No.
It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).
If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.
"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."
Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).
My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.
ty for coming to my ted talk
It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).
If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.
"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."
Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).
My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.
ty for coming to my ted talk
Last edited by Ele; Feb 10, 2020 at 06:27 PM.
Good question. I'll think about it.
First thought is just 'If I see it, I'll know it'. Present me with a problem and I can tell you if it's a real problem or not. In my opinion it would be fairly self-evident.
That leads to my second thought of 'Well, it's not self evident to everyone, is it? Some people think it's a real problem'.
Which leads to my third thought of 'The problem can be subject to a 'reasonable/almost any person'' check'. In the first article it talks about the concept of 'trauma' and how conceptual change affected it. It used to be that for an experience to be considered 'traumatic' it would only be traumatic if 'almost everyone' would agree that it was indeed a traumatic experience. Another way to look at it; many countries have the concept of a 'reasonable person' embedded in their legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). If any 'reasonable person' would consider x to be x, then x is x. If any reasonable person considers microaggressions to be a bullshit problem, then microaggressions are a bullshit problem.
Which leads to my fourth thought 'Shit, what if a 'reasonable person' isn't actually reasonable anymore'. Pretty much nothing is safe from concept change (except maybe hard, concrete realities). What if almost everyone gets sold on the idea of microaggressions being valid (microaggressions are now 'reasonable'). What if everyone decides it's a reasonable thing to no longer clap (it's 'anxiety-inducing' for some), and everyone starts jazz-handing instead. What if that becomes the new norm?
Which leads to my final thought (for now) of 'No, that's ridiculous, people won't just accept bullshit because SJWs tell them they should'. So, I guess I stand by my 3rd thought. We can distinguish actual modern problems from pathologized problems through an 'almost everyone/any reasonable person' check. For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
First thought is just 'If I see it, I'll know it'. Present me with a problem and I can tell you if it's a real problem or not. In my opinion it would be fairly self-evident.
That leads to my second thought of 'Well, it's not self evident to everyone, is it? Some people think it's a real problem'.
Which leads to my third thought of 'The problem can be subject to a 'reasonable/almost any person'' check'. In the first article it talks about the concept of 'trauma' and how conceptual change affected it. It used to be that for an experience to be considered 'traumatic' it would only be traumatic if 'almost everyone' would agree that it was indeed a traumatic experience. Another way to look at it; many countries have the concept of a 'reasonable person' embedded in their legal system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). If any 'reasonable person' would consider x to be x, then x is x. If any reasonable person considers microaggressions to be a bullshit problem, then microaggressions are a bullshit problem.
Which leads to my fourth thought 'Shit, what if a 'reasonable person' isn't actually reasonable anymore'. Pretty much nothing is safe from concept change (except maybe hard, concrete realities). What if almost everyone gets sold on the idea of microaggressions being valid (microaggressions are now 'reasonable'). What if everyone decides it's a reasonable thing to no longer clap (it's 'anxiety-inducing' for some), and everyone starts jazz-handing instead. What if that becomes the new norm?
Which leads to my final thought (for now) of 'No, that's ridiculous, people won't just accept bullshit because SJWs tell them they should'. So, I guess I stand by my 3rd thought. We can distinguish actual modern problems from pathologized problems through an 'almost everyone/any reasonable person' check. For the purposes of that check, anyone with super-strong leanings, one way or the other (SJWs or Nazis), can be safely ignored. That said, I'm not saying the SJW camp can't ever identify a problem that 'almost anyone' would agree is a problem - I'm sure they could (and probably have). I'm saying that everybody else (reasonable people) would have to agree with them in order for the problem they raise to be recognised as a legit problem.
Last edited by Ele; Feb 10, 2020 at 08:13 PM.
Originally Posted by Ele
No.
It's saying that our identification of 'violent'/'problematic' acts becomes broader and more encompassing over time, for a variety of reasons. That's concept creep (the first article).
The other part of this is that as things become rarer, if we're looking for them, we can still find them even when they're not there, solely because we are trying so hard to look for them. That's prevalence-induced concept change (the second article).
If you take these two articles together, it explains something that's happening in our culture. We look for shit to complain about in the absence of really big smelly shits (we complain about farting perhaps, which isn't even shitting).
We whinge and cry about stuff that people who've dealt with actual existential threats would brush off. We get mad at Smaiva for making a 'did u assume my gender' joke.
"Although conceptual change is inevitable and often well motivated, concept creep runs the risk of pathologizing everyday experience and encouraging a sense of virtuous but impotent victimhood."
Modern living absolutely has its problems. I'm not denying that. I am asserting, however, that some 'modern problems' are only problems because people are looking to make mountains out of mole-hills (pathologizing everyday experience).
My recommendation for everybody to go get punched in the face is aimed at getting people to put their threats into perspective. Life doesn't need to be violent to be normal, but having some violence in your life can put things into perspective.
ty for coming to my ted talk
There is a psychological term used for this in a nutshell, though it passes my mind currently, that indicates a person who actively looks for problems through their nature that is a little more detailed and less negative in terms of connotation than "pathologist".
But.. I think the best way on DEALING with such problems is to teach people that the right question is more important than the right answer. We underestimate and overestimate ourselves in believing we have the ability to understand things without speculation and without asking the right questions, the right speculations about the wrong things will be made as a predatorial instinct. Imo, the most important things that can be said are the things that actually make people "think" rather than "bow down."
The reason I argue so much with maya is that I believe she doesn't understand that notion that took me years to get to. I don't argue because I expect change to happen overnight, but I do argue so I can atleast envelop such change at the pace which was meant to be through my actual investment.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
