What, Why & How do we Know ?
As a practitioner of positive psychology (and an atheist) Jonathan Haidt’s “The Happiness Hypothesis” reads at times like a spiritual self-help book, and in a sense it is, but it is supported by a mass of academic and scientific references. The Psybertron agenda has been on evolutionary psychology as a description of both epistemology (what … Continue reading “Haidt’s Happiness”
This is a version of my Rules of Engagement / Rules of Discourse page. Being updated to make it more explicitly obvious that these are also the rules of free-speech, more generally than lip-service to “freeze peach”. The mantra being parroted by followers of Elon Musk – topical in 2024 because he made it his … Continue reading “The Rules of Freeze Peach”
Amazingly, after so many convergent threads on systems architectures and their fragility or resilience to well-placed viruses or bugs – in my agenda that “system” being the whole of science-led rational orthodoxy – I have may times used the systems thinking approach that complex systems (like politics plus media plus social-media) need moderation in the … Continue reading “The Elon Musk Effect?”
Always contentious that atypical variations around the neurotypical “human condition” are (a) real in any objective sense and (b) heritable as much as they are plastic in mental development. Always PC to avoid medicalising conditions away from such norms, and variety has its own value anyway, but the woke extreme of PC often denies the … Continue reading “Heritability of Psychological Traits”
Or does the money follow them? The “TERF War” has been topical here because it exemplifies the “woke” culture wars that have totally disfigured public discourse. Essentially that wider rationality has been “captured” by a simplistic, selective, PC, polarising and sloganising objectification of facts and rights that squeeze out all care for individuals, nuance and … Continue reading “Follow The Money?”
Really just a holding-post as a reminder I need to publish a definitive version of the Good Fences piece. It’s been compromised so many times by suggestions of tailoring it to current publishing opportunities, but the generality of it continues to emerge. This post today from Jon Haidt has given me the nudge: This is … Continue reading “Partition Walls as Good Fences”
We live in a world hemmed-in by PC rules. When I started this post about 5 tweets ago, it was about the latest “Sokal” prank poking satire at gender-based social-science research. Of course, being PC rules, they are broken ironically all the time, so the levels of irony – odd or even – become crucial … Continue reading “It’s Now Illegal to Mock Fruit”
A pet hate of mine is “rational” people who see the point of a rational argument as being to change someone’s mind, to convince someone of something. A bonkers idea at any time, not to mention a complete waste of time if you think the person you are trying to convince isn’t being rational anyway. … Continue reading “Changing Your Mind”
I’m reading Martin Robinson’s “Trivium 21c” – apparently propounding adoption of the classical Trivium for the 21st century, so far anyway. As is my wont, after a scan of contents and a read of introductory chapters I’m posting my early thoughts, so I can more honestly talk about new learning vs existing reinforcement later. First … Continue reading “Trivium 21c – First Thoughts”
[NOTE August 2024: Skip down to see actual “Rules START:“] With Elon Musk taking a free-speech-absolutist approach to his takeover of X/Twitter, it is becoming ever more obvious that these good-faith rules of “civilised discourse” below, apply to open social media communications just as much as to any other limited discourse, dialogue, argument or debate … Continue reading “Rules of Engagement in Discourse”