These two images are the history of human culture, and our ability to think in an abstract way.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...44d2d6995e6f-c
https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/t...jpg/643x0w.jpg
Printable View
These two images are the history of human culture, and our ability to think in an abstract way.
https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qim...44d2d6995e6f-c
https://is2-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/t...jpg/643x0w.jpg
is this a pictures only thread or something?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
https://memegenerator.net/img/instan...o-you-make.jpg
(Give me a chance^) I was thinking about that idea, that because the laws of physics are universal, we could if we knew the environment on another planet predict what life would look like. But would species on that planet rise above their basic needs and become unique intellects like humans(generative computation, combining ideas to create new ones, use of symbols and abstract thought).
Other species rely on traits and learning being passed down from family members to survive. Humans used tools and ideas to transcend their basic needs, and then they developed tools to share information, ideas and concepts more widely, creating a common culture. Initially sticks dipped in pigment, then the printing press and now the ultimate, The World Wide Web. A tool that facilitates cultural evolution.
Looking at those two images, they require the same skills to create and interpret, the use of symbols and ability to abstract, in terms of being able to contemplate something in an abstract way. But do they also indicate that game developers are reviving in games the same instincts(hunting, gathering,tribal warfare,etc) that we share with our earliest ancestors?
Then a Moose trundles along and causes havoc.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The first picture is interesting, but the game shot is not really any big part of modern culture. Replace that with a kitten video and you might have a starting point for discussion of old vs new, though I have no idea if I could say anything meaningful or where that would go. So I think I'll just leave it at that :)
Good point. The WWW facilitates many of the ideas of post modernism; there is no longer a hierarchy within culture, high to low. All culture from any other cultures(multiculturalism), or past cultures and sub cultures are seen as a source of ideas. Everything is accessible to all.
I think what made humans unique was their sociability, their willingness to share ideas. In the 70's I could have used an image from The Deer Hunter, before that an images drawn on the side of a medieval manuscript.
So I suppose before culture we relied on natural selection. Now we rely on cultural selection to decide what is of value to our survival as well. Ideas flow, Amazonian tribes like the Sirui, use the internet to promote their values and sat nav to protect their territorial homelands from loggers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtEIrSa4IFs
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...Ua6P34spyRAoRwQuote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/VpFZ-4sv0Yk/maxresdefault.jpg
https://500hats.edublogs.org/files/2...me-202215c.jpg
http://friendsofdarwin.com/media/ima...-strongest.jpg
http://referentiel.nouvelobs.com/wsf...1458327965.jpg
So each person makes these choices, some look at cats, some a vacuous series of images, how you choose to use the repository of all human knowledge is reflective of your intellect.
Others take these choices and create something new like Donald Glover and Hiro Murai. This is America, requires the video to understand it. I can't remember a music video being decoded like this before. It seems to reference the whole of how Africans have been perceived in America, and the music/dance and cultural shifts between continents. Explains the 300 million views. Now that's cultural power.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYOjWnS4cMY
I do hope that's not intended as an unsubtle dig at me posting images in your "abstract thinking" images thread. Far from being "vacuous" as you put it, they have been carefully selected and fit the abstract narrative you were promoting. Surely you can see the abstract thinking that links them? Or is it abstract thinking, but not for new forum members? Is this one of those in-jokes for old members and I'm not welcome? I got the impression this forum wasn't that kind of place?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
https://www.brainyquote.com/photos_t...garetmead1.jpg
I don't think it is. John isn't an old member to have in jokes in any event, though his brain dump method of posting means is hard to say what he intends with any post.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
I found your posts more interesting fwiw.
Yet the work by Psy, "Gangnam Style" achieved over 3B views, a magnitude more.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Like I say it's cultural selection. I've never seen gangnam.
I think music videos have often been used in different ways, in it's early days it kept experimental film makers involved. But the whole media business model is changed, no longer do record companies control, and musical artist's see it's potential as an expressive medium. I think it's something like 800 views equals one sale, but measuring media usage based on sales may be ending.
The first two images show just how embedded in our culture we are. How we perceive, understand, interpret, is determined by our culture. Therefore only humans would instantly know what those images are, understand the context, see the time line between them. Also humans see what links the images(use of tools) and the differences between them. We can view the images in abstract ways; imagine being in the cave, or imagine being the bear. Our values and our behaviour are also determined by our culture. But all the other species that have existed, and non of the other hominds did this. I've always thought cave paintings were sophisticated in terms of the art.
Welcome atemporal.:)
Did it hurt when ^that particular door swung back and hit you squarely in your own face?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
No, that's monetisation and social media distribution power.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
LIAR!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
With all the cultural knowledge, intellect and education you lay claim to, you would have had to, at some stage, studied the most common cultural trends and with BILLIONS of views you would have had to encounter Gangnam Style in order to understand the numerous cultural instances that reference it.... for without that, your arguments and perspectives would be incomplete and invalid.
So no change from the early days, then.....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Of course it isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
If that were the case, our cultures would never change.
Again, wrong - Else they'd never change either.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You should, it is a part of the current meme based culture of the next generation, though they would probably now consider it beyond "peak" considering how fast material goes from relevance to history. But that is just how things are, modern culture is defined by the Internet and moves at Internet speeds way beyond how previous generations had to wait for something to turn up on TV or even slower in print. We have moved beyond people being famous for 15 minutes, now it is memes that stick around for maybe a couple of weeks. Whether watching a Globglogabgalab remix taking some badly drawn cartoon character from a lame animation that seems to preach that books are evil, or doing unkind things to Michael Rosen, these days kids are growing up on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
https://www.latlmes.com/culture/cave...-meaningless-1
Man are you in for a treat :DQuote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The original version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0
And as we apparently can't embed more than one video per post:Quote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
The BEST version (don't @ me):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmBByDQHJAA
This song and video is better though:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF27TNC_4pc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF27TNC_4pc
:p
I was not aware of this acoustic version. Noice :DQuote:
Originally Posted by scaryjim
I find it works best as the soundtrack to videos.
From an acquaintance of mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFqlwAWuMTg
I rather like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cG7ZVBXQII
T>the rest of your post is nonsense. Of course culture is dynamic that's the nature of of cultural evolution. In many ways it's those who apply their knowledge and imaginations to what humans are capable of that moves us forward artistically and in other spheres. Star Trek was a way of enthusing the public with the idea of planetary exploration, and all the costs, both financially and in terms of life, that went with that.
https://www.nasa.gov/content/nasa-an...-trek-overview
'It is clear that your environment shapes much of your outward behavior; but did you know that culture also influences brain function, altering the way you think about and perceive the world around you?.........Culture is all around us, shaping our brain and behavior. Consequently, people from various cultures will process the world differently...........humanity as a group comprised of unique individuals molded by their complex and intricate culture'.
from https://psychneuro.wordpress.com/201...on-perception/
It' s bizarre these days because although I've never seen the original gangnam, you can't escape all the references to it. So we are all vaguely aware of even things that we try to avoid. I have watched that This is America a few times, it's so dense with references. You'd have to know the history of African dance, and Black American dance(music hall, tv,etc) to understand the dance moves alone. I've already seen a GTA version and a camp Fortnight version.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
When people say that people's attention span is so short(I'm not saying you did), I think what is really happening, is the internet is making our minds work much faster, and we are generally so sophisticated that we can interpret and understand much quicker. Even gaming can have a similar effect, only we think quicker in specific ways. I think part of this no sole authority, hetergeneous aspect of the internet will bring about a cultural revolution. In the twentieth century giving power to the people was based on some manipulated mis interpretations of Marxism. But the real Liberator may turn out to be Berners-Lee.
So I think at the moment you could say that the internet is a communication/cultural resource. But Berners-Lee says to reach it's next potential all raw data should be freely available(presumably so that each society can reach it's full potential in terms of organisation and needs).
As he says he invented the WWW to help scientists exchange ideas and communicate, but he still feels that many in that community aren't sharing their raw data freely. He also believes that all users should share their data, and that governments and corporations need to be totally transparent(not least because tax payers fund them, or buy their products), as people have a right to know the truth.
Instead of governments and corporations having control, by controlling or manipulating the data(or denying access to it), it should be freely available to scrutiny. The internet has already created a shift in power away from corporations for artists and consumers, and it has already created a political shift in power towards the people.
Most of what you post is recycled references and plagiarism of someone else's work, if not simply a direct parroting of it, with barely any relevance to the subject at hand. When you do preface it with "I think", you clearly have not thought else I'd not be so ready to pick holes in your assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I get that you feel your poorly-veiled pretentions of sophistication and intellect are threatened by my continual challenges, hence your insistence on trying to reduce my username to a single letter as some imagined insult, while pretending to dismiss my challenges as somehow so far beneath you as to not even warrant a response... but you're doing a very poor job of even those and remarks like this only worsen your case. Indeed, it's one of the few times you're actually saying anything. Were anything else the case, you'd be able to answer the challenges.... quite easily, in fact.
It's not evolving, though. It's stagnating, which is why we're getting so many film remakes and song covers.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
And again, we're not moving forward, but stagnating.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Does it?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Really?
OMG, who'd a thunk it.....?
Hey, here's one for you in return - 'Did you know'... that water is wet?
It's neither complex, nor intricate.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It is not complicated either, although humans do like to make it complicated.
NO!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You might like to think you are, but you do not speak for everyone and using your one anecdote applied to everyone is a glaring fallacy of which even you should feel ashamed.
That might be what you'd like to think.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The truth is a combination of overexposure and oversaturation of common themes pervading culture, and it's utterly boring.
Back when I was a lad, there was a book Dracula.
Now there are dozens upon dozens of vampires in films and games and books. Same for zombies and werewolves. So many, in fact, that 'zombie' is no longer a single game genre, but there's also zombie survival, zombie combat, zombie tactical...
Peoples' mind aren't working faster, they've just seen all this cack before.
Case in point - The film Aliens has influenced computer games, and been ripped off so many times, that an actual Aliens game has absolutely nothing unique left to bring to the table.
You say this as if it's a good thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Instead, we have corporate entities able to control the markets and the people far easier than ever (case in point: see other thread about junk food advertising), crime far simpler and more annonymous, and of course Trial By Twitter, where someone's reputation and entire career can be permanently shredded in just half an hour of the social media rumour mill... and all that while, someone is making money from it.
This is not liberty. Far from it.
That sounds more like an assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
An actual presumption would be that he would somehow be able to make money from it.
Case in point, your own next line:
Yeah - Because someone else will then just take it and make money off it. Won't even say thanks, and won't have to as it's given away freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Would YOU give away something with which I can then make myself a billionaire?
Oh dear......Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Even you cannot truly believe people can be trusted with that kind of responsibility....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Away from corporations???!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Who is your ISP? Do you pay a company for your internet? Have you not heard of Google?
Power to the people.... How well is that working out, eh? Oh, yeah, Brexit - Look at all those people totally NOT under the influence of corporate media's political agenda...
T>I merely shorten your forum name and reply to your posts directly, because I dislike all that boring repetition. Again you aren't really saying anything, just opposing what I say. Hey I just state my viewpoint, and if you disagree that's your prerogative. What I actually do is read lots of ideas, watch lectures, and try to come to some consensus. I formulate an opinion, but reference other peoples' ideas that I value(that's standard practice).
I think part of the problem is that many people don't appear to think for themselves, they do just think in cliches(obvious lazy patterns of thought). But by taking a different perspective, you can see that most scenarios can be interpreted in a different way. I'm not claiming any intellect, like I said before we all have 2 litre brains(the polymath Poincare only had a 500cl brain), it just depends on the cultural selections you make to construct your neural pathways, which data you choose to store and use. I can see now how those who stereotype themselves as 'logical and objective' have already proscribed the limits of their intelligence(Jordan Peterson idea). But don't fret T you are not in the least bit logical, quite creative in your responses in fact.
I think there is a laziness in certain aspects of culture, but that is because of corporate control and their profit motivations. But there's always an avant garde operating at the boundaries of mainstream culture, where the artists are motivated by exploring some aspect of human culture and life. I think you have to think back to before the internet. You were taught at school what to believe, you were limited to the books in your library. But today, children could access contrary ideas, access any literature, take a virtual tour of the Louvre, or a 3D tour of Venice(ie: less limitations).
I watched a Berners Lee lecture the night before, where he stated those ideas. He feels that scientists should release the raw data so that it can be used freely, and interpreted by other scientists. I think he has a point about government and corporate transparency, but it requires an understanding of how they manipulate information to suit them(whether that's war on Iraq, or diesel car emissions being faked), and he believes in shifting power to the people. Yes he is idealistic, but between hackers, whistle blowers, and investigative journalists(freedom of information requests), slowly centralised power is being challenged.
I knew within minutes of searching(before war), the truth about Iraq, and I think Brexit showed that what people believe, based on their own experience, far out ways government and media manipulation(ie: the difference between a trading partnership, and a federation of states run by Germany and France, based on their voting power in EU).
You could say that the Earth has a natural culture, which is being challenged by a human sub culture. The power of that sub culture is based on freedom of information using the WWW, and that is just down to the free sharing of information.
Typing four or five letters is really that much of a struggle for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Why even bother when the quote function here works very well....?
Oh, I'm sorry - What would you like me to "say" then?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's a challenge - I question your assertions and back it up with reasoning, evidence and sometimes even quite detailed explanations, yet you think that is 'saying nothing'? I'm offering you further information to better inform your opinion, yet you blindly turn away from all that and cling to your preformed anthology of other people's ideas... Do you not like having your assertions challenged, or can you just not cope with people having differing opinions and experiences?
You recycle other people's work, plagiarising it to the point where it loses context and meaning. It's not a viewpoint, just a tabloid snippet.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I never hear your reasoning for your 'viewpoint'... just a citation, or rather passing mention, of what someone else said in some article or other that you think wholly justifies your entire statement and position.
And yet you utterly ignore the same ideas from anyone that contradicts your pre-formed perspective.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You don't form an opinion, but you are opinionated...
"Hello Kettle. This is Pot. Black. Over".Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Again, what's your excuse for not doing this?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
FORGET Jordan Peterson - That his idea, not yours. Think for yourself!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You might have been. I certainly wasn't...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Much of which is meaningless without the societal guidance that people are now too lazy to provide.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's not being challenged at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
There are a few complaints, but for the most part centralisation is actually being favoured. Again, look at how much Google controls - Corporate monopolies are not dimishing, they're just changing how they operate... not even 'keeping up with the times', so much as dictating what those times are!
Which you think is what, exactly?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You make a statement like that, it requires further substantiation.
Yes, but both government and media also know this, and so use this to their considerable advantage...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I could.... but I wouldn't, because it isn't true. Culture implies a vibrant life full of achievement. This 'sub-culture' of yours is negating and killing off more than it brings to the table, and people are stagnating because of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
So, a sub culture with more access to information than ever before, but apparently less able, or willing, to filter it and weigh it appropriately in a rounder context and against corroboratory sources. The soundbite wins, and it's all about the moment, and presentation, than actual facts and substantiation. :shocked2: The push for tweets, and feeds, and short snappy, readable on a mobile screen pushes further and faster towards a lack of depth, detail, and loss of detail, or even unbiased presentation of a balanced argument. It is not empowering people if all they are fed is fake news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Yep, all of that!Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Reading what you wrote, I felt a sort of rhythm and was reminded of the 'monologue' that Andrew Eldritch delivers at the end of Under The Gun (Sisters Of Mercy. Very cool).
I then got to thinking, it was also reminiscent of Paul Hardcastle's vocals to Nineteen.... N-N-N-N-Nineteen.
Eventually my Friday Head turned it into some weird kind of intro narrativelike they had at the beginning of The A-Team, and Inow have the beginnings of an idea for a new TV show...
"In Two-Thousand Eighteen a sub culture emerged with more access to information than ever before, but apparently less able, or willing, to filter it.... "
I'm now wondering how I can pull off a re-interpretation of The A-Team, using that as the starting premise and casting it with HEXUS forum members!! :)
T>(it's just shorthand, not meant to offend), well no, I do weigh up what people say, I read different viewpoints. But if you're referring to the so called expert on here, too desperate. (If someone is confident of their opinion, then they state it, they don't have to resort to....well you know!).
Look like everyone else on the planet, I'm just trying to make sense of everything, and it's difficult because you do have to process masses of information, even to get a basic understanding. When I was listening to the Jordan Peterson piece it was to understand the difference between those who only recognise logic, and the real world where we use many other aspects of our minds as well as logic. But he said that basically 'logical' people and creative people will not understand each other at all, they think in completely different ways.
I think people underestimate young people, and apply ludicrous stereotypes to them as a whole. I find young people to be incredibly smart, and quite capable of accessing any information they need. They know everything I know, and everything from their generation. They are also because of the dynamic nature of culture, very sophisticated in their background knowledge, and understanding. I think in a way culture moves forward, but it isn't easy to see, but just look at a film from the eighties, or music from the fifties, to realise the rate of change.
Why the obsession with Google? The whole of society is restructuring around us, everything is changing at an ever increasing rate. The internet will be the basis of our new infrastructure, it already is, and AI networks will enhance organisation. But we have to forget the idea of privacy, in terms of data. I think you are cynical about humanity, human culture could envelop this planet, and natural culture could become redundant.
I think one big change in behavioural culture has been played out through technology. The courts and people at large are deciding what is and what is not acceptable online. So we see cases like revenge porn, or embarrassing photos, blackmail, to insults, stalking; all behaviour being decided somewhere between culture and emerging tech possibilities.
Who is that dig at? I can't see where I said I was an expert in abstract thinking, just that it fit the narrative. Also I can't see how my last post above was in anyway desperate so hopefull you're referring to somebody else.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Cough - if you don't think it was a dig at you - let it go - no need to comment! If you do think it was a dig at you, then still no need to comment, just use the report post button and say why. That report will go to the moderators of the forum who will take such action as they see fit! (You may or may not get feedback, depending on how busy we are!Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
We (the admins and moderators) deprecate flame wars or tit-for-tat sniping, and that activity usually ends badly for all the parties concerned :naughty:
oh I'm not trying to start a flame war, I just don't see how that fits the previous posts in the thread so I'm confused. (or did I miss some deleted posts or something?)
edit: for that matter I'm also confused as to where the abstract thinking element has disappeared to.
I think you may have misunderstood several things which relate to other threads, like the reason I started this thread. It started on another thread, but because it was tangential I moved it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Also the 'expert' discussion relates to other threads. There seems to be a belief within this forum subculture that members are more reliable experts than those found online.(I was responding to something T said, why are other people interrupting our conversation?)
This is actually something I can't understand, which T just pointed out as well, and I've been accused of before. People say you should only state your own ideas, but where did those ideas come from; parents, teachers, experience, reading and thinking. So my response is, you have the greatest resource known at your fingertips, it's a hive mind type scenario. (listening to football, techno, while writing this, internet multitasking!)
There's a forum subculture? So if the internet is a sub-culture and the forum a sub-set of that subculture, is that a sub-sub-sub-culture? Sounds like it needs its own name. How about a Trident? That's a good few subs right there. That or a foot long chicken teriyaki :D
As for interupting your conversation? Seriously? Last time I checked this is a public forum, you know, where multiple people get to posts things en-masse, and discuss topics as a group. How is making a post interrupting? If you want a private chat you can use the PM function. I've not really had need for it yet, but even a noob like me has managed to find it's there. Click on the poster name on the left and select "private message". That said this isn't my first forum so I guess I might be a bit more familiar with it. But I always say sucking eggs is always better than being left in the dark. :)
I am thinking along those lines, a tech culture based on the WWW. I think politics here in UK is out of date, and all forms of centralised power are being challenged. I think the biggest challenge in any revolution is changing the mind set of the people away from hierarchical acceptance. I know personal PC's were created in an era of radical politics and psychoactive substances, but tech platforms have become the centres of power. I also know that Berners-Lee had idealistic radical hopes for the WWW. The CyberPunk manifesto although naive is anarchistic.
I did some lite research. With ideas around; decentralised autonomous organisation, auto enforceable contracts, liquid democracy. And I have more faith politically in this researcher Johann Gevers than politicians; decentralised communication and cryptography, decentralised law, decentralised production, and decentralised finance and contracts. He talks about how centralised political organisations dominated until 500 years ago, and a parallel can be drawn with internet platforms, but he sees those as transition phases to a real democracy.
Basically an open society, with complete freedom of information, suited to helping the many not the few, worldwide.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8oeiOeDq_Nc
atemporal>I know but it's easy enough to misinterpret what someone is saying to you, it's even more difficult when you don't know the full context. The 'abstract' idea came about because I was reading about what it is that makes human intellect different to other animals and life in general(it came from a thread about life on mars). One of those was abstract thought, contemplation of things beyond what we can sense. Imaging being the hunter in the cave, or being a hunter in a PC game, or a bear in a game. It allows us to transcend our human limitations, imagine possibilities and have empathy.
Find a better way.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
1/. Which expert? We have several experts here in numerous different subjects.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
2/. And if I'm not referring to them?
To what?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Quoting sources? Explaining themselves to those who do not understand?
And is he the one and only source upon which you base your beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
What do all the other experts say?
That would suggest that you don't know very much, as I find most of the young and even the not so young to be decidedly unaware of quite significant cultural events, even as recent as the last decade... and I'm not exactly a champion of Trivial Pursuit, either!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Like knowing that great song that Madonna wrote, called American Pie, yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
"I've been listening to the new 'DJ'Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
What's all this 'original' con?
We all live in the same museum
We all rearrange the same old song"
Why the obssession with a massive corporate entity that hoards control over personal data, you ask?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You really don't understand the price you're paying for the life you're not getting, do you.....?
And with that, all individuality. You are now just a nameless cog in the corporate machine. A resource. A number. A reference. You are cattle, you are meat. YOU are nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
And at that point, the planet is rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbished.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
And yet you want to open all that to the whole world - 7 billion people all lining up to command a piece of you, as a result of you gaily forgetting the idea of privacy...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Some members here are also the very same experts that you'd find online and elsewhere in the world. A few are quite eminent in their fields, and not just technology. That's what puts HEXUS above a good many other tech forums - The calibre of its membership.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Because it's a public forum and anyone is free to chip in.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Doesn't matter where they came from and that can be supplied if requested.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
What matters is what you think. If it didn't then you wouldn't need to look anything up. You'd have been told what to think already.
If I just needed to hear from you that the truth was XYZ because Doctor Jordan Peterson said it, I'd have already heard Doctor Jordan Peterson say it.
If you have spent so long considering all the information, reading all the reports and coming to the ultimate conclusion, then teh ultimate conclusion is what we're waiting to hear - Not some half-baked recipe missing four fifths of the ingredients, with only a quick soundbite of no context badly quoted from one single, supposedly expert, source seemingly submitted as definitive proof.
Notice how I rarely submit any reports, stats or anything to substantiate my assertions - If that was all that mattered, I'd just post my browser history and there'd be nothing to discuss.
Yes I get it, and how you think. You are obviously entitled to your stereotypes of young people, and your dated understanding of culture, and your deference to the views of other forum members. Like I say I look at all views, only the most sensible do I incorporate. (I do find it funny when 'yes men' line up though). That is why there has been a shift in culture away from deference to hierarchies, experts, etc. (ie: experts have an agenda of their own, or their patrons). Anyway have fun, you're not really saying anything, just repeating the same stuff.
I think Johann Gevers ideas are possible, he refers to it as Society3, but they are also working on Web3, redisigning the net and computers. So I can see how the infra structure can restructure itself. But I'm still not sure how production can be decentralised, but there are many signs of small tech businesses being successful. I saw one which offered a device so that phones could interconnect out in the wilds, so some reliance on service industries could be reduced. If all phones had the device, it would create a peer to peer network.
I was thinking about our human ability to imagine, to project ourselves into other worlds. The first sci fi novel was apparently written by Lucian of Samosata, (second cent AD) 'True History'. But in more modern times it is the idea being put in our heads that has made us believe it's possible. I was wondering in pop cultural terms; how were sharks perceived before Jaws. They aid evolution, by removing the weak and stupid animals from the gene pool. But since the film some species have been decimated by 70-90%.
Really? Isn't the point of an expert to have better knowledge than the average person so they can better advise on the sensible cause of action? I mean the whole brexit ignoring experts thing has hardly been a good idea so far has it? To assume that everyone has a hidden agenda is a bit machiovellian. It can sound wise at first glance, but at some point you have to decide who to listen to, and therefore what their agenda is (if you want to go that far).Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Most experts I know have little agenda other than a desire to ensure people understand things properly even if that is not what they want to hear. Especially when they have no direct gain from the situation otherwise. I know people who do expert witness in law cases. They hate it, it's a burden to them, they barely cover costs, and in some cases lose money. It's not a financial thing. They have no agenda being there other than to explain complicated facts to a jury of common people in a way they can understand - and often that means educating them about reality vs the BS poorly trained journalists and lame news articles on the internet spout about. They are keen convictions/rulings are not made based on BS misunderstanding. Doesn't matter what the case is, or the rights and wrongs of it. They just want to make sure the facts are what gets weighed.
Not all sources should be weighted equally. Agendas? Sure. Some people more than most, but we must all be very very careful about dismissing experts just because. That is surely reckless.
So, as a purely theoretical exercise, should we extrapolate that argument to say that doing so for the human species would be beneficial? I mean if they're so stupid and agenda biased, and prone to such drastic overreaction as to destroy other species....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
If I may jump in the thread and ask a question - Johnroe - there seem to be two focal points or ideas in your thinking, one seems to be wonder at the power of the human mind and the other seems to be a pondering over how culture affects behaviour. Is either one of those the primary thing you're wanting to consider, or if not, what's the primary consideration you'd like to raise/promote?
Thanks.
My question is more why does Johnroe start threads / join threads with ongoing discussions, then instantly dismiss or try to belittle anyone that has an opinion that doesn't match...if you don't actually want a discussion...go talk to a wall..
Stereotypes exist for a reason and it's a sad but true situation that many young people, by their very nature of being young, lack the life experience, breadth of knowledge, context and general background to actually understand, comprehend and appreciate much of what you attribute to them. Just because they know more than you about using a VCR does not mean they are your equal. Many know what they've got, but they don't know why they've got it, where it came from, what the alternatives are and why theirs is so good. They are naive in the extreme and it damn well shows!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
As for the views of other forum members - The first step toward enlightenment is to realise that you know nothing. I'm pretty good at spotting when someone knows more than me... and when someone tries to pretend they know more.
So you disregard the semi-sensible and less-sensible, more creative ones, that are more likely to be thinking outside the box and far further on their way to discovering a solution, then.... yeah, OK.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Yes, away from experts and on to the completely unqualified opinions of whoever can sell their BS best... Twitter and YouTube, usually... But GUESS WHAT - All of them still have their own agenda and their patrons, particularly Patreon and the like. The difference is they don't know what they're talking about, because they're not the experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I find him a delectable bourgeois fairy idiot, with no concept of how badly humanity will choose to abuse the freedoms he'd so carelessly foist upon them. He will be among the first to fall... and since you're still letting other people do your thinking for you, you'll be in the handbasket with him.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It cannot be decentralised. There are too many of those pesky human beings, now. Demand far exceeds the capability of cottage industry. This is pretty obvious to anyone who does their own thinking.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The last thing the wilds need is more human technology spoiling it.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Stop letting other people put ideas in your head. Think for yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
As nasty sea dwellers that sometimes attacked ships and killed anyone unlucky enough to be caught in the water. It hasn't changed since the 1600s.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Plenty of poems and ballads, all depicting sharks as monstrous killing machines. Bryan and Pereene is a very good example, but history is full of Jaws-like incidents and depictions. Sharks were the badass killers of the sea... and you'll always want a bigger boat.
John Copley once painted Watson And The Shark, a depiction of a real-life incident of the 1740s, in which a shark preyed upon a young boy. The work was actually comissioned by the shark's victim, who went on to become Lord Mayor of London.
But the accounts of contemporary naturalists do little to debunk or even disagree with the poets' and painters' artistic depictions and interpretations. Supposedly Copley had never even seen a shark, and as a result it was depicted as this massive monster. The best they could offer in criticism was minor quibbles over the appearance of the shark and its exact dimensions. The monstrosity and ferocity of the attacks were generally not regarded as over exaggerated!!
The Whitetip was the most notable and as recently as WW2 several ships lost men to shark swarms, the worst being a sinking ship that lost about 150 men in the subsequent shark attack.
I can recommend some lovely spots if you want to go swimming.....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Nah, just lock them up in culturally segregated cities - They're doing it overseas already, so it's bound to work!!Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Just to check, are you an expert? (trying to work out if I should listen to you or not)Quote:
Originally Posted by TtaskmasterNah, just lock them up in culturally segregated cities - They're doing it overseas already, so it's bound to work!!Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
edit: same goes for the other people on here? Is anyone on here trained in this topic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
that was even mentioned in the Jaws film by Quint https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195...?ref_=tt_cl_t2 (first quote chain on page)
who was onboard the USS Indianapolis
No, but I am essentially paraphrasing the idea from someone else on this forum, who might be an expert... :heckle:Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Cool, I was not immediately aware of that... It's been a while (measured in decades) since I saw the film. :thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by stevie lee
The evolution of societies / cultures, is in part based on the +3.5B years of biological evolution that came before. So whether we like it or not hierarchies will exist because it is hard wired into us. The trick is finding the balance between those that seek gain through atrophy / abuse and those that want to tear it all down and make things flat. In both cases the ones that really lose out are those at the bottom.
Middle, actually.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
The top ones prey down, so they can have all of the things.
The bottom ones prey up, because they have none of the things and the top ones have so many of the things that they can afford sophisticated security.
The middle ones have a few of the things, but not enough to protect them from the top and bottom ones, so they're the easy targets.
In short, taxes and theft.
I think experts have their right to a say, but as I've said on any given topic I can find many different experts all with contrary views, that's how advances in human understanding work isn't it.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
For example 'global warming', so each has their own beliefs and therefore when viewing the data, see what they want to see, others are paid by pressure groups, or by industries. Also experts can be used to justify wars, or allow the major car companies to break emissions regulations. So it's best to refer to many experts, and then decide between the different viewpoints. Also that was the reason Berners-Lee was asking that scientists release their raw data(they have to anyway if they put forward a theory), but freely available data means more insight and interpretation, which was his original idea.
Part of the restructuring of society since the second world war, means we now live in a less obviously hierarchical society, and that power is shared. It's an illusion in terms of politics, but ideas also mean power, as does access to information. It basically means listen to experts, but trust yourself more, think for yourself.
T>I think relying on stereotypes is easy but very limiting. Real young people don't match up to the stereotype portrayed in the media, nor do any other group. I can also spot when someone knows what they are talking about, and when they are just pulling the 'expert' card. On several of those threads(not related to components), there was on each someone who knew what they were talking about, and like I said because they have confidence in their view, they don't have to resort to all the school yard nonsense.
Forums are interesting subcultures to study. I've never come across a small group of people who stereotype themselves as purely logical. (I mean even Spock didn't claim that!). It's like finding some lost tribe, who have their own forum language of cliches. Fascinating.
The idea is that you need humans with different specialisations, so the 'drones' (Bee analogy warning) tend to think in set patterns and keep the 'hive' functioning, but it's the 'workers' who take the high risk strategy and leave the box and return with new ideas. But one of the problems is that just logic doesn't always give the best solution, especially if affects humans or other life. So you need to think logically, but also use other human skills of imagination and empathy, etc. to create new solutions.
What they said changed the perception of sharks was the way it was depicted in the film, as a 'vengeful planning predator'. In fact it's just one of many predators that might kill a human. There was some bad publicity after several ships and planes went down in shark infested waters as you say WW2(they reference it in film- SS Indianapolis), but generally they were just seen as another big fish. I have swam in shark infested waters, it freaks them if you start hunting them.
(that atemporal would make such an extrapolation is what's interesting).
I agree with most of that, except the last bit about trusting yourself more. I think there are some cases where people have to admit they don't understand something well enough. Eg the MMR vaccine where some Dr spouts BS conclusions in the media linking it to autism. Now pretty much any and all medics I've spoken to either practising or involved in public health planning, tropical disease, or full-on medical research all say his conclusions were a downright distortion, poorly backed-up, and skewing or even making-up results based on little more than asking parents, "oh do you think it gave your kid autism"? The effect was journalists latched onto 1 Dr as "an expert", dismissed a load of others (rightly) contradicting him, and spouted a story resulting in large swathes of people rejecting a perfectly safe vaccine out of fear mongering. That Dr got struck off in the UK (and is now working in the US IIRC). People came to their own conclusion based on the resources they had (media citing a Dr) and came to the wrong conclusion, putting their own children at risk. That is a classic example of where trusting yourself to understand complicated things just doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Yes that was the point at which this thread started, human culture and how we came to dominate the planet. In the video he talked about societies being decentralised prior to the agricultural revolution, at which point powerful hierarchies formed(governments, corporate/political and religious), but power became less centralised after the printing press meant free flow of ideas, from inventions and cures to ammunition and revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
I agree I think,that there needs to be a balance, but the aim is more power which makes people feel more liberated from old ways of thinking. Less alienated and also taking more responsibility. One of the main human traits is our adaptability, so changing the way we think has always been essential, and even manipulated through propaganda(thinking of how people in say N. Korea are adapted to a very centralised system of thought control).
Everything is changing so fast, soon most humans in the advanced countries will have to redefine their lives, even their identities(what am I if I'm not a worker drone?), computers and AI + robotics. I suppose the agricultural revolution gave us time for other interests, ie: culture. Next we will have more freedom, more information and more potential to create something else. I wonder if watching early sci fi, makes people believe anything is possible, or is it hard wired or biological.
it's the natural extension of your argument. we are in a thread on abstract thinking no? It doesn't take much to see the link.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You are probably right if looking at the short term, though it does get rather complicated. If you look at the French Revolution for example, some sections of the middle class lost their heads whereas others did rather well out of the whole debacle. Then arguably the biggest losers in the Russian revolution were successful smallholding farmers, who are probably top of the bottom end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
That aside though my point was more about the longer term effects.
1. Atrophied hierarchy - the further up you are the easier it becomes to work within it, game the system, to progress up (well as much as is possible)
2. Flattening - as the hierarchy reasserts itself, those better able to adapt will do well and unfortunately that's usually not those at the bottom unless exceptional
Hence, why it is better to accept the inevitability of hierarchy structures whilst at the same time always ensuring upwards mobility is possible and that the gap from top to bottom is managed. The latter is where the real challenge lies, especially in terms of men, as there is a much larger natural variation in physical / mental capabilities. The dumbbell to Nobel effect as it is often known.
Yes you are using some very specific examples. But surely it's up to the parents to decide. I'm sure they do weigh up all the arguments. There is a general distrust of some pharmaceutical companies products, based on some high profile cases. I think everyone has to take responsibility themselves, also deciding what you buy(from materials used to conditions of workers) can have a massive effect. Cultural shifts are very subtle, but there is definitely a shift towards individuals, partly based on better education levels and easy access to information, and more distrust of organisations.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
If that's how they do it, then they're not experts...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
That only works if you're the one overriding decision-maker. Otherwise you then get a battle between every individual who reads everything (or only some of the things), as they try and enforce their own beliefs, and you're back to square one... unless you're talking a popularity contest, in which case it's just Trial By Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
And also freely exploitable data, which WILL get abused, misused and outright stolen. This is why we have had to create things like copyrights and trademarks...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's still very blatantly hierarchical - There are just many more ranks and the structure is more complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
But still quote whichever one is best misinterpreted to represent your ill-conceived pretext of an opinion, because it provides a nominalisation that can appear to justify your position, even without actually substantiating it in the slightest. Always a good tactic.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Who said we're relying?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Well, apart from marketing and advertising, goverments, the media, and society in general, all of whom have had immense success by using kids' own stereotypes against them thus proving the stereotypes not only exist but utterly pervade such a demographic.... who said we're relying?
They exist, fact of life.
Ha!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Not only do they match up, they actively try to embody them - What do you think Fashion and trends are all born from? Sterotypes come from a combination of peoples' general lack of originality and their desire to 'fit in'. That's exactly how and why they not only exist, but most definitely work.
Spock wasn't purely Vulcan, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
And while people on forums might not claim to be purely logical in themselves, they frequently assert that their arguments are... some are quite correct, although the percentage of those whose arguments are not and/or who are more likely to attack your own on the basis that they similarly lack logic, rationality and/or reason is far higher.
See, remarks like that just come across as you trying to make this forum sound like a bunch of socially-challeneged weirdos, and yet in doing so you also manage to present yourself as someone taking their first steps outside of the house and interacting with the rest of the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's actually a trait I find common among my more pretentious middle-class friends who, like you for example, seem by their manner and pretentions as if they might belong in a wing-back chair and smoking jacket, sipping brandy and puffing on Meerschaum pipes while discussing the merits of Tolstoy and hedging gentleman's wagers on where The Empire might wage battle next... interspersed with tales of when they were tiger-hunting in Poonah, of course!
You know, if you wanted to start analysing and comparing cliches...!
No they didn't. I've already pointed out that it's an age-old perception merely recycled for the new generation....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Again, no they weren't, as you know from all the centuries-old historical accounts already staring you in the face... I suppose you like to believe you're thinking creatively by ignoring all that blatant evidence, or something, but really you're now just being willfully ignorant and opinionated.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
That your flawed and unreasonable opinion led to such cunning witticism is precisely what's not...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I was thinking of seals, and anything else that hangs around to long. I find sharks interesting(I posted a link elsewhere to a live great white cam), they drift effortlessly through whole masses of sea life, but if it detects the slightest failing, WAM, death. (Actually despite what I said, sharks have the level of complex AI neural net systems.) But what I mean is that for millions of years they've aided evolution, and that is how life and nature work, and then along comes Spielberg, WAM, every macho sprat wants to kill a shark, and hang it on a hook.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Well the latest thinking about consciousness incorporates the hypothesis that it is contingent on being able to make "stuff" up in your head...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
There's also the theory that we're now experiencing another "Gutenberg" revolution due to the availability of podcasts etc. via the internet. Having gotten fed up with "sound bite" discussion on traditional media, people are turning to long format on youtube etc.
The odd thing about decentralisation is that it doesn't always mean more widely spread. As more resources become available so the pareto effect becomes more prevalent.
I'm slightly suspicious of the idea that you would consider the natural order of things to be a "failure" of some kind... or worse, to be "weak and stupid". That's a bit far down the anthropomorphising route, don't you think?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
ABSOLUTE TOSH!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The Chinese have long been shark hunters and the Romans in particular were hunting sharks and whales long before Jesus walked the Earth. Heck, the Romans even hunted a couple of whale species to outright extinction!!
Peru is another example of a large shark-hunting culture and graves over 1900 years old stand testament to the most prolific hunters.
Both meats have been very popular for centuries and the practice became widespread around the world long before Spielberg was even born.... Where do you think shark fin soup came from?
Sorry, but that just seems pretty blatant to me - If the belief in anything being possible was dependent upon watching early sci-fi, then what the heck episode of Star Trek was DaVinci watching... and what was being watched by those who dreamed up that early sci-fi?Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
No, all reasoning points to the ability to imagine off one's own back, with external influences being mere stepping stones to your own or other peoples' imaginings.
T>'might belong in a wing-back chair and smoking jacket, sipping brandy and puffing on Meerschaum pipes while discussing the merits of Tolstoy and hedging gentleman's wagers on where The Empire might wage battle next... interspersed with tales of when they were tiger-hunting in Poonah'.........unbelievable that's exactly me!
I have used the same arguments as you, about why people stereotype. It's very hard to imagine 1.5 billion Chinese people for example, but apparently a specific AI system can do that. But I think now, it is very difficult to stereotype whole groups of people, you have to shift your mind to a different mindset(ie:seven billion individuals on a planet).
I mentioned the earliest sci fi way back, second century AD it was a parody of ancient Roman travel writing, where the destination was the moon. Again it's that human ability to use abstract thought, to imagine something out of their normal realm of knowledge and experience. Da Vinci was an inventor thinking for himself on how to solve terrestrial problems.
We create our collective future through our stories, our fiction, our culture. In 1898 Morgan Robertson wrote a novel 'Futulity' about a massive Atlantic liner called Titan, all the richest clients wanted to be first to sail, on the 800 ft liner, that was labelled 'unsinkable'. Because of this over confidence the fictional ship had too few lifeboats, and when it hit an iceberg many were lost. Fourteen years later the Titanic was launched.
I even saw a case that reminded me of Terminator. The military are really now in an arms race to develop AI and robotics/drone warfare, and there's even talk of space forces protecting mining rights for example. They use AI in their weaponry, it still mostly relies on humans to pull the trigger but some systems like the Israel Iron dome can be fully autonomous. To decide what the missile is, what it's weapon load is, it's trajectory, and where it will land and intercept it, is just about within human power, but when there are multiple launches. There was a case of an automated weapon opening fire on it's own troops in South Africa. It's inevitable that that will happen as a system learns, but it shouldn't stop progress.
The natural world isn't very forgiving to the injured or stupid, but humans have created their own culture.
Yeah it shows....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's very easy and a very successfull marketing strategy, as evidenced by iPhone sales.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
It's even easier if you yourself create the stereotype in the first place - If you build it, they will come. If you stereotype it, they will buy it...
I probably wasn't listening... although I doubt you were alive back then, else I'd have heard of you.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
But however early you want to find sci-fi, those ideas that inform subsequent generations had to have been informed themselves, and thus all is circular, otherwise you are just reliant on the ability of creativity as Sam pointed out.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Good. Call me when I can buy a flying DeLorean....Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Good for them - I imagine the Saffers will make billions selling that to the Americans!!Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
The natural world is very rarely stupid. That's a human trait.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
But of course we've had to create our own culture and invent new ways to die, because we've killed off or banished most of our natural predators.
Well you seem to have made up the part about me referring to Sci-Fi...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
That was in the context of agreeing with and further substantiating your response to the other poster's reference to it... as well as commenting on 'current' thinking, since it appears almost self-evident enough to be a First Principle.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
[T>all your posts tell me is how limited your viewpoint is; stereotypes, labels, cliches. You don't seem to have any opinions of your own(just denial of what others say), or even any vaguely interesting ideas. Do better 4/10].
I hadn't really understood how much our behaviour and perceptions are decided by our culture(it's obvious when you think about it). Hard when you are embedded in something to see how it affects you.
I see culture in terms of flow of ideas, so that flow of ideas can improve our lives now, and improve lives across the planet. If you combine that with forethought(critical to human survival) and imagination, it's easy to see how we use ideas even projecting into future scenarios.
If you think of the modern era of sci fi, starting with; Mary Shelly's Frankenstein(incredible vision of man made life), The Time Machine, H G Wells, Brave New World, 1984, the work of Dick, Asimov,etc and all the more recent books, films; it seems like humans have played out every possible future scenario through cultural expression. I say modern era because there's a darker side to this vision of the future, no doubt inspired by historical events and scientific discoveries of that particular time, and many of these works addressed complex issues as well as being entertaining.
Everyone knows how on the simplest level, Star Trek inspired much tech development.> https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technolo...star_trek.html
Well a wise man would have taken it as a back-handed compliment, rather than setting to work with his shovel again...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
it's not just sharks we need to worry about
https://streamable.com/ck7vn
On that matter of shovels.... *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
It seems it's Spielberg should have chosen a different predator. Upwards of 100 million sharks slaughtered by humans yearly, and about ten human fatalities due to sharks. It does seem that film makers, writers seek to invoke our ancient fears, whether that's sea monsters, or alien monsters.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Here's a Zizek clip I enjoy. He examines the sci fi film 'They Live'(not a great film but interesting idea), where social control is embedded in culture(or ideology)> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVwKjGbz60k
Specifically through the use of narratives that tap into underlying emotional / psychological structures.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I think that's always been the most basic way of controlling whole populations. But this idea of decoding everything was new when that film was made. All States use forms of control; from strong propaganda feeding people ideas and narratives, to monitoring them through heavy surveillance making sure they follow the party line, say in E.Europe(1970's).Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
In the West it's become very sophisticated, culture is continually feeding us different narratives, some from those old centralised organisations like the church. The basic narrative of most American films is protect the family, christian morals. Others are down to ideology, there are many competing ideas overlaid over those basic needs, or even manipulating them. Here's a parody of an advert to sell sweets in the 70's> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrNA37QaC6E
Qe? If there's one thing the predominant western culture is not doing it's preserving christian morals. Seriously? Where are you getting that from?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
I think all those old centres of power, and thought control; the church, corporations and governments continually affirm their ideals. While other sub cultures express theirs. You see it in many mainstream American films, a group of people go through some challenge. Some members are sacrificed, but a couple male and a female usually survive. Spielberg's films have that recurrent trope, reuniting the family.Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Another interesting shift is down to a feminist sub culture, once women were told to imagine themselves in the protagonists role(even though at that time they were mostly portrayed by muscular dumb men). Now you often see the woman take control. Sometimes the woman goes on a journey from old style feminism to a modern construct. All the old constructs of identity, ideology; are being shown to be just that.
Limited?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You haven't had a single original thought!! Everything you post is just a map of your internet search history. All these 'ideas' are just a direct reposting of someone else's work. Any time you've tried to build a case of your own, you've simply made things up... and again you're resporting to stereotypical childish forum insults, despite asserting that you don't do this.
I call you on your BS - Sorry you don't find that interesting, but I'm not here to entertain you.
Still nothing of any value. Looking at your references it makes sense. You can't even come up with an original insult!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I said we live in a culture where ideas flow. Even those who we hold up as bright minds, are absorbing everything of value around them, interpreting and forming working opinions. Ideas flow through all our culture, then flow through us. And scientists, artists, writers, film makers, inventors are all tuned into the zeitgeist.
Sometimes, and especially these days we have to read the signs, the sub text. But watch and analyse any decent film, or look at what is happening around us, in terms of culture, counter culture, multiculturalism, also in terms of decoding propaganda or fake news, being culturally aware not only makes the bright minds, but also people in general, more sophisticated.
I do find your choice of feminism somewhat curious, seeing as it has morphed into something not even most women agree with. If anything it is one of the best modern examples of an ideology. Seeing as it is based on warped notion of post modernism and the rather facile idea of the blank slate.
https://e.lvme.me/rovlta9.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
:mrgreen:
Pot to kettle.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You type a lot for someone with so little to say.
Yet more things that you gloss over.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Pretty sure that's just someone else's view that you got off YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
So said Tess Gerritsen.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Actually it dilutes more than it progresses society. A useful tactic to eliminate competition and control the market, but of course you were aware of that...Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
https://e.lvme.me/rovlta9.jpg
No, just a bit bored with the petty sniping!
Sorry about that, just a bit tedious when it is like debating a loud speaker; he disregards what is posted and just shoots off at his own tangents.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Makes me not want to bother with Hexus so much as what's the point of posting if it's just to be talked down to?
https://image.ibb.co/bxw5yd/7b2c0bae...a0e_quote2.jpg
anyway let's pull this thread back to abstract thinking
https://d18lkz4dllo6v2.cloudfront.ne...ning.jpg?w=660
http://cdnmedia.outersports.com/cata...cUnionSuit.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ait_of_Cod.jpg
https://theleansubmariner.files.word...pg?w=314&h=258
https://www.wandercooks.com/wp-conte...yoshiko-14.jpg
https://media.giphy.com/media/MNTPzd...ized-large.gif
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/092009/125...l_backflip.gif
http://www.gifbin.com/bin/112010/129...board-fail.gif
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rQWi8J4Rfq...es%2Bclock.gif
https://zippy.gfycat.com/ScornfulUns...dtwigborer.gif
https://media.tenor.com/images/9a6f4...7560/tenor.gif
https://media1.tenor.com/images/ea6b...itemid=9273127
https://i.makeagif.com/media/9-15-2015/GtqF8x.gif
http://annerileybooks.com/wp-content.../07/Kermit.gif
I think the general feminism from the sixties on wards has been incorporated into mainstream culture. So you are as likely to see a female or male protagonist. I think most women think there is a way to go, before they have equal pay, equal access to opportunity and power to change society.Quote:
Originally Posted by SeriousSam
This is being played out in real life everyday; equal pay disputes, female leaders of UK, Germany,etc, changing attitudes to sexual harassment, and maybe because of being inspired by Wonder Woman at a young age, women going on to excel in a chosen career. I think there is a hard core of feminists that maybe get scandalised and are used to turn people against the movement, but that's just media nonsense.
'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'. <Idea still flowing through culture five hundred years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcher
1. Based on the latest poll I saw, only 7% of women in the UK actually view themselves as feminists. That would suggest that either most women don't think that there is a way to go, or that the current "brand" of feminism doesn't address their concerns. Plus perception is one thing and reality another; there are more women voters then men for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
2. Apart from corporations like the BBC women are paid the same as men for doing the same job. The gender pay gap is an artefact of an over-simplistic method of calculation, as an average tells you nothing about what is actually going on at a detailed level. This creates the additional problem that we can't have a meaningful discussion about what is actually going on, i.e. the role of biology in choice, how society places value on certain types of jobs etc.
3. Most of the media is actively giving "hard core" feminists airtime to spread their tripe. In fact there are a number of presenters who see it as their "social justice" mission... cough C4. Plus if you take into account that very few women identify as feminists, then perhaps the only ones left are the "hard core". That's even before we start talking about social sciences in academia. Now one of my "hobbies" is keeping abreast of such things, irrespective of stupidity level, so I'm probably more aware of the level of "x is a social construct" malarkey. It is also somewhat ironic that some of the most vocal critics of modern feminism are feminists from the 1960's.
In any case I'd recommend reading up on Eric Weinstein's 4 quadrant model theory, which goes into the "narrative" shenanigans of main stream media.
SeriousSam>It is very obvious that our culture in the West is being changed by subcultures. Political relationships particularly between the genders is being realigned.
Those sorts of polls are meaningless, it depends on; how questions are asked, loaded, in which communities, who asks the question, current mainstream media stereotyping of what a feminist is.
I think if you agree with equality and freedom of opportunity then you agree with feminism, and that is happening. I think they can always find radicals on any topic, but it's accepted that that's what they are. You'll probably find that Gal Godot is more inspiring.
I find that many in the media/arts/music are expressing political agendas(the West's politics has shifted more to the Right, and they never shut up about it!), but I don't think much about the so called chattering classes, because that's all it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJCbB439Q5Y
Is that misquoting Shakespeare out of context deliberate? He's not protesting his innocence, rather explaining his frustration. I'm not sure quoting that does anything constructive to help things. You know that "talking down to" bit he just mentioned?Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe'The lady doth protest too much, methinks'. <Idea still flowing through culture five hundred years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcher
I mean it the sense of insincerity about 'not want to bother with Hexus', and losing all credibility, because he never offers anything but ...whatever he thinks that is. If he disagrees, form some opinion, don't just moan, it's so boring. But you are right, as the meaning of words change, a phrase can be reinterpreted. Or it can be politicised and used as propaganda, words and phrases change usage. https://literarydevices.net/lady-doth-protest-too-much/Quote:
Originally Posted by atemporal
Virtually all modern feminist figureheads / philosophers etc. espouse the view that it is about equality of outcome. Consequently the intersubjective societal perspective is that this is what it now represents. Thus polls are reasonably accurate in that this is how people (women) view feminism. You may disagree with this representation, as is your right, but it doesn't change the reality of the situation. Feminism as a philosophy was about increasing the opportunities and rights of women, but that is not the case any more as their agenda has changed.
Now I don't disagree that western culture is being shaped by subcultures, due to increased information availability via the internet. In addition, the political / social relationships between genders is being realigned. However, not all change is positive and there is a very strong argument that pushing for equality of outcome is a backward step. The whole we must have 50:50 representation in STEM, to undo the effects of "patriarchy", is comical considering that in Scandinavia the gap is bigger. Despite these countries being more "progressive". One might even start to think that men and women tend to make different decisions due to the influence of evolutionary biology. Perhaps in fact that there is a benefit to this being the case.
The only direction in which western politics has made a demonstrable significant shift is up, i.e. towards autocracy. That's not to say that individual countries haven't shifted left or right, as they have. However, trying to work out where the balance sits is now even more complicated as you have to split out social left / right and economic left / right. Germany under Merkel has arguably been trending social left and economic right. Whether that will stay the same due to the fallout from her "all are welcome policy" remains to be seen. In any case about the only other thing you can reliably say about all this is that the polarisation between those further along the axes is increasing.
Anyway you may find https://everythingstudies.com/2018/0...omoid-cluster/ an interesting read in regards to the issue of how postmodernism is oft misunderstood.
SeriousSam>I think it's a lot more complicated. I think all those feminist writer you mention have different views; and there is a range from among women as well, dependant on their; expectations, life situation, education,etc. The younger generation of women definitely have more opportunity than their mothers, or grand mothers. I think this patriarchy idea is one viewpoint, but then that can also be turned into a form of discrimination. I read various feminist writers at uni(it's mandatory to get a different perspective on the power structures), the likes of Laura Mulvey and Julia Kristeva.
I don't agree about Western politics becoming autocratic, I think there are many conflicting interests and competitive ideologies, and to some degree the political framework is fragmenting. I think in many ways socially and politically the world around us is restructuring, and partly tech is facilitating that. I think the only people who misunderstand the postmodernist project are those that rely on media cliches, and probably not read the books or understood the social context.
Thanks for illustrating my point. If you want opinions, maybe you should respond to others, rather than just shouting from your soap box.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Are you at uni at the moment? What are you studying? I get the impression you're not the typical com-sci I imagine this forum tends to attract :)Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
Jesus Christ your ignorance is infuriating. People form opinions, but you dismiss them because they don't align with yours, you then talk down and attempt to be little people.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnroe
You bring nothing to this forum than misinformed "opinions" (that you haven't actually formed yourself, but were given to you by some video or something you claim to have read and interpreted.) and snide remarks, some might say it's almost like bullying in that you're essentially trying to tell people not to speak as it doesn't align with you...for the love of god, improve your posts...
I don’t think user ‘Jesus Christ’ exists - at least not under that username.Quote:
Originally Posted by Disturbedguy
However using my demi-god like powers, I’m closing this thread.