[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Right, hold on. I must confess I have not got a shred of a whisker of a clue as to exactly what you are on about here. what is a value-neutral-neutral stimulus?

My fast-typing. Value-neutral stimulus, culture-free stimulus, by which I meant not based on pre-education, not resulting a ciulture-depending reaction

it reads sort of : there are levels of brain (activity?) to either think 0 or 1 , the triangle experiment - (you mean an experiment to see if a few random numbers add up to either an acute or obtuse triangle or not? or do you mean the technological triangle experiment, which is a collaboration and staff exchange of scientific establishments in europe? or maybe even http://thechurch.co.nz/inspiration/2010/12/triangle-experiment-1/?) an obvious difference in people to project human thoughts and actions or not when looking at culture-free... ? I'm sorry but that just sounds like gibberish. maybe is a language thing?

I meant the triangle experiment that was described in the article I linked in the very first post that started this thread.:
quote: Test subjects watch a film in which triangles move about. One group experiences the film as a humanized drama, in which the larger triangles are attacking the smaller ones. The other group describes the scene mechanically, simply stating the manner in which the geometric shapes are moving. /quote

them as a group o ftriangles being "attacked"

"He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How." I can understand him feeling that. typically people who go through intense mental/physical pressure or trauma are more open to these ideas, especially at their weakest point. You could also say "He who has a why to die for, can bear almost any life"

No, it would be: "he who has a why to die for, is easier willing not to cling to life, if according situation arises." Frankl is founder of the socalled Logotherapy, a therapy firm that tries healment of psychological suffering by helping people finding a mneaning in what makes them suffer, a meaning in the loss they suffer(ed), or whatever. In pure form it is almost irrelevant today - but basic conceptions and considerations of it have found entrance and use in practically all major therapy forms that dominate the market and enjoy wide acceptance and support by socialcare. Maybe with the exception of behavoioruistzic shcools - and even these have oepned their doors for some of the socalled humansiotic therapy concepts. Puristic therapists are rare today. Maybe only psychoanalytics work in that puristic way anymore. And even pychoanalysis has diversified.

Anyhow, the point is the individual pecpetion of own suffering, whether it be due to being locked in a camp, or suzffering a loss of meaning and self-assrunace in and over once' own existence. The mildest form of that, is boredom. The heaviest form is exiostential despair, a symptomatology of majhor depression, suicide. Having a mesaning to live mfor, strengthens your psychologic immune system, so to speak, against aversive, threatening, doubting stimuli.

It also can help to keep the doubt away. That is comfrotable, and thus very tempting. But the price is that it makes you stop asking questions and reflecting your ways.

I mean being inclusive on a human level. To not exclude people. Ethics must be at least in part learned via human interaction within a social group, and the broader the group the greater the sensitivity to broader ethical concerns.

I reserve the right to decide that on an individual levbeöl as well as a level of where I also include the goals, desaires and ideological convictions somebody clings to. Thus I reserve the right to include some - and exclude others. I also reserve the right to say that not all and everything is of equal value, is just vartiations of just one and the same unerlaying quality, or must be accepted just becasue "it is".

As a consequence of thios, I am tolerant on some things, and intolerant on others. Tolerance needs limits.

Yeah thats a lovely quote. I would still say, about the probability thing that if the odds are so staggeringly loaded in one direction, you can pretty much rely on it. I'm willing to take the risk anyway.

That's what we do all the time, every day. But our problems, mentally as well as materially, arise when we think that just because we have never seen a black swan, there indeed are no black swans. Link. Probabilities are just this: probabilities. And as every student of classic test theory knows, there is one mahjor probloem with test theory and theories on the relevance of probabilities for realty: probabilities win in relevance by total number of events being taken into account for calculating them. Total relevance and trustworthiness they only gain in case of an infinite ammount of such events - and that practically is impossible to imagine. That throwing a six with a dice has a probability of 1/6, does not exlcude the possibility that for the rest of all your life you will only throw sixers whenever you use a dice. That that is "unlikely", does not really hold any factual information. Becasue when it happens nevertheless, the imporbbale suddenly reaches a likelihood of 100.000% and the highly improbable plummtes down to 0.000%.

Granted, that is academic fun only. But in classicv test theory, which is repsonsible fpor major tools of data analysis and scientific test design, this has fundamental consequences and raises problems that so far nobody could solve. And so - they get simply ignored.

It is good habit imo to operate by probabilities, yes - but also to be in the knowedfge of certain unsolved problems and implications. Like flying a modern aircraft with glass cockpit - but being able to operate old analogue backups for navigation nevertheless. Just in case. Some people just pick a GPS, and nothing else. I am the type who also picks up a compass and a map, and in case of doubt - skip the GPS, but not the latter two.

P.S.
Imagine to live in a uniform, supressive society, under a totalitarian regime. Youhave been grown there, you do not know it any different. What then with probabilites to decide which decisions to make? These probabilities would be defioned and formed - by said totalitarianism around you. So basing on socially constructed and induced probabilities would lead you on what right now you would probbaly agree to call a wrong way. It would make sure you stay "inside", and don't break "out".

In an anarchic regime, your probabilities wopuld lead you totally different, away from conformism, and towards individualism and jungle law.

Obviously, probability alone does not do the trick.