Black Rose
An unbreakable bond
This is very stressful but I will try and explain what it is that makes it hard right now for me to talk to anyone.
People often assume that when you say something you are saying it because you believe it 100% and will die defending it. This is not true in the sense that rational people who rationally talk about ideas should be invested in them to the point where they will do horrible things. Instead, they talk about them in terms of what is called contingent claims. What happens or is possible depends on certain conditions to be true and to be met or they don't happen.
What makes people attached to ideas may or may not be affected by what is believed as a core ontological belief. But this is not the same as saying that everything is a core belief. It matters what we regard as a common experience of what is true but to impede onto another person some kind of malevolence for not seeing eye to eye on a trivial matter is the basis of most conflict because people think that if you disagree that means you have a 100 percent certainty of being wrong. So that means you must be 100 percent certain about the disagreement. Meaning the disagreement is vital to your ontological view of the world making you a danger to everyone else because that view is crazy.
This is evolutionarily ingrained in humans. Crazy people believe 100% they are right so anyone with a view that is even 10% wrong will be 100 percent seen as dangerous. So disagreement that cannot be worked out shows some kind of benefit to the person who can detect crazy people. Better safe than sorry.
But this led to a bad situation. Scientists were once seen as crazy so killed by the average person. They survived by acting normal in the right situations. Or by collecting together with the elite power people and political structures.
The critical means of winning evolutionarily is to kill/abandon the crazy people or the tribe suffers.
This is why people in debates fight over who the crazy one is, because accusations become so easy to through at the other person. "I am not the crazy one he is, look what he said xy and z moments ago." Reputation must be maintained for a reason, You do not want to be killed as a witch.
So when we debate it is easy to say person x claims y 100% and when this is done that person is burned at the stake. But this is why people instead started to say: I don't claim x I said x was possible, you are defaming my reputation and I will sue you under the law. - this is good and stuff but on the internet people do not debate under this shared assumption. They wish to not be seen as crazy and so go into panic mode defining themselves. This causes them to fight as evolution programmed them to fight, verbally in the sense that what they said was not crazy and what they said was only hypothetical. Therefore people will not kill them.
People often assume that when you say something you are saying it because you believe it 100% and will die defending it. This is not true in the sense that rational people who rationally talk about ideas should be invested in them to the point where they will do horrible things. Instead, they talk about them in terms of what is called contingent claims. What happens or is possible depends on certain conditions to be true and to be met or they don't happen.
What makes people attached to ideas may or may not be affected by what is believed as a core ontological belief. But this is not the same as saying that everything is a core belief. It matters what we regard as a common experience of what is true but to impede onto another person some kind of malevolence for not seeing eye to eye on a trivial matter is the basis of most conflict because people think that if you disagree that means you have a 100 percent certainty of being wrong. So that means you must be 100 percent certain about the disagreement. Meaning the disagreement is vital to your ontological view of the world making you a danger to everyone else because that view is crazy.
This is evolutionarily ingrained in humans. Crazy people believe 100% they are right so anyone with a view that is even 10% wrong will be 100 percent seen as dangerous. So disagreement that cannot be worked out shows some kind of benefit to the person who can detect crazy people. Better safe than sorry.
But this led to a bad situation. Scientists were once seen as crazy so killed by the average person. They survived by acting normal in the right situations. Or by collecting together with the elite power people and political structures.
The critical means of winning evolutionarily is to kill/abandon the crazy people or the tribe suffers.
This is why people in debates fight over who the crazy one is, because accusations become so easy to through at the other person. "I am not the crazy one he is, look what he said xy and z moments ago." Reputation must be maintained for a reason, You do not want to be killed as a witch.
So when we debate it is easy to say person x claims y 100% and when this is done that person is burned at the stake. But this is why people instead started to say: I don't claim x I said x was possible, you are defaming my reputation and I will sue you under the law. - this is good and stuff but on the internet people do not debate under this shared assumption. They wish to not be seen as crazy and so go into panic mode defining themselves. This causes them to fight as evolution programmed them to fight, verbally in the sense that what they said was not crazy and what they said was only hypothetical. Therefore people will not kill them.
