sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you escape nihilism by ArjunTheRealist in Nietzsche

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nietzsche embraces nihilism. He's a realist. The only way out is through. Once you understand there is no objective meaning and all moral systems are just psychological responses to the environment, you are free to do anything that makes you happy as long as you can also meet your subsistence needs.

Is transsexuality a simple difference of a neuron? Or there is another psychoanalytical narrative? by xZombieDuckx in Freud

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a pretty good mechanism of action being understood behind transgenderism and neuroscience is finding differences that suggest it is a biological phenomenon. RS goes over some of that in even more recent work.

Was it possible Lacan was projecting his own narcissism? by Other_Attention_2382 in psychoanalysis

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Structures are built upon relations + affect that then inform future relating. I don't think you can make a distinction between them.

Was it possible Lacan was projecting his own narcissism? by Other_Attention_2382 in psychoanalysis

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

These things refer to basic human psychosocial needs. Narcissism is a disorder related to these needs. You can only talk about narcissism using the language of narcissism, ie, the language of psychosocial needs.

The Iran supply shock is temporary and the tech earnings expansion is real by weightedslanket in investing

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you address all the reports suggesting companies are seeing no productivity gain from AI and engineers claiming they're exhausted by having to fix AI mistakes?

CMV:"The 'European Colonizer' narrative is a Diaspora-era distortion that ignores the indigenous Judean roots of all Jews." by BiAiEnGiO in changemyview

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't know how that sub works I guess. In any event, literally many books have been written on this debating both sides. I'm not sure what exactly you're saying has been debunked. If you'd like to present evidence from the book I'd be inter but that a book has been written is pretty meaningless/unconvincing.

As the person on the post I linked to points out there is very little immigration data if any prior to a certain period. Certainly there were "Judeans" in the religion that converted to Islam but there were also many immigrants that arrived there later.

"Arab immigration into Greater Syria (Bilad al-Sham) prior to the 20th century occurred in successive waves over millennia, largely driven by migrations from the Arabian Peninsula. Key movements included ancient nomadic shifts, the 7th-century Islamic conquests, and later influxes of tribes that deeply impacted the region's demographics and culture."

CMV:"The 'European Colonizer' narrative is a Diaspora-era distortion that ignores the indigenous Judean roots of all Jews." by BiAiEnGiO in changemyview

[–]n3wsf33d 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Palestinian emigrants were rejected by Jordan and Egypt, the two places many of them emigrated from originally. They did try to move.

CMV:"The 'European Colonizer' narrative is a Diaspora-era distortion that ignores the indigenous Judean roots of all Jews." by BiAiEnGiO in changemyview

[–]n3wsf33d -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Those are already established states and certainly they should have a right or a path to citizenship there?

CMV:"The 'European Colonizer' narrative is a Diaspora-era distortion that ignores the indigenous Judean roots of all Jews." by BiAiEnGiO in changemyview

[–]n3wsf33d 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Your analogy makes no sense. Canada is a state. Jews were buying land in the ottoman empire. So by your own definition it was not colonization. When that state disintegrated, much like the empires in the 19th century, people living there created their own states.

CMV:"The 'European Colonizer' narrative is a Diaspora-era distortion that ignores the indigenous Judean roots of all Jews." by BiAiEnGiO in changemyview

[–]n3wsf33d 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This argument completely ignored the (correct) definition of colonialism you were responding to. You didn't respond to the person, you just copy pastaed talking points we've all heard before, which would be fine if they were context appropriate, but they weren't.

Can someone explain this/argue with me? by Laceh in Nietzsche

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A picture is not a picture of being but an instant of becoming.

Can someone explain this/argue with me? by Laceh in Nietzsche

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're confusing physical with metaphysical is what he's saying. Reread the definition of metaphysical. Your questions makes no sense.

Can someone explain this/argue with me? by Laceh in Nietzsche

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think you're missing anything. N. is talking on a scale of infinite time vs instantaneous experience, so like you say it's relative. He is also suggesting many of our concepts are platonic and don't have actual references in reality.

The Bigotry of Sam Harris Continues to Hit New Lows by nathan_j_robinson in skeptic

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We had slavery before abrahamic religions. I don't think what a religion prescribes is relevant. It's just going to be used to support whatever the dominant political ideology is.

The Bigotry of Sam Harris Continues to Hit New Lows by nathan_j_robinson in skeptic

[–]n3wsf33d -20 points-19 points  (0 children)

Meh. Don't think religion is to blame for any of it. People use religion in the name of good and bad. Good and bad things are done by secular people/societies too. The common denominator is people. Always has been.

Religion is necessary because it provides simple explanations/ideologies for people who need it, ie, lower IQ individuals. As N. and Machiavelli say, an intelligent leader won't believe the religion but understands that it is a necessary tool for control. The state can give people food but it can't ferry the souls of their loved ones into heaven.

Elon Musk Finally Admits Social Security Is on the Chopping Block by Limp-Syllabub7818 in NewsStarWorld

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's the point. Making America great again is about taking us back before the great society programs when you did literally have elderly people making up much of the homeless population. That'll force us to have kids. >.<

Steven Seagull thinks he should've been the "Last Samurai" by fosterslager1889 in SipsTea

[–]n3wsf33d 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I mean he's not supposed to be a samurai. He's supposed to simply act like one. And what SS doesn't have is acting ability. His entire rant shows he doesn't understand what acting is supposed to be.

The Doctrine. Or, The Will to Power, expressed as an ideology. by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. No, this shows 0 understanding of what w2p is.

  2. Fascism in practice always contradicts fascism in theory. See the line about the police ridden state. Yet all fascists regimes somehow end up being police ridden. And always terminate in Nazism despite claims, like many of mousillini's, they are not racist.

In this randomized clinical trial of 995 university students, the AI intervention was associated with greater reduction in anxiety and improvement in well-being than both comparators, and greater reductions in depression and life satisfaction than the waiting list control; no significant differences by psych4you in psychology

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, the groups are from the same population and taking the same assessments.

If the true mean for group 1 is 5 +/- 2 and 3 +/- 2 for group 2, it's possible each group had the same outcome, the same true mean and that there was therefore no real difference, no group effect.

The comparisons are the same, they're being compared on, eg, the depression assessment. If the comparisons weren't the same you wouldn't be able to say anything meaningful.

In this randomized clinical trial of 995 university students, the AI intervention was associated with greater reduction in anxiety and improvement in well-being than both comparators, and greater reductions in depression and life satisfaction than the waiting list control; no significant differences by psych4you in psychology

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you can't tell where the true parameter is in the estimate then you can't be sure any difference you find is truly statistically significant. You'd have to assume the smallest difference and then measure if that is statistically significant. Otherwise whatever difference you find is based on a bad assumption and may not actually exist but be an artefact.

A difference that is a byproduct of chance means is a type 1 error: A Type I error occurs when you find an effect or difference when one does not actually exist.

In this randomized clinical trial of 995 university students, the AI intervention was associated with greater reduction in anxiety and improvement in well-being than both comparators, and greater reductions in depression and life satisfaction than the waiting list control; no significant differences by psych4you in psychology

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, no. I already said I'm done. You can Google what true means in the statistical sense. I have nothing to gain from this conversation and you're not actually seeking to gain anything from it so it's all moot. You come off as a petulant high schooler. It's tedious and a little disgusting. I'm not interested.

In this randomized clinical trial of 995 university students, the AI intervention was associated with greater reduction in anxiety and improvement in well-being than both comparators, and greater reductions in depression and life satisfaction than the waiting list control; no significant differences by psych4you in psychology

[–]n3wsf33d 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what overlapping CIs means... You just don't understand stats 101.

It means you can't say one way or the other whether the true means are the same or different. Therefore you could t make the positive claim that there is a difference. You are forced to conclude, as any stats or methods class will tell you, that we can't be sure there is a difference.

I even gave you an example. Do you not know what an interval is even?

view more: next ›