Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

You're opening the door to the question of the atomization of society.

Seems a bit silly to question the state of society without going deeper. 

I just see the risk of getting lost in the weeds, and possibly off-target.  However, maybe you're right: what am I really worried about?

The paradox that we're more connected than ever, yet just as more alienated.

The lack of facetime is more culprit than the rest of it though. 

Well, you were claiming that "technology has filled the gaps".  It may have filled some, but created others.

The hullabaloo over AI-generated media, the potential for generating misinformation, the effect it is having in strange sectors of employment and media, etc., are both cultural and practical, real-world impacts. 

It's a mid-state of change towards something more Neo-Socialist. 

Once none of us have a place in the working world anymore, or sooner, once we pass around the 60% threshold for unemployment once the self-driving car turns a surprising number of jobs obsolete on top of the replacements already being enacted, the government isn't just going to let people starve. 

Universal Basic Income or some other solution?  While the imperative to not let a nation's populace die is probably present -- and, while "the government" is somewhat offloaded as the parental figure of responsibility, it boils down to people caring about other people -- it greatly depends on how seriously it is addressed now, considering how otherwise insidious the creep is of these problems to come.  Of course, the danger here is in the common perspective.  How seriously can we really gauge our officials are taking these future (possible) problems?  The systems in place are quite broken, and Luna is right on the basis of looking at their incentive structure and implementation, giving rise to that whole "welfare culture".  It does kind of sound like a boomer, red-pill perspective, or whatever you want to call it, but there must be some reason this perspective was built up.  However, it might be part of the problem holding back progress to a better system.

Is life only meaningful in its struggle?

It offers relativism. Without it the newer state of comfort will seek out a struggle embedded within it, as we often see nowadays with the privileged rich. 

Even Matrix went there when Agent Smith's talking to Morpheus; They tried building a world where every human got everything they could possibly desire and, in turn, they were dissatisfied with the world. Twilight Zone went there earlier with the idea of Hell being a place where you get everything you want until it no longer means anything to you. 

Struggle is the precursor to relief, and both are necessary for someone's sense of comfort. It's structured similarly to substance addiction, or like the struggle one feels before release sexually or through exercise. Without a sense of struggle, the lack of struggle will inevitably become said struggle. 

For a metaphorical example, it'd be like if Sisyphus could choose to not push the rock and otherwise do absolutely nothing. In time, the rock will look desirable. 

Sure.  But pointless struggle, even if desirable over indolence, doesn't make it meaningful, unless meaningful means "a mere distraction from meaninglessness".  The kind of choice you describe at the end, is becoming a reality more and more.  The struggle to find the right struggles.  Where do you think we're finding them or will find them?

Now that technology has begun delivering on "automated creativity" and other productions we once deemed "intellectual pursuits", where do we invest our ambitions?

Becoming it's witness as we live like it's pets. 

Taking The Blue Pill, essentially. 

And after all this talk about struggle...  Either we domesticate, or are turned into their food.

As Tryp and others seem to imply: we might be taking that energy and focusing on tribalism-maxxing.  The thing is, as already pointed out historically: we've always been doing this.  However, in the backdrop of our culture now, it obviously looks like it's about more and more frivolous things.  When we get closer and closer to literally being able to "live the dream", we've lost the ability to agree on what the dream is any more.

The point of a dream is to be an aspiration, but those "dreams" disappearing are a complaint you moreso see coming from people 30+ in age. 

It's more of an ironic marker of such anachronistic thinking.  But what do people want?  A decent, stable standard of living, while being able to fulfill whatever it is that motivates you to get up in the morning?  Say we get that, government provided, as just part of some "basic needs" act.  How many choose to languish, how many choose to remain NEETs?  Quibble about the terminology or whatever generational etymology it concerns, still doesn't really answer anything.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

The perspective used to be, it seemed, that technology was going to save us from that brutish labor, so that we could focus on being more creative and abstract and social, without having to get our hands dirty any more.  Now that technology has begun delivering on "automated creativity" and other productions we once deemed "intellectual pursuits", where do we invest our ambitions?

As Tryp and others seem to imply: we might be taking that energy and focusing on tribalism-maxxing.  The thing is, as already pointed out historically: we've always been doing this.  However, in the backdrop of our culture now, it obviously looks like it's about more and more frivolous things.

Yes, technology is playing a big part. We're social animals that are biologically calibrated to be (physically) in units of about 150 people (see Dunbar's number), with layers that go like: 5 closest people, then 15 close people, then 50 associates, etc. People are broadly aware there's a problem, which is why we have this boomer talk about being on your phone at dinner, or "no one calls anymore". But another issue is that people aren't seeing good reason to be interconnected. We aren't hunter-gatherers who need a solid group to survive anymore.

That's where I think meaning becomes the critical factor. To a large extent meaning is derived from our social nature. If you think of someone "dying a hero", or how someone on a deathbed wishes they spent more time with their family, or a guy who spends his life being the best at a sport—the apparent thread is how one relates to their inner circle and/or to society. A primate can't not be a primate.

We're going to see this stuff addressed more and more with VR. I'm not sure if tech or pop culture will be enough to make a meaningful change, or if people are going to put in leaders who will do something major about it. I think they're hungry for both.

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

How can we expect people to act in the interests of the whole, if we can barely get them to be civil around each other in the cities?

I personally question the significance of said whole in the modern age, do we even need that now that technology has filled the gap? 

No and yes. Technically we can totally avoid everyone. And as BT pointed out, tech is spacing people apart more. Negative experiences in the city kill the atmosphere and makes people less likely to try to connect with anyone out there. A lot of people in my area are on the defense...accordingly, because it's violent. Aside from cortisol levels being higher, there's probably a lot of missed opportunity.

Turncoat said:

The lack of facetime is more culprit than the rest of it though.

People are hardly making marriages work. What you're saying might be true for a subset of people who grew up in good families, or found their way to being well-adjusted. But I think there is more going on with the cultural environment we are in, than people not using Facetime enough.

Tryptamine said: 

We're social animals that are biologically calibrated to be (physically) in units of about 150 people (see Dunbar's number), with layers that go like: 5 closest people, then 15 close people, then 50 associates, etc.

I maybe should have read my own link instead of just posting it with what I "remembered". :)

A physically proximate social unit of ~150 is what Dunbar theorizes the human can tolerate when it needs a large functioning social group (i.e. a Neolithic farming village). Early humans probably evolved in smaller groups of around 30-50 for nutritional reasons. The main point here is that we are wired to be part of a larger group, and those social and emotional needs can be strained by people not being around each other physically.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

The lack of facetime is more culprit than the rest of it though.

People are hardly making marriages work. What you're saying might be true for a subset of people who grew up in good families, or found their way to being well-adjusted. But I think there is more going on with the cultural environment we are in, than people not using Facetime enough.

Perhaps marriage is unnatural? 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said:

The lack of facetime is more culprit than the rest of it though.

People are hardly making marriages work. What you're saying might be true for a subset of people who grew up in good families, or found their way to being well-adjusted. But I think there is more going on with the cultural environment we are in, than people not using Facetime enough.

Perhaps marriage is unnatural? 

It's possible that it is. The problem is more that children are increasingly growing up in single parent households. Partially because more people have children without having a firm and established commitment, and partially because people are dissolving these commitments more frequently.

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

People are hardly making marriages work. What you're saying might be true for a subset of people who grew up in good families, or found their way to being well-adjusted. But I think there is more going on with the cultural environment we are in, than people not using Facetime enough.

Perhaps marriage is unnatural? 

It's possible that it is. The problem is more that children are increasingly growing up in single parent households.

Couldn't this be more of a problem over a lack of overall community, rather than single vs duo parent households? 

In a small village environment, something more natural to people than larger scale settlements, the community aspect tends to extend to people even outside of their own kin. A lot of what makes it hurt a child to have the mother or father leave is over how they've basically split the workforce by half, while an entire village helping instill values into someone could mitigate the sense of loss over them losing less than 50%. 

Rather than assume we ought to regress into the Christian classic to fix the problem, it's possible that what damages we're seeing now are a byproduct of said Christian model becoming outdated. Perhaps within the current constraints we're meant for something else? 

Personally I've seen plenty of children turn out alright from divorced parents. Typically though it turned out better when both parents were still in the child's lives, but as long as something supplements the role of the missing parental figure they tend to find a route that works. Beyond that they tend to find comfort in doubling down in a hobby or lifestyle. 

A lot of the situation is moreover routine and environment. 

Turncoat said: 

Tryptamine said: 

Turncoat said: 

Perhaps marriage is unnatural? 

It's possible that it is. The problem is more that children are increasingly growing up in single parent households.

Couldn't this be more of a problem over a lack of overall community, rather than single vs duo parent households? 

In a small village environment, something more natural to people than larger scale settlements, the community aspect tends to extend to people even outside of their own kin. A lot of what makes it hurt a child to have the mother or father leave is over how they've basically split the workforce by half, while an entire village helping instill values into someone could mitigate the sense of loss over them losing less than 50%. 

Rather than assume we ought to regress into the Christian classic to fix the problem, it's possible that what damages we're seeing now are a byproduct of said Christian model becoming outdated. Perhaps within the current constraints we're meant for something else? 

Personally I've seen plenty of children turn out alright from divorced parents. Typically though it turned out better when both parents were still in the child's lives, but as long as something supplements the role of the missing parental figure they tend to find a route that works. Beyond that they tend to find comfort in doubling down in a hobby or lifestyle. 

A lot of the situation is moreover routine and environment. 

It's surely better when there is "extended family" (kin or not) to help. But if that support structure isn't present, that isn't a justification for having your child grow up without a two parent household. Part of the problem here is that people want to have their cake and eat it too on every dish involved. They want to sleep around, and then when something happens, well now it's the kid who pays for it because one or both of the parents won't invest in a natural environment for their child. Or they do make a commitment, but when things get a little difficult, they don't want to deal with that. Or the woman decides she doesn't need a man in her life, and the kid pays for it. There isn't nearly the proper amount of gravity around these matters, as evidenced by just how non-judgmental society is of these arrangements.

Christianity offers a structure that keeps society sane. It keeps people from killing each other over partner competition once there is a marriage. The marriage makes sure the children grow up with both parents. The unbreakability of the marriage means that people have to find a way to make things work (which is something I think is undervalued today). If people are going to take the Christian ethos out of the picture, then we need to be doing a bit more either culturally or legally to protect kids from falling victim to K-selective dysfunction.

Turncoat said:

Personally I've seen plenty of children turn out alright from divorced parents. Typically though it turned out better when both parents were still in the child's lives, but as long as something supplements the role of the missing parental figure they tend to find a route that works. Beyond that they tend to find comfort in doubling down in a hobby or lifestyle.

And some women who get raped actually find a lot of strength and confidence they wouldn't have had otherwise. 

Tryptamine said: 

They want to sleep around, and then when something happens, well now it's the kid who pays for it because one or both of the parents won't invest in a natural environment for their child.

This is why birth control is a good thing. 

Or they do make a commitment, but when things get a little difficult, they don't want to deal with that. Or the woman decides she doesn't need a man in her life, and the kid pays for it.

Sometimes the man decides to leave too, it's not like women invented divorce. 

Divorce can mean stuff like the child seeing both parents without the parents having to see eachother, allowing a more positive environment rather than the toxic stew that'd prove potentially more maladaptive than their splitting. By having a marriage put the couple on lockdown, you are instead opting to continue allowing that unhealthy environment to grow into something worse and even further damaging towards the child. 

There isn't nearly the proper amount of gravity around these matters, as evidenced by just how non-judgmental society is of these arrangements.

I feel like you're broadening this into a larger net-issue, rather than focusing on the smaller factors that are more closely related to the issue. 

At the core of it, you seem to have a problem with single parent households. 

Christianity offers a structure that keeps society sane.

That's moreover a point in favor of religion in general, rather than Christianity solely. It's not like every other faith drove people crazy, it just helps with instilling a goal that's bigger than themselves with less questions asked. It's basically streamlining through fucking with how they process the answers to life's questions. 

It keeps people from killing each other over partner competition once there is a marriage. The marriage makes sure the children grow up with both parents.

The village model from earlier, or even something more 'modern' like a throuple with three parents, resolve a lot of the same issues that a classic marriage also resolves. 

The only real argument you're making is against single parent households, but you aren't really selling why it has to be Christian when other paths offer similar enough outcomes. 

The unbreakability of the marriage means that people have to find a way to make things work (which is something I think is undervalued today).

So you'd rather... people be shackled to the marriage with no way out? 

What's next, having marriages be arranged in advance? 

Turncoat said:

Personally I've seen plenty of children turn out alright from divorced parents. Typically though it turned out better when both parents were still in the child's lives, but as long as something supplements the role of the missing parental figure they tend to find a route that works. Beyond that they tend to find comfort in doubling down in a hobby or lifestyle.

And some women who get raped actually find a lot of strength and confidence they wouldn't have had otherwise. 

That's a very gross statement you just made, and arguably not even comparable to divorce. 

You're not looking at the big picture here. Yes, men can decide to leave marriages. And bad marriages can create toxic environments. And sometimes kids from single parent households turn out with no problems. But it still stands that, broadly, people are making frivolous commitments that are damaging to children. That doesn't mean if there is screaming in a house every night that we padlock the doors until they figure it out. But it does mean that society needs to re-examine where its morals and incentives are, because nearly 1/4 American kids are growing up in a single parent household.

Turncoat said:

At the core of it, you seem to have a problem with single parent households.

Of course I do, there are negative outcomes associated with this. And with a fourth of the youth involved, that's a huge net force. Lower academic performance, higher rates of criminality, higher rates of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse, difficulties in social development: Those things and the associated economics are what people can measure, where what can't be measured is how worse off a person's life is from being raised this way. This isn't happening to 1/4 of children because everything was unreasonably toxic or impossible for millions of people to line up, either.

Turncoat said:

The only real argument you're making is against single parent households, but you aren't really selling why it has to be Christian when other paths offer similar enough outcomes.

It doesn't have to be. To me, the end itself is more important. Which would be that children growing up without both of their parents (or at least two at all) would be more of an unusual thing.

Turncoat said:

That's a very gross statement you just made, and arguably not even comparable to divorce.

It was meant to be a provocative statement to point out that just because people can come out of things the better, doesn't mean that thing in itself is good. Maybe the volume was a bit high on that one.

Tryptamine said: 

You're not looking at the big picture here. Yes, men can decide to leave marriages. And bad marriages can create toxic environments. And sometimes kids from single parent households turn out with no problems. 

But it still stands that, broadly, people are making frivolous commitments that are damaging to children. That doesn't mean if there is screaming in a house every night that we padlock the doors until they figure it out. But it does mean that society needs to re-examine where its morals and incentives are, because nearly 1/4 American kids are growing up in a single parent household.

Now that we have that part locked down, lets figure rough metrics. According to a quick google search; 

Children of divorce statistics can vary depending on the source, but it is generally agreed that around 50% of children in the US will experience their parents getting divorced.

While this in the hands of an alarmist could become an argument against divorce, I actually see this in favor of it. When we figure this 'around 50%' marker, would you say said 'around 50%' of children turn out poorly from divorce, or are you going by the squeaky wheel by only paying attention to the loudest cases? 

I'd argue divorce is better off Pro-Choice, and that I've generally seen worse harm come from couples who stay together in spite of their issues when their issues go above a certain threshold. There are a lot of bad parents out there, and in many cases splitting them apart can improve the environment for the family overall. 

When the divorce number was lower, I can see how that'd have kids feel alienated from their peers, but with it so commonplace they have the means of finding other children of divorce to bond with and the idea of a surrogate parent will become more accepted. When divorce is made more common, so too does the potential for second marriages in lieu of a sea of single mothers. 

Turncoat said:

At the core of it, you seem to have a problem with single parent households.

Of course I do, there are negative outcomes associated with this.

True, but this is me isolating the nugget of your argument. 

You've spent a lot of time demonizing single parent households by proxy, and I think it makes more sense to focus on that rather than insisting that the Christian model is the one worth regressing to. 

And with a fourth of the youth involved, that's a huge net force. Lower academic performance, higher rates of criminality, higher rates of psychiatric disorders and substance abuse, difficulties in social development: Those things and the associated economics are what people can measure, where what can't be measured is how worse off a person's life is from being raised this way.

I'd argue that a lot of these issues would stand to still happen without the divorce, but we can't really test that. 

The predisposition towards divorce could, in theory, also be what accounts for those issues. Figure for example parents who are themselves prone to psychiatric disorders, most tend to have genetic roots, and wouldn't parents with mental illness be more prone to extreme actions that could lend to an increase in divorces being filed? 

Psychiatric Disorder tends to report a higher tendency towards substance use, they go against the grain of society enough to increase their liklihood of criminal behaviors, especially if they are already into illegal drugs as a Gateway, and then with drugs and distractions on top of potential disorders their grades would go down. 

You could be attributing the problems of today with a false cause, as plenty of children turned out disturbed when you could not file for divorce as easily.

It's not some cure-all, the issue at hand sounds deeper than that, and the issue you bring up as being a result of divorce we see crop up often enough from children with parents who didn't split. Figure how many kids are already on pharmaceuticals for example, that's more likely to be a cause for many of the above problems. 

Turncoat said:

The only real argument you're making is against single parent households, but you aren't really selling why it has to be Christian when other paths offer similar enough outcomes.

It doesn't have to be. To me, the end itself is more important. Which would be that children growing up without both of their parents (or at least two at all) would be more of an unusual thing. 

So you'd be fine if we all turned Wiccan for example? That religion's been spreading pretty hard across our lifetimes here in the US, they support heterosexual marriage as a source of empowerment as per their original doctrine, and their 'Threefold Law' karma system as well as other elements in place do a decent job at steering what people do.