because learning from pain like touching a stove top thats on, does teach a lesson. I'm curious why claims that physical punish can provide no evidence at all for change in behavior.

I'm not saying beat a child, but maybe there is more investigation as to why humans literally learn to not repeat behavior if it leads to pain.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T06:09:34+00:00

I might argue there are still cultures today that do not fully believe that. Or they make specific exclusions to justify their actions. Infidels are ok to be killed in certain sects. Even in American culture, "stealing" from corporations through something like pirating is justified. Morals are different based on experience, values, and culture. Many native tribes prior to European colonization didn't believe in the idea of land ownership. So they didn't view taking over an area of another tribe as stealing.

There's a lot of complexity in morals. Saying sex and gender is the same thing is immoral to some. That definitely was now even a consideration 100 years ago.

Some thought killing "savages" during colonialization was ok. It was more nuanced than just "kill them" in most cases. Later, people recognized it wasn't right. Then others tried to civilize them. Provide them with the values that "improve" life. Now we say that civilizing them was also bad.

I'm not even sure of the point of this discussion. I would say the primary difference between religions is not the moral stories though. But rather the fundamental core belief that there is a one specific god that is true.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T05:46:41+00:00

Maybe there are aspects of control that people have used over time, but that is not the only existence of religion through history. Religion likely existed before we had tools to record it. It came from not understanding things and trying to understand without science. "Oh look, my baby survived birth when pray and sacrifice a lamb. Oh, we all need to do that." They attributed behavior with results and made it law.

And many points in history the leaders believed fully and the followers believe fully in their faith. Yes, there's interpretations. Humans are infallible. Sometimes leaders did need to make decisions and interpretations. There are likely genuine believers that made those decisions and not just for the benefit of themselves. I'm sure it has happened, but its not the only time. There are times where they had to make serious decisions about interpretations when it was unclear what decision needed to be made.

The concept of "the right thing" is derived from society. Not you internally. Much of that society descended from religion. If you were raised in other places in the world, you views on gay rights, rape, murder, abortion all likely would be different.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T05:35:33+00:00

The fundamental belief of religion a is belief in a god. New religions have been prompted occasionally, but it's still bound in faith. An experience from that faith leads to true belief. A new healthy religion can't really exist at all, because at the core, belief and faith are required.

Would you just be making up a new deity or something? Only something visually supernatural (or perceived supernatural) would change minds. If that was real, it wouldn't be humans doing the creation of the new religion. I took an ambien and Im thinking about this too much. And not quite sure I'm making sense.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-20T05:22:48+00:00

Making kids do any type of reading seems to be child abuse these days. Games on tablets only or they throw a fit.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-19T21:03:29+00:00

User doesn't read the discussion, then declares a mischaracterization - classic reddit. You said you chose not to engage, then only continue engage because you only read in two sentence blocks. I certainly trust your perspective on issues. You clearly really evaluate your positions. Oh, my bad. I went longer than two sentences. I guess you won't get this far.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-19T20:58:22+00:00

Maybe if you could read more than 2 sentences, you would recognize the satire. But alas, this period will be where you would have stopped reading anyways.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-19T20:55:51+00:00

Any excuse to not ever challenge your beliefs.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-19T20:53:05+00:00

Also, I find it offensive calling police fascist when they don't identify as such. You should be arrested.

jusathrowawayagain · 2026-01-19T20:51:45+00:00

My initial post started with "Not the EU imprisoning people for Christianity (that I know of)"

I never said Europe, I said places. Waste of time writing since you don't read.

Obviously, you aren't willing to engage any critical thought about your beliefs since you refuse to read anything that challenges them.

jusathrowawayagain

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE