djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 16, 2022 16:40:08 GMT -5
but it is just as stupid to believe happy stuff that is complete bullshit. i don't think you are understanding my question. if it is just as easy to obsess and wormhole on happy stuff why do we ALWAYS choose to obsess on stuff that makes us afraid and miserable? or is it not us? I'll refer back to another earlier response, "How does one logically examine illogic? Rules don't apply, and you can't make them apply." Rational, intelligent, well-adjusted people do not do what you are observing. Irrational, unintelligent, maladjusted people do. Unfortunately, we have far too many of those, but I see little benefit in trying to understand that level of nonsense and stupidity. Happy stuff is not a motivator. Fear is a motivator. Anger is a motivator. Appeal strongly enough to either of those and rational thought disappears, even for those who were otherwise capable of rational thought in the first place. Not everybody is. I have since I was a little kid been ruled by logic, and have long said that I, "never let emotion get in the way of making a good decision." If fear or anger ever arise I will note its presence, dismiss its influence, and make my decision. I also know who and what I am, and have a good understanding of the world around me. Would I ever fall for any of the nonsense found out there, or go down any of those rabbit holes? Not in a million years. It also helps that I am comfortable standing up for what I believe or know to be right even if I am the only one on that side. I have no need to ever be drawn to a group for support, so am never drawn in that way. Do I find it necessary to dismiss a lot of people, or at least their opinions? Absolutely. Not everybody's voice is worth listening to, even if all you are trying to do is "understand" it. so, are you saying that people that are MISERABLE are easier to motivate to do irrational things than people that are HAPPY? you will never fall down a rabbit hole because you are not a myth seeker. again, this is not about you. but if you are saying that myth seekers are drawn to negative myths, i say maybe. i think it is more likely that we are FED negative myths to make us more malleable. in that infinite well of myth called the Internet, there is an overwhelming amount of both positive and negative myth. somehow, we are being HERDED toward the negative. this is probably Facebook, right? preference algorithms. people who are just trying to sort it out end up in a well of despair-myth. again, i am trying to make sense of it, because even according to ILLOGIC it is still not making sense.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 16, 2022 17:09:01 GMT -5
I'll refer back to another earlier response, "How does one logically examine illogic? Rules don't apply, and you can't make them apply." Rational, intelligent, well-adjusted people do not do what you are observing. Irrational, unintelligent, maladjusted people do. Unfortunately, we have far too many of those, but I see little benefit in trying to understand that level of nonsense and stupidity. Happy stuff is not a motivator. Fear is a motivator. Anger is a motivator. Appeal strongly enough to either of those and rational thought disappears, even for those who were otherwise capable of rational thought in the first place. Not everybody is. I have since I was a little kid been ruled by logic, and have long said that I, "never let emotion get in the way of making a good decision." If fear or anger ever arise I will note its presence, dismiss its influence, and make my decision. I also know who and what I am, and have a good understanding of the world around me. Would I ever fall for any of the nonsense found out there, or go down any of those rabbit holes? Not in a million years. It also helps that I am comfortable standing up for what I believe or know to be right even if I am the only one on that side. I have no need to ever be drawn to a group for support, so am never drawn in that way. Do I find it necessary to dismiss a lot of people, or at least their opinions? Absolutely. Not everybody's voice is worth listening to, even if all you are trying to do is "understand" it. so, are you saying that people that are MISERABLE are easier to motivate to do irrational things than people that are HAPPY? you will never fall down a rabbit hole because you are not a myth seeker. again, this is not about you. but if you are saying that myth seekers are drawn to negative myths, i say maybe. i think it is more likely that we are FED negative myths to make us more malleable. in that infinite well of myth called the Internet, there is an overwhelming amount of both positive and negative myth. somehow, we are being HERDED toward the negative. this is probably Facebook, right? preference algorithms. people who are just trying to sort it out end up in a well of despair-myth. again, i am trying to make sense of it, because even according to ILLOGIC it is still not making sense. FB skews to the negative because it provides more user engagement. Angry people say more and click more on FB than happy people.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 16, 2022 17:26:20 GMT -5
I don't choose LIZARDS (well maybe bearded dragons ...). The Q is why do some people choose to believe in Lizard people? Not sure. But people who choose to believe in lizard people spend much of their time in fear, worrying about protecting themselves. Hence the love of horror films and the belief that the military budget could never be too large. MLK had a dream. He didn't choose lizard people and neither do I. right- but WHY? there must be some biological reason. maybe survival or something? i am just confused by it. I think its biological. Way back when when anything could eat or hurt humans, it was probably the fearful that survived more often than the fearless. Sometimes logic is wrong, because we don't know what we don't know. Fear is chemical, emotional. Some of the information comes from things people can't explain. It makes sense some of that survives today.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Jan 16, 2022 17:27:54 GMT -5
I don't really "do" Facebook, so don't know what effect they have. I view my GF's account to see what she posts, but almost nothing else. I have zero understanding of Facebook algorithms or anything else that has been in the news, nor would I care. Do people really get news coverage from there? And if so, what kind of an idiot would one have to be to have that be their choice?
What I am more saying is that people generally don't become overly influenced by "nice" or "happy" things. They will look and say, "Oh, that's nice" but they do not become truly engaged. Nice things do not threaten them, so they are not generally going to be deeply affected. Fear and anger are different. If something appeals to your fear or anger you will engage with it and you will much more likely go down that rabbit hole. In that respect the internet is still like any other source. Bad news sells, whether it is newspapers, TV, or anything else. If there were a news program that only showed "nice" news, how long would it stay on the air? A few days, if that long? It is argued that humans have an innate fight-or-flight response when faced with anything stressful. Nice things are not stressors, so do not create a heightened awareness or need to respond. Are we being herded toward the negative, or do we only react to the negative?
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 16, 2022 18:31:57 GMT -5
I don't really "do" Facebook, so don't know what effect they have. I view my GF's account to see what she posts, but almost nothing else. I have zero understanding of Facebook algorithms or anything else that has been in the news, nor would I care. Do people really get news coverage from there? And if so, what kind of an idiot would one have to be to have that be their choice? What I am more saying is that people generally don't become overly influenced by "nice" or "happy" things. They will look and say, "Oh, that's nice" but they do not become truly engaged. Nice things do not threaten them, so they are not generally going to be deeply affected. Fear and anger are different. If something appeals to your fear or anger you will engage with it and you will much more likely go down that rabbit hole. In that respect the internet is still like any other source. Bad news sells, whether it is newspapers, TV, or anything else. If there were a news program that only showed "nice" news, how long would it stay on the air? A few days, if that long? It is argued that humans have an innate fight-or-flight response when faced with anything stressful. Nice things are not stressors, so do not create a heightened awareness or need to respond. Are we being herded toward the negative, or do we only react to the negative? We react stronger to negative things, but like FB that relies on that for revenue, its a bad self defeating rabbit hole. I think nice news could have staying power, but it wouldn't be solely news. Look at the staying power of cat videos and memes. People also crave feeling happy or at least feeling better. It's one of the reasons entertainment is actually an essential service, not a frivolity.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2022 17:31:34 GMT -5
so, are you saying that people that are MISERABLE are easier to motivate to do irrational things than people that are HAPPY? you will never fall down a rabbit hole because you are not a myth seeker. again, this is not about you. but if you are saying that myth seekers are drawn to negative myths, i say maybe. i think it is more likely that we are FED negative myths to make us more malleable. in that infinite well of myth called the Internet, there is an overwhelming amount of both positive and negative myth. somehow, we are being HERDED toward the negative. this is probably Facebook, right? preference algorithms. people who are just trying to sort it out end up in a well of despair-myth. again, i am trying to make sense of it, because even according to ILLOGIC it is still not making sense. FB skews to the negative because it provides more user engagement. Angry people say more and click more on FB than happy people. i am wondering who is the chicken and who is the egg?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2022 17:36:12 GMT -5
I don't really "do" Facebook, so don't know what effect they have. I view my GF's account to see what she posts, but almost nothing else. I have zero understanding of Facebook algorithms or anything else that has been in the news, nor would I care. Do people really get news coverage from there? And if so, what kind of an idiot would one have to be to have that be their choice? What I am more saying is that people generally don't become overly influenced by "nice" or "happy" things. They will look and say, "Oh, that's nice" but they do not become truly engaged. Nice things do not threaten them, so they are not generally going to be deeply affected. Fear and anger are different. If something appeals to your fear or anger you will engage with it and you will much more likely go down that rabbit hole. In that respect the internet is still like any other source. Bad news sells, whether it is newspapers, TV, or anything else. If there were a news program that only showed "nice" news, how long would it stay on the air? A few days, if that long? It is argued that humans have an innate fight-or-flight response when faced with anything stressful. Nice things are not stressors, so do not create a heightened awareness or need to respond. Are we being herded toward the negative, or do we only react to the negative? ok. let's keep going with this. so, fear is a herding mechanism, basically. therefore it can be deployed against us. so, our biological survival instincts overcome our altruism and our intellect in the general case. that seems to me to be a recipe for extinction in an environment where few REAL threats exist (and most that do require long term, rational planning). are we doomed? this might be a good time to point out that initial niceness is actually a very good survival strategy for social creatures like humans. let's not forget that.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 18, 2022 17:49:22 GMT -5
FB skews to the negative because it provides more user engagement. Angry people say more and click more on FB than happy people. i am wondering who is the chicken and who is the egg? I don't know. I feel sometimes though that certain people indulge themselves on outrage. I really feel that is in the DNA of most loyal Trump supporters. I don't like being in a state of outrage. To me, that means something needs to be fixed. I prefer to be calm peaceful and happy.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,688
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jan 18, 2022 18:09:35 GMT -5
I don't really "do" Facebook, so don't know what effect they have. I view my GF's account to see what she posts, but almost nothing else. I have zero understanding of Facebook algorithms or anything else that has been in the news, nor would I care. Do people really get news coverage from there? And if so, what kind of an idiot would one have to be to have that be their choice? What I am more saying is that people generally don't become overly influenced by "nice" or "happy" things. They will look and say, "Oh, that's nice" but they do not become truly engaged. Nice things do not threaten them, so they are not generally going to be deeply affected. Fear and anger are different. If something appeals to your fear or anger you will engage with it and you will much more likely go down that rabbit hole. In that respect the internet is still like any other source. Bad news sells, whether it is newspapers, TV, or anything else. If there were a news program that only showed "nice" news, how long would it stay on the air? A few days, if that long? It is argued that humans have an innate fight-or-flight response when faced with anything stressful. Nice things are not stressors, so do not create a heightened awareness or need to respond. Are we being herded toward the negative, or do we only react to the negative? ok. let's keep going with this. so, fear is a herding mechanism, basically. therefore it can be deployed against us. so, our biological survival instincts overcome our altruism and our intellect in the general case. that seems to me to be a recipe for extinction in an environment where few REAL threats exist (and most that do require long term, rational planning). are we doomed? this might be a good time to point out that initial niceness is actually a very good survival strategy for social creatures like humans. let's not forget that. Humans are motivated by many things. Hate, love, power, family, prestige, etc. I don't think we are doomed. The Trump cycle cannot last. I saw part of a MLK video where he spoke about why he chose non-violence. It was a great few sentences. Such as violence doesn't improve anything and destroys things in the process. Love, i.e. nonviolence may be harder and take longer, but he believed it had more staying power. The movie Shang-Chi shows the power of love, and the receptive, although few audiences will probably get that. In Bagua, feminine energy is represented by the receptive. Literally accepting whatever comes your way and being with it including transforming it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2022 18:28:59 GMT -5
|
|