Coronavirus thread

[BjornP]

I think it's probably harder to form emotional biases if your day is very much rooted in concrete realities than in comfortable abstractions. Well fed, well protected, leisurely people have time to learn about racism, and classism, and sexism, and all the abstract -isms that become the replacement for actual struggles in life.

Everyone naturally struggling in life is dealing with just making it to the next day. So they don't have time to indulge in fantasy oppression, or vague notions of peoples represented by ideas and cultures clashing over time, and who owes what to whom for bygone wrongs.

Nope.
Their mentality is a lot more grounded in the present, the near-term, their direct circle of influence.

So can they have cognitive bias?
Probably, if cognitive bias is just a catch phrase for "mental shortcuts" we all use to get from A to F without stopping at B,C,D,E along the way.

But will they self-isolate in groupthink media bubbles and self radicalize?
I dunno about that.
I doubt it.

That sounds more like something citizens of a modern state would have time to do.

If well-fed, famine-free people are more likely to root their lives in comfortable abstractions, then expect hunter-gatherer communities to live with comfortable abstractions:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917328/

3. RESULTS
We first compared warm-climate hunter–gatherers and cold-climate hunter–gatherers using Mann–Whitney U-tests (table 1). Warm-climate hunter–gatherers had a significantly lower frequency of famine than cold-climate hunter–gatherers in two variables: occurrence of famine and persistence of famine. Also, planning for famine (contingency of famine) was significantly more common in cold-climate hunter–gatherers than warm-climate hunter–gatherers (table 1).

But still, I'd agree that they - like most developed countries for that matter - don't bother with Victimhood Culture. That thing's a recent and, afaik, historically unique development. People have always had notions of injustices done to them, but there has never been that much prestige in portraying yourself as victimized on the scale as some people do now.

I don't think it's the "struggling" aspect of "primitive" societies that would make them less susceptible to Victimhood Culture. It's simply that they know each other, and so when someone screams that hunter is "*taboo in that culture*", there isn't a nameless horde of people who don't know the person who will slander that person to his face without good cause. Second reason could be somewhat related to what StA posted, in that a precise vocubulary is essential to keep the peace because having a shared language is considered essential to that. So there is less tendency to stretch the definition of *insert their taboo word* to infinity or use accusations of being *taboo word* as a blanket word for "bad/evil person", like "Racist" or "Marxist", is being used by the American left and right, respectively.

[SuburbanFarmer]

We shouldn't do business with countries that practice slave labor and punish free speech for a start.

I believe that's called an embargo... Which is an act of war.

I'm not completely against it, just curious how you think an embargo against China would work out.

It doesn't have to be enforced by the state. It should just be commonly accepted as good business practice. The problem now is that a lot och publically traded companies have statutes that forces management to make decisions that they know is bad for the country (state) but increases short term profitability. It's really a kind of prisoners dilemma. If everyone stays out of china everybody profits.

You're implying that our society values anything other than short-term profit. How silly.

[Montegriffo]

I believe that's called an embargo... Which is an act of war.

I'm not completely against it, just curious how you think an embargo against China would work out.

It doesn't have to be enforced by the state. It should just be commonly accepted as good business practice. The problem now is that a lot och publically traded companies have statutes that forces management to make decisions that they know is bad for the country (state) but increases short term profitability. It's really a kind of prisoners dilemma. If everyone stays out of china everybody profits.

You're implying that our society values anything other than short-term profit. How silly.

Also, ignoring the jobs in distribution and retail which rely on the cheap Chinese imports for their survival is silly.
If you can find enough people willing and able to pay higher prices for the products they buy you can start to reduce the goods you import from China and manufacture them locally.
What will happen in reality though is that cheap products will be manufactured in the next low wages country in line or automation will help make those goods cheap enough to compete with them. Either way, you won't be providing jobs at home.
A sudden stop to Chinese imports would just result in cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[DBTrek]

But still, I'd agree that they - like most developed countries for that matter - don't bother with Victimhood Culture. That thing's a recent and, afaik, historically unique development. People have always had notions of injustices done to them, but there has never been that much prestige in portraying yourself as victimized on the scale as some people do now.

I don't think it's the "struggling" aspect of "primitive" societies that would make them less susceptible to Victimhood Culture. It's simply that they know each other, and so when someone screams that hunter is "*taboo in that culture*", there isn't a nameless horde of people who don't know the person who will slander that person to his face without good cause. Second reason could be somewhat related to what StA posted, in that a precise vocubulary is essential to keep the peace because having a shared language is considered essential to that. So there is less tendency to stretch the definition of *insert their taboo word* to infinity or use accusations of being *taboo word* as a blanket word for "bad/evil person", like "Racist" or "Marxist", is being used by the American left and right, respectively.

Expanding on StA's interesting comments on language - I've taken writing classes where the instructor says that Middle East and Asian cultures view reader responsibility completely differently than western culture. According to the professor these cultures believe the responsibility for understanding the written word lay solely with the reader. The west, however, believes the author is responsible for writing clearly enough for readers to understand. So if something is vaguely or ambiguously written in the western world we'll say the author sucks. Other cultures apparently view the same phenomena as the readers simply failing to grasp what the author was saying. I can't vouch for it personally, not being literate in any ME or Asian languages.

Yet even this minor difference seems like it could make a major impact on worldview. I can't imagine the number of my preconceptions that might change if I was raised believing that the onus was on others to understand what I write. Would it end at writing, or would I also believe others were equally responsible to understand my other endeavors - or not? On one hand, that could be quite liberating.
"Yo, your music sucks".
"No man, you're just hearing it wrong".

On the other hand, it doesn't seem like it would do wonders for individual responsibility or drive.
"Write better? What do you mean? They all need to read better!"

Would such a belief make one more or less susceptible to the allure of Victimhood Culture? Maybe it would have no effect at all. Or, maybe it's the very first step down that path.

[DBTrek]

I dont know from racist, who is or isn't these days; and I may not know ODB too well, but "I'm on a mission that niggas say is impossible, but when I swing my swords, they all choppable." Also, not for nothing, but I have long thought Kanye a genius... if not an entirely stable one... but what genius is.

The price of forbidden knowledge runs high. Kanye has a little and John Nash had a lot. No one who knows a prophet wants to be one, so we keep everything low level. Simple. Limited. And it's all so tiresome.

But sometimes you get a taste of that nectar, through music, meditation, prayer, or psychoactive stimulants. Once you know there's something on the other side of the wall it's tough to be content with running on the hamster wheel until your time expires. Of course, when you witness the deterioration of addicts, suicides of musicians, and bizarre actions of zealots you're reminded that the forbidden knowledge is indeed, forbidden.

But fuck am I tired of common knowledge.
Half of it isn't even real.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I dont know from racist, who is or isn't these days; and I may not know ODB too well, but "I'm on a mission that niggas say is impossible, but when I swing my swords, they all choppable." Also, not for nothing, but I have long thought Kanye a genius... if not an entirely stable one... but what genius is.

The price of forbidden knowledge runs high. Kanye has a little and John Nash had a lot. No one who knows a prophet wants to be one, so we keep everything low level. Simple. Limited. And it's all so tiresome.

But sometimes you get a taste of that nectar, through music, meditation, prayer, or psychoactive stimulants. Once you know there's something on the other side of the wall it's tough to be content with running on the hamster wheel until your time expires. Of course, when you witness the deterioration of addicts, suicides of musicians, and bizarre actions of zealots you're reminded that the forbidden knowledge is indeed, forbidden.

But fuck am I tired of common knowledge.
Half of it isn't even real.

Thus the cognitive dissonance of modern society. We're lied to from birth to death, from all sides.

Maybe there's another way to support our massive population, a different way to live, but it hasn't been devised yet.

[BjornP]

Expanding on StA's interesting comments on language - I've taken writing classes where the instructor says that Middle East and Asian cultures view reader responsibility completely differently than western culture. According to the professor these cultures believe the responsibility for understanding the written word lay solely with the reader. The west, however, believes the author is responsible for writing clearly enough for readers to understand. So if something is vaguely or ambiguously written in the western world we'll say the author sucks. Other cultures apparently view the same phenomena as the readers simply failing to grasp what the author was saying. I can't vouch for it personally, not being literate in any ME or Asian languages.

Yet even this minor difference seems like it could make a major impact on worldview. I can't imagine the number of my preconceptions that might change if I was raised believing that the onus was on others to understand what I write. Would it end at writing, or would I also believe others were equally responsible to understand my other endeavors - or not? On one hand, that could be quite liberating.
"Yo, your music sucks".
"No man, you're just hearing it wrong".

On the other hand, it doesn't seem like it would do wonders for individual responsibility or drive.
"Write better? What do you mean? They all need to read better!"

Would such a belief make one more or less susceptible to the allure of Victimhood Culture? Maybe it would have no effect at all. Or, maybe it's the very first step down that path.

Interesting point about the cultural aspect of reader/listener vs. writer/speaker's responsibility when it comes to understanding the meaning of what's said. I do think, however, that that applies mostly to whole sentences and full explanations. For example, even the Chinese scratch their heads and wonder wtf SJW's and the "I feel that I'm a woman no matter what's between my legs, so I a woman and you have to acknowledge that" are on about. Victimhood Culture's focus on it always being the one's listening to the "victim" to understand their victimhood would seem to fit mostly within that Eastern/ME'ern way of thinking about communication, but I think even those foreign cultures would expect someone to at least use the same understanding of words. If you wanted your buddy to fetch you a beer, and instead of saying "Can you fetch me a beer from the fridge?", instead said: "May xi parrot toast wobby puff duff" to mean the same thing, then even the ME/Asians probably think it's the speaker/writer who needs to try a little harder. Your buddy would still be able to understand you in the end, after some miming, I expect, though.

[DBTrek]

Interesting point about the cultural aspect of reader/listener vs. writer/speaker's responsibility when it comes to understanding the meaning of what's said. I do think, however, that that applies mostly to whole sentences and full explanations. For example, even the Chinese scratch their heads and wonder wtf SJW's and the "I feel that I'm a woman no matter what's between my legs, so I a woman and you have to acknowledge that" are on about. Victimhood Culture's focus on it always being the one's listening to the "victim" to understand their victimhood would seem to fit mostly within that Eastern/ME'ern way of thinking about communication, but I think even those foreign cultures would expect someone to at least use the same understanding of words. If you wanted your buddy to fetch you a beer, and instead of saying "Can you fetch me a beer from the fridge?", instead said: "May xi parrot toast wobby puff duff" to mean the same thing, then even the ME/Asians probably think it's the speaker/writer who needs to try a little harder. Your buddy would still be able to understand you in the end, after some miming, I expect, though.

Yes, I think the instructors point was more about the style of communication than deciphering nonsense sentences. It happened a while ago, but I believe the context was "Asian and ME writers communicate more indirectly than westerners". This indirect communication style is well understood by members of those cultures, but not by westerners. Likewise, our direct style of communication may strike them as brash, or rude. BUT . . . if you're going to come write English for an American company you're just gonna have to adapt to that.

So the reader responsibility discussion branched off of that topic. Because other cultures have a well understood, but indirect communication style, they expect their readers to pick up on what is being said even if it is never explicitly stated. Westerners, however, are just going to spell it out for you. Therefore, if there's a miscommunication in western writing, we blame the author for not being direct or clear enough. If there's a miscommunication in Asain/ME writing, the blame lay with the reader for not picking up on the standard cultural cues . . . or something.

[BjornP]

Ah, gotcha now. Danes are told we're "rude" even by other Western countries to such an extent, though, so most of us are getting more used to understanding that we're different in our communication style. No wonder Middle Easterners are more criminal in Scandinavia... they think everyone here's constantly insulting them, it all makes sense now. However, when I think of people like the Chinese, I don't really think "respectful people", but then again, I also don't know the nuances of their language. No to mention that how two cultures interact with each other, isn't neccesarily a good indicator on how it works internally.

[TheReal_ND]

Ah, gotcha now. Danes are told we're "rude" even by other Western countries to such an extent, though, so most of us are getting more used to understanding that we're different in our communication style. No wonder Middle Easterners are more criminal in Scandinavia... they think everyone here's constantly insulting them, it all makes sense now. However, when I think of people like the Chinese, I don't really think "respectful people", but then again, I also don't know the nuances of their language. No to mention that how two cultures interact with each other, isn't neccesarily a good indicator on how it works internally.

They are turbo kikes. Take it from Max Dimont author of The Indestructable Jews, where he states that China is a good location for a new diaspora because their culture is intrensicly jewish and materialistic.