Do you love ugly truths?

[ApostateAbe]

I have a personal appetite for truths that almost everyone else hates. And it goes well beyond believing that there is no heaven. For example, I believe in scientific racism, that some populations are naturally stupider than others. I believe that suicide is the evolutionary mechanism for weeding out losers. I believe that rape is the natural sexual tendency for men who otherwise can't score. I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable. I believe that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally subservient. I believe there is intelligent life in outer space and we will never ever make contact. I believe that school bullies tend to have a social advantage all of their lives, not just in school. These are all horrible, horrible things for people to believe, and I don't suggest that anyone else believe in them. And I love believing in them. Any belief that makes a person uncomfortable is like a homing signal to me. Do you have this experience?

 

[Ink]

Not really, and I disagree with at least half of your beliefs, any you'd care to elaborate on?

 

[own8ge]

Haha. I also speculate ugly truths. But not for the sake of it being ugly, more for the sake of truth. I speculate everything, I don't judge based on its social acceptance.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Not really, and I disagree with at least half of your beliefs, any you'd care to elaborate on?

I can elaborate on all of them. Please pick one.

 

[BloodCountess88]

I believe in "ugly" truths, none of them which you speak of.

There is a huge difference between truth and belief. There are things that can be true to yourself in your internal belief system but aren't a concrete truth.

Regarding bullying/pedophilia/rape, multiple studies can be found disproving it. Plenty of good looking men raping, pedophilia can be classified as OCD sickness and that's a main topic of study in Northern Europe, it's more than a "sexual preference" since it's driven to commit acts often without the consent of the victim, so it's closer to rape specially when you go for underdeveloped children (10 and under).


I tend to look at studies, analyze, compare and contrast, and then find the concrete common ground. Weather is "pleasant" or not. Truth shouldn't be pleasant. I think it's irrational to add an emotional connotation to it.

 

[Ex-User (5841)]

I have a personal appetite for truths that almost everyone else hates.

I can't help but notice that every single one of those involves or alludes to a hierarchy. Perhaps this is what you're really attracted to, given the broad nature of ugly truths that aren't bound to hierarchy (for example, finding out that you're the result of your mom being raped, or that the blanket you gave to that homeless guy killed him because it contained smallpox).

Of course the other area to examine is whether most ugly truths indeed involve a hierarchy, or specifically our delusions about hierarchy.

 

[Absurdity]

I've read about the "race realism" or "human biodiversity" or whatever other euphemisms it masquerades under. It's somewhat interesting I suppose, but I really don't have the time or the patience to compare their evidence to more mainstream evidence and try to figure out which is closer to the truth.

And even if it was true, it really wouldn't have even the most infinitesimal effect on my behavior. Racial differences in mean IQ (if true) only apply in the aggregate, so they don't justify racist behavior directed toward individuals.

Basically:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsouvVdoJQ

 

[ApostateAbe]

I can't help but notice that every single one of those involves or alludes to a hierarchy. Perhaps this is what you're really attracted to, given the broad nature of ugly truths that aren't bound to hierarchy (for example, finding out that you're the result of your mom being raped, or that the blanket you gave to that homeless guy killed him because it contained smallpox).

Of course the other area to examine is whether most ugly truths indeed involve a hierarchy, or specifically our delusions about hierarchy.

I do think that we are living in an era of popular egalitarian ideology (i.e. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"), following from millions of years of a hierarchical structure of human and pre-human society. The popularity of the ideology is for the best but the ideologues tend to try to impose the perspective on human nature, with messy results, so I figure that mess is where the ugliest truths can be found.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I've read about the "race realism" or "human biodiversity" or whatever other euphemisms it masquerades under. It's somewhat interesting I suppose, but I really don't have the time or the patience to compare their evidence to more mainstream evidence and try to figure out which is closer to the truth.

And even if it was true, it really wouldn't have even the most infinitesimal effect on my behavior. Racial differences in mean IQ (if true) only apply in the aggregate, so they don't justify racist behavior directed toward individuals.

Basically:

Spoiler

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFsouvVdoJQ

I actually agree with the "even if it was true" part. Social tendencies are hardly a basis for judging individuals

 

[ApostateAbe]

Whenever you do have the time or the patience, there are two books on scientific racism that I recommend: The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, and Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton. It is always important to separate "scientific racism" (a more derogatory but more descriptive term than "race realism") from political racism like white supremacy.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I believe in "ugly" truths, none of them which you speak of.

There is a huge difference between truth and belief. There are things that can be true to yourself in your internal belief system but aren't a concrete truth.

Regarding bullying/pedophilia/rape, multiple studies can be found disproving it. Plenty of good looking men raping, pedophilia can be classified as OCD sickness and that's a main topic of study in Northern Europe, it's more than a "sexual preference" since it's driven to commit acts often without the consent of the victim, so it's closer to rape specially when you go for underdeveloped children (10 and under).


I tend to look at studies, analyze, compare and contrast, and then find the concrete common ground. Weather is "pleasant" or not. Truth shouldn't be pleasant. I think it's irrational to add an emotional connotation to it.

Yeah, a lot of people in America feared that creationists would try to take over the biological sciences, but I figure a greater concern are with those sciences where the ideologues have already become the establishment all over the world. The whole science of sociology and all of its sub-fields are now slaves to the egalitarians, which is an unfortunate thing. Evolutionary biologists are very often in conflict with the sociologists, and I almost always side with the evolutionary biologists.

 

[Brontosaurie]

I have a personal appetite for truths that almost everyone else hates. And it goes well beyond believing that there is no heaven. For example, I believe in scientific racism, that some populations are naturally stupider than others. I believe that suicide is the evolutionary mechanism for weeding out losers. I believe that rape is the natural sexual tendency for men who otherwise can't score. I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable. I believe that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally subservient. I believe there is intelligent life in outer space and we will never ever make contact. I believe that school bullies tend to have a social advantage all of their lives, not just in school. These are all horrible, horrible things for people to believe, and I don't suggest that anyone else believe in them. And I love believing in them. Any belief that makes a person uncomfortable is like a homing signal to me. Do you have this experience?

most of that is likely true, i agree. i share your appetite, though i can't think of other examples at the moment.

 

[BloodCountess88]

Yeah, a lot of people in America feared that creationists would try to take over the biological sciences, but I figure a greater concern are with those sciences where the ideologues have already become the establishment all over the world. The whole science of sociology and all of its sub-fields are now slaves to the egalitarians, which is an unfortunate thing. Evolutionary biologists are very often in conflict with the sociologists, and I almost always side with the evolutionary biologists.

Meh it wouldn't be sociology I'd look into, rather, neurology and psychology overall. Specially regarding rape/pedophilia. I do agree though that sociology has become biased and it is dangerous in a "bring on the pitchforks and lynch people" kind of way.

Although evolutionary biology there is really no support in your pedophilia statement other than concealed estrus which brings me to look into neurology (which is the field of the studies taking place). That's where OCD comes into play, weather OCD is the "cause" of it, we don't know and it would be fallacious to make such connection given the broad spectrum.


Regarding scientific racism, what makes it different than just say, genetic diversity? I'd love it if you could elaborate. Thanks for the book recommendations.

 

[Ink]

I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable.

Pedophilia is most likely because the person was himself sexually harassed as a child. Whether that makes it "natural" or not is up to discussion I guess, I definitely say it isn't though. Therapy could and should be able to solve it. Why the hell should it be socially acceptable?

The rest of your points are in some way true, but the way you phrase them is misleading/unnecessary.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Pedophilia is most likely because the person was himself sexually harassed as a child. Whether that makes it "natural" or not is up to discussion I guess, I definitely say it isn't though. Therapy could and should be able to solve it. Why the hell should it be socially acceptable?

The rest of your points are in some way true, but the way you phrase them is misleading/unnecessary.

If I were a pedophile, then I would have easier access to the mind of a pedophile. I am not a homosexual either, but I know that patterns existing among pedophiles are approximately the same as the patterns existing among homosexuals. They exist in every society with no apparent correlation to any cultural influence, including child abuse. That indicates it is natural, but there is no evolutionary reason to expect pedophilia, the same as homosexuality. I suspect that there are sexual mechanisms analogous to switches in every human nervous system that are set not in the genes but in embryological development. For most men, the switch is set to women. For most women, the switch is set to men. Likewise, for most adults, the switch is set to adults. It is by an uncommon developmental fluke that the switch is set the other way.

That is the argument that it is natural. However that isnt nearly the same argument that it should be socially acceptable. I may explain that argument later.

 

[Ink]

If I were a pedophile, then I would have easier access to the mind of a pedophile. I am not a homosexual either, but I know that patterns existing among pedophiles are approximately the same as the patterns existing among homosexuals. They exist in every society with no apparent correlation to any cultural influence, including child abuse. That indicates it is natural, but there is no evolutionary reason to expect pedophilia, the same as homosexuality. I suspect that there are sexual mechanisms analogous to switches in every human nervous system that are set not in the genes but in embryological development. For most men, the switch is set to women. For most women, the switch is set to men. Likewise, for most adults, the switch is set to adults. It is by an uncommon developmental fluke that the switch is set the other way.

I don't believe it works that way. I believe it is caused by psychological factors. Looking forward to hearing you explain why it should be socially acceptable

 

[Ink]

Oh, and about aliens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctnYAYcMhI

About 15 minutes in... It's unlikely

 

[Chad]

If I were a pedophile, then I would have easier access to the mind of a pedophile. I am not a homosexual either, but I know that patterns existing among pedophiles are approximately the same as the patterns existing among homosexuals. They exist in every society with no apparent correlation to any cultural influence, including child abuse. That indicates it is natural, but there is no evolutionary reason to expect pedophilia, the same as homosexuality. I suspect that there are sexual mechanisms analogous to switches in every human nervous system that are set not in the genes but in embryological development. For most men, the switch is set to women. For most women, the switch is set to men. Likewise, for most adults, the switch is set to adults. It is by an uncommon developmental fluke that the switch is set the other way.

That is the argument that it is natural. However that isnt nearly the same argument that it should be socially acceptable. I may explain that argument later.

This seem very well thought out and I would have to say I agree 99%. I would have to agree with others that one of the problems is the way you chose to present the argument. Not the argument itself. To say that something is wrong neurologically that makes someone a pedophile or homosexual isn't an ugly truth. However, to say that this mistake in the neurology is natural is taking it to a point that is uncomfortable and and unfounded. Just because something happens doens't make it natural. This would be like saying being a psychopath is natural.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Oh, and about aliens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GctnYAYcMhI

About 15 minutes in... It's unlikely

That's a great video. I watched all of it. I was previously indoctrinated into Carl Sagan's optimism about intelligent life on other world's, but a reality check was the total failure of SETI. It is also a plausible conclusion from an evolutionary perspective that intelligent life is extremely rare in the universe, because the reason why the human species has exceptional intelligence is by the bizarre fluke of runaway sexual selection--females selecting males that are most powerful, and/or powerful males selecting against the will of the females. Life is apparently rare, sexual divisions would be even more rare, runaway sexual selection would be rarer still, and rarest of all would runaway sexual selection that produces intelligence.

 

[BloodCountess88]

If I were a pedophile, then I would have easier access to the mind of a pedophile. I am not a homosexual either, but I know that patterns existing among pedophiles are approximately the same as the patterns existing among homosexuals. They exist in every society with no apparent correlation to any cultural influence, including child abuse. That indicates it is natural, but there is no evolutionary reason to expect pedophilia, the same as homosexuality. I suspect that there are sexual mechanisms analogous to switches in every human nervous system that are set not in the genes but in embryological development. For most men, the switch is set to women. For most women, the switch is set to men. Likewise, for most adults, the switch is set to adults. It is by an uncommon developmental fluke that the switch is set the other way.

That is the argument that it is natural. However that isnt nearly the same argument that it should be socially acceptable. I may explain that argument later.

Homosexuality happens among many mammals, however pedophilia is extremely rare in nature, humans having the largest example of it. Even weasels, who take on such behavior actually fertilize the eggs of the females on the nest so they are still passing on their sperm.

Homosexuality patterns and pedophilia patterns are extremely different.

There is proof of neuro-diversity. There is also a relation between atypical sexual behaviors and atypical brain function (one of the basis for diagnostics of atypical brain function). Unless there is proof that homosexuals aren't neurotypical (which there isn't), I think basing the "pedophilia is natural" argument in homosexuality's patterns is misleading.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Homosexuality happens among many mammals, however pedophilia is extremely rare in nature, humans having the largest example of it. Even weasels, who take on such behavior actually fertilize the eggs of the females on the nest so they are still passing on their sperm.

Homosexuality patterns and pedophilia patterns are extremely different.

There is proof of neuro-diversity. There is also a relation between atypical sexual behaviors and atypical brain function (one of the basis for diagnostics of atypical brain function). Unless there is proof that homosexuals aren't neurotypical (which there isn't), I think basing the "pedophilia is natural" argument in homosexuality's patterns is misleading.

What do you make of pedophilic behavior observed among bonobos?

 

[BloodCountess88]

Bonobos don't only display pedophilia behaviors, but the same pedophile bonobo also display homosexual/incestuous behavior that is not related to mating.

Basically, it doesn't fall in love, or have sexual preference. It's a social situation for them, after a conflict they have a gang bang and they have sex with everyone as an act of resolution. Pedophiles in our species don't behave that way.

They don't seek out an underdeveloped of their same species and mate. Even if you think it's the same thing because they do it, other than the bonobo, no other mammals do it. Unlike homosexual behavior which is found in MULTIPLE mammals and non mammals.

 

[SpiralHacker]

I like ugly truths.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Whenever you do have the time or the patience, there are two books on scientific racism that I recommend: The Bell Curve by Herrnstein and Murray, and Race, Evolution, and Behavior by J. Philippe Rushton. It is always important to separate "scientific racism" (a more derogatory but more descriptive term than "race realism") from political racism like white supremacy.

So is it due to that specific race (geno&phenotype?) lacking the "genes" to make them smart, or is it more of a location/resource thing? I haven't studied any "scientific racism" but it seems like some type of thing to be somewhat knowledgeable in.
If there's some race in some 3rd world country how could most of the individuals have any hope of... Realizing their true potential? I guess it could be circumstantial... Take a bunch of these unintelligent mongoloids and see which one can create fire first by rubbing twigs together? Dolphins are supposedly highly intelligent, but I don't see them doin' calculus.
I'm guessing in America typically blacks and probably, like, Mexicans, would be voted to be the least intelligent. Are we comparing poor lil' black girl who grew up in some ghetto to rich white kid who gets higher education for free? If we take all the poor black people in random ghetto neighborhood is it impossible to find one with the aspiration & ability to display their genius in a respectable & commendable manner? If blacks enslaved whites in Africa instead would it be reversed or is it something the matter with the actual race the prevents them from generally being more intelligent than some other race? Shape of the skull too small? Cultural matrices?

So like I said I haven't looked into it or checked those books out but I may, I guess, just to see what the deal is. Here's this book, just cause:

Amazon.com: Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern (Journal of African Civilizations) (9780878559411): Ivan Van Sertima: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41-DsDApHbL.@@AMEPARAM@@41-DsDApHbL

 

[ApostateAbe]

Bonobos don't only display pedophilia behaviors, but the same pedophile bonobo also display homosexual/incestuous behavior that is not related to mating.

Basically, it doesn't fall in love, or have sexual preference. It's a social situation for them, after a conflict they have a gang bang and they have sex with everyone as an act of resolution. Pedophiles in our species don't behave that way.

They don't seek out an underdeveloped of their same species and mate. Even if you think it's the same thing because they do it, other than the bonobo, no other mammals do it. Unlike homosexual behavior which is found in MULTIPLE mammals and non mammals.

I think that is a winning point. There is a big difference between incidents of sexual acts and a sexual orientation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

So is it due to that specific race (geno&phenotype?) lacking the "genes" to make them smart, or is it more of a location/resource thing? I haven't studied any "scientific racism" but it seems like some type of thing to be somewhat knowledgeable in.
If there's some race in some 3rd world country how could most of the individuals have any hope of... Realizing their true potential? I guess it could be circumstantial... Take a bunch of these unintelligent mongoloids and see which one can create fire first by rubbing twigs together? Dolphins are supposedly highly intelligent, but I don't see them doin' calculus.
I'm guessing in America typically blacks and probably, like, Mexicans, would be voted to be the least intelligent. Are we comparing poor lil' black girl who grew up in some ghetto to rich white kid who gets higher education for free? If we take all the poor black people in random ghetto neighborhood is it impossible to find one with the aspiration & ability to display their genius in a respectable & commendable manner? If blacks enslaved whites in Africa instead would it be reversed or is it something the matter with the actual race the prevents them from generally being more intelligent than some other race? Shape of the skull too small? Cultural matrices?

So like I said I haven't looked into it or checked those books out but I may, I guess, just to see what the deal is. Here's this book, just cause:

Amazon.com: Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern (Journal of African Civilizations) (9780878559411): Ivan Van Sertima: Books

There are a number of reasons why scientific racism conflicts with political racism, and one of those conflicts is that it is no scientific fact that all members of a less intelligent race are less intelligent than all members of a more intelligent race. Instead, the differences are merely the means of the normal distributions (aka "bell curves") of IQ, with many overlaps on the sides. This plot helps, representing the IQ of American blacks and whites, from Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve:

[bimgx=400]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-PtP-9Hzfe9s/T5eRcTfFFMI/AAAAAAAAAaI/02XRuV-KVZE/s1600/bell%2Bcurve%2Bn.jpg[/bimgx]

The overlap means that for each black person in America there is a white person of equal IQ. The tail ends of the best-fit curves converge on zero infinitely in each direction, which means blacks can have geniuses, though not as many as whites.

Another point of conflict between scientific racism and political racism is that whites are not actually the most intelligent race. That title belongs to the Ashkanazi Jews, having a mean IQ of 115, almost a full standard deviation (15) above whites (103), to the annoyance of white supremacists everywhere. East Asians also beat out whites, but by a few IQ points.

These differences in average IQ demand a good explanation, and I think a pretty good explanation is provided by J. Philippe Rushton in his book, Race, Evolution, and Behavior. He posits that equatorial populations adapted with greater r strategy of r/K selection theory, being less monogamous and bearing more children instead of focusing on a few children, a fitting strategy for a chaotic climate. The high latitude populations adapted with the K strategy, being more monogamous rearing fewer children with high focus for each child, a fitting strategy for a more stable climate. Rushton used data sets besides IQ to make his point, including average number of children, age of puberty, rate of monogamy, and other related values. Still, the theory has at least a few anomalies, including the Inuits and the Ashkanazi Jews, so, if true, it is not a complete explanation.

Herrnstein/Murray provides the data and a case for the legitimacy of the data, whereas Rushton provides the biological explanation, so I suggest reading the books in that order. For a more in-depth review, I would also suggest reading Stephen J. Gould's updated The Mismeasure of Man and Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel, each providing counterpoints to Herrnstein/Murray and Rushton, respectively.

 

[Jason43]

Some points to ponder on your theories.

I believe in scientific racism, that some populations are naturally stupider than others.

This largely can be explained by cultural/value differences between races. I'd imagine that an asian kid who was adopted by black parents and raised in public housing in the inner city would be way less likely to develop personality traits like the typical 'asian' work ethic math ability, etc. A black kid from the projects adopted by white upper middle class parents would be rewarded and encouraged to develop a different set of values and skills than someone who was raised in his original environment. A child who is raised in poverty is also more likely to be physically and emotionally abused, which is another issue in psychological development. This basically means that unfortunately, yes, there is clear cultural superiority between races in the world as it is, but it is largely cultural rather than purely racial.

I believe that suicide is the evolutionary mechanism for weeding out losers.

So is accidental death, social awkwardness and the resulting lack of reproductive opportunities, etc etc. Life sucks, get a helmet.

I believe that rape is the natural sexual tendency for men who otherwise can't score.

Rape is a primitive reproductive strategy in all males. Its there from being cave men. Just like the primitive male impulse to protect 'his' woman, or a woman or child in general, even when he may be hurt or killed is there. Also male jealousy of another man being physically with his woman is more prominent and a womans jealousy stems more from a man falling in love with another woman... this is because a man wants to make sure no other man mates and reproduces with his woman, and a woman wants to make sure that she is not replaced and loses her protection and assets that her mate provides. Anthropology, but probably not what they teach in a classroom.

I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable.

Pedophilia is a mental disorder usually caused by abuse suffered by the perpetrator. The main problem with making it 'socially acceptable' is that a child does not have any ability to consent. The problem lies in the initiation of force on another person, even if that person does not outwardly resist. They have no context for making decisions about what is happening to them.

I believe that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally subservient.

Generally true, but not politically correct.

I believe there is intelligent life in outer space and we will never ever make contact.

To think we are completely alone is arrogant. Space is too large for that to be the case. Also agree that because of distance and physics as they are known, I do not think it is possible to make contact.

I believe that school bullies tend to have a social advantage all of their lives, not just in school.

Not true. Most school bullies are insecure or abused 'S' types that end up getting their asses kicked in life and generally look back on high school as the glory days. Bullies end up doing manual labor while the kids they picked on go get an engineering degree and marry the cheerleader the bully used to bang when he mattered in life, aka school, the mental concentration camp that we are all herded into as children.

 

[Hadoblado]

The choice of words in the title was poor. These aren't truths, but I'm not certain the phenomenon as I understand it is limited to beliefs either. I have a tendency to think ugly thoughts, and I take satisfaction in the prospect that they might be true, but I don't necessarily believe them, nor would do I have any certainty as to whether they are true.

I think the satisfaction comes from comparatively superior use of Ti. Barely anyone in modern society will believe you, but the logic dictates certain conclusions given the truth value of your premises. There is also excitement in being able argue a position against someone that considers themselves logical, but cannot accept nor disprove your claims.

Is this is the same for others?

I agree that black people as a race have less intelligence (of at least the types measured by IQ tests). I also think that we cannot just assume that these differences are environmental. The assumption that all humans are created equal is unfounded and inconsistent with the data. The difference are largely environmental, this is known, but this does not rule out the possibility that at least some of the differences are not. Snafupants was a person who shared this view, though I thought him a little eager to the conclusion.

I'd like to note that The Bell Curve had substantial legitimate criticism leveled against it, not the least of which was that it was not peer reviewed before release. I have not read the book, and I don't base my understanding on it, but I'd be weary of accepting anything found within as true without applying the appropriate cynicism.

Wiki does a good summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

Suicide is an evolutionary mechanism, but I think that is a massive oversimplification, and the ramifications of this are less interesting than they would first appear. I'd need to see evidence to suggest that incompetence is positively correlated with suicide above that which is expected of competent people.

I disagree with your notion that school bullies are somehow more successful. Bullying is a valid business tactic, but I doubt it is a correlatory with success.

I add to the list of ugly thoughts:

- There is nothing innately evil about cannibalism, and it is possible to formally institutionalise cannibalism without adverse consequence to society.

- There is nothing wrong with inter-sibling incest so long as protection is used.

- Children should be allowed to be aborted up to the point at which they demonstrate cognitive capacity above that of an animal that we would happily kill. Their potential is without intrinsic value.

- Extinction of peripheral species is fine. The value of the environment is defined by the benefit it has to mankind, and they were going to die out eventually anyway.

- Women have many advantages over men, and I see no logical justification to artificially circumvent the glass ceiling.

- Capitalism is largely a force for good.

- The government should not enforce the care of disabled persons, and euthanasia should be a real option.

- Parenting classes should be mandatory.

- Nuclear weapons are a force for peace.

- Public access to guns and training are conducive to peaceful communities.

- Capital punishment should be a thing. It should require a higher burden of proof, but the annual $100,000 drain on government funds per prisoner is not worth keeping them alive.

 

[Words]

This is great stuff. I think this process of looking for ugly truths is very important. I don't do this. I usually just focus on the truth, but this consciousness for ugliness definitely weeds out the social baggages.

 

[Jason43]

Some less than popular truths I believe:

Patriotism is completely idiotic and should be mocked. Coincidentally I'm a Vet. I loathe when people 'thank me for my service' because I have military stuff on, like a hat or pin on my jacket. I want to argue with them but I'm polite because they mean well. I've stopped wearing anything identifiably military for this reason.

Governments do more harm than good and should be abolished.

Organized religion is a stone age method of social control and should be abandoned.

People are generally good, but they are also generally self interested.

Men are predators and women are prey and we are biologically programmed that way/there's nothing we can do about it.

Most people are stupid, or at least simple, and aren't interesting enough to talk to.

The world economy is going to implode and this country is going to become a totalitarian police state in the not too distant future.

I like uniqueness more than beauty.

I think women should look more curvy/womanly than almost anyone that is on TV. Christina Hendricks is what I find ideally attractive.

Thats all I can think of off the top of my head...

 

[own8ge]

Here is an ugly truth: I am stupid. And so are you.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Here is an ugly truth: I am stupid. And so are you.

No, both you and I are smarter than most. I am actually measurably smarter than 98% of the world. We may be stupid relative to Francis Galton, but the real bummer is that the rest of the world is not nearly as smart as we are, with hopelessly terrible consequences.

 

[TimeAsylums]

//disregarding most of your posts because of your choice to use very poor wording. If, in fact, that the word choice of using "stupid" and "ugly" was intentional and as means of a "shock value," still useless. All you need to do is post the facts, science, studies and if they indeed are facts then they will be true regardless of interpretation.

 

[ApostateAbe]

//disregarding most of your posts because of your choice to use very poor wording. If, in fact, that the word choice of using "stupid" and "ugly" was intentional and as means of a "shock value," still useless. All you need to do is post the facts, science, studies and if they indeed are facts then they will be true regardless of interpretation.

OK, are you curious about any particular claim?

 

[Jason43]

Here is an ugly truth: I am stupid. And so are you.

Socrates? Is that you?

 

[own8ge]

Socrates? Is that you?

Idk, am I / is it?

 

[TimeAsylums]

Idk, am I / is it?

warning: slight detour ahead, possible derailment:

own8ge, what's with the avatar pic hahahaah? some relation to Architect?

 

[own8ge]

warning: slight detour ahead, possible derailment:

own8ge, what's with the avatar pic hahahaah? some relation to Architect?

Consciousness is a result of having an interactive purpose, and personality is a manifestation of the dedication of consciousness, which is predefined by the consistent subjective prioritization for the sake of well-spent present moment.

For once I changed the prioritization of my consciousness's dedication forward to that of an INTP. Changing my temporal ego to that of an INTP and actually spend my energy in thoughts the way they do. Resulting me in spending my time acting on the impulsive thought I had whilst watching a video to make a screenshot and post it as an avatar picture because I thought it would be funny if I had the george carlin architect as architect has a quite popular avatar and so that my avatar would be a parody on architect's avatar. I gave that impulse enough energy due to my prioritization of an INTP, so that I would actually act on it. And that is when I made this avatar. Just because of some underlying reasoning that I considered logically funny. Stupid I know, but the INTP said no. You must do it because the avatar that you have now (my old avatar, the girl) is pathetic and has no reasoning behind it. Now I am back in INFJ modes however, orwell... I'm constantly switching, that is why I am posting so terribly much text. Anyhow, INFJ has the upper-hand. And now I'm like is this good? That I changed my avatar picture? And so I would think about my avatar picture and I'm like.. Sure, at least there is some reasoning behind it. So it must be significant or w/e. Ofcourse, it is merely idealistic. But everything is. Stupid human being. Ahh I digress, I will stop now before I write too much. Implying this is not too much either. Anyhow, I should stop having dialogues with myself. But I can't help it. I am constantly switching egos/personality_types. Sure it is noticeable that INFJ has the upper-hand. But don't be mistaken. All personality types play a hand in this extroverted thought-stream.

 

[TimeAsylums]

own8ge...you're such a NF hahahahaha, don't ever change.

 

[Hadoblado]

Interestingly, both me and Abe have depression/dysphoria, which predisposes us towards negative thoughts. That we have a similar style of 'ugly' thinking is unsurprising, but possibly indicative of some greater pattern in the perceptive processes of depressed rationals?

Any more of you ugly thinkers depressed?

 

[r4ch3l]

Short answer without reading whole thread before I run out: yes, and probably more than anything else in life.

Literal example (conceptual ones are more important but no time at the moment): the other day I told my (uh, now-ex) boyfriend that on my way to a meeting I had witnessed a homeless man die. Literally just as I walked by the paramedics were dispersing and giving up as he showed no vitals. When I told him this later in the day offhandedly he told me he was "sorry" that I "had to" witness such a thing. I looked at him wide-eyed and confused and explained that I felt almost blessed to have experienced such a thing. Death is private and swept away and to experience it firsthand yet momentarily and indirectly gives you a chance to contemplate fragility, purpose, choices, and so much more...

I also can relate to and understand other social outcasts typed as universally evil and see how they got to such an ugly place. In doing so I believe that I am actually less likely to become something like that.

 

[ApostateAbe]

Short answer without reading whole thread before I run out: yes, and probably more than anything else in life.

Literal example (conceptual ones are more important but no time at the moment): the other day I told my (uh, now-ex) boyfriend that on my way to a meeting I had witnessed a homeless man die. Literally just as I walked by the paramedics were dispersing and giving up as he showed no vitals. When I told him this later in the day offhandedly he told me he was "sorry" that I "had to" witness such a thing. I looked at him wide-eyed and confused and explained that I felt almost blessed to have experienced such a thing. Death is private and swept away and to experience it firsthand yet momentarily and indirectly gives you a chance to contemplate fragility, purpose, choices, and so much more...

I also can relate to and understand other social outcasts typed as universally evil and see how they got to such an ugly place. In doing so I believe that I am actually less likely to become something like that.

If you had said that to me, God help me, I would kiss you immediately.

 

[Etheri]

I believe some of the truths you stated are true. I believe some others are overgeneralisations in an attempt to come off as shocking.

Personally, I like what happens when you deny people and their 'causes' that they work for. I like to break down what they find important and work for because I think their opinions are uneducated or wrong. Ecologists are by far my favourite, because they're everywhere and so goddamn easy. Plenty of them buying things that are more expensive and use ecology as a marketing scam rather than actually being ecological.

But in general, I play with the idea that -fixing- certain aspects of the world often implies -saving lives-. Now that's wonderful, but too many humans is probably the cause for plenty of problems and we all die one day regardless.

No really, I just like being able to rationalise and justify my inaction and carelessness.

Ps. Own8ge is right as far as stupidity goes. The very smartest monkey is top 0.01%, but it's still just a dumb monkey. We may be top 2%, but that doesn't really imply intelligence. In fact, the more stupid we consider the general population, the less impressive our IQ scores truly are.

 

[Duxwing]

Ps. Own8ge is right as far as stupidity goes. The very smartest monkey is top 0.01%, but it's still just a dumb monkey. We may be top 2%, but that doesn't really imply intelligence. In fact, the more stupid we consider the general population, the less impressive our IQ scores truly are.

You're assuming that belonging to a certain group necessarily limits your intelligence. The top .01% monkey could be as smart as we are, and in the same way, a human in the top two percent of humans needn't be made dumb by the intelligence of the general population: his or her IQ scores could be off the charts.

Back on topic:

Ugly truths test the mind and will: they allow us to see how far we can take our logic before our emotions drag us back down again. And with each ugly truth, we grow stronger-- better able to handle the next one. Yet seeking out ugly truths for their ugliness alone is not logical training, but a yearning for feeling bent and warped by a misguided dedication to reason. Gore for the shock, abuse for the pathos, terror for the thrill, all of these feed our starving feelings when our logic won't set them free.

Hence, I seek out ugly truths when I need to sharpen and harden again, but not really for entertainment.

-Duxwing


P.S. Is my tone arrogant?

 

[ApostateAbe]

Ps. Own8ge is right as far as stupidity goes. The very smartest monkey is top 0.01%, but it's still just a dumb monkey. We may be top 2%, but that doesn't really imply intelligence. In fact, the more stupid we consider the general population, the less impressive our IQ scores truly are.

Some people say the glass is 98% full. You say the glass could be a lot bigger and it wouldnt be so full with a bigger glass.

 

[Spirit]

The ugly truth is many people with low IQ's like to talk about how black people have low IQ's. I wonder what percentage of racist people have lower IQ than higher IQ. The IQ test is such a limited tool to evaluate intellect.

A sign you are racist: you think that you are smarter or more athletic than another person because of their skin color.

 

[ApostateAbe]

The ugly truth is many people with low IQ's like to talk about how black people have low IQ's. I wonder what percentage of racist people have lower IQ than higher IQ. The IQ test is such a limited tool to evaluate intellect.

A sign you are racist: you think that you are smarter or more athletic than another person because of their skin color.

The weird thing about this is that I don't disagree with any of those statements.

 

[Duxwing]

The ugly truth is many people with low IQ's like to talk about how black people have low IQ's. I wonder what percentage of racist people have lower IQ than higher IQ. The IQ test is such a limited tool to evaluate intellect.

A sign you are racist: you think that you are smarter or more athletic than another person because of their skin color.

By that logic, "many people with low IQ's" who are, in addition, black, would agree with that statement. And if low IQ translates to low intelligence, then that statement, chillingly, makes sense: stupid people of any race will, in their stupidity, believe stupid things--even false things that reflect upon them poorly (e.g., people who are both black and stupid erroneously believing, perhaps because of a surrounding culture of anti-black racism, that they are stupid because they are black). TV Tropes calls this phenomenon "Internalized Categorism," and you can go there for more information on the subject.

-Duxwing

 

[Analyzer]

Aren't there only 3 races, White, Black, Asian(Mongoloid). Everything else is an extension of that according to science?

Also how is intelligence defined deductively. There is some epistemological problems regarding finding truths in humanity and the social sciences. All you can do is look at history and create theories. To find a truth in a logical sense, is to form an a priori statement that is self-evident without probabilities or empirical evidence.

 

[Wolf18]

I have a personal appetite for truths that almost everyone else hates. And it goes well beyond believing that there is no heaven. For example, I believe in scientific racism, that some populations are naturally stupider than others. I believe that suicide is the evolutionary mechanism for weeding out losers. I believe that rape is the natural sexual tendency for men who otherwise can't score. I believe that pedophilia is a natural sexual inclination for some people and should be socially acceptable. I believe that men are naturally dominant and women are naturally subservient. I believe there is intelligent life in outer space and we will never ever make contact. I believe that school bullies tend to have a social advantage all of their lives, not just in school. These are all horrible, horrible things for people to believe, and I don't suggest that anyone else believe in them. And I love believing in them. Any belief that makes a person uncomfortable is like a homing signal to me. Do you have this experience?

ApostateAbe, you are calling your beliefs "truths." If something is rationally debatable, it is not a truth. For example: a truth would be, "there are 24 hours in a day on planet Earth." if someone argued with that statement, they would not be able to logically get far. However, the statement "there is no God" has two impossible-to-prove sides.

I see a lot of "all," "never," and "believe" in your statement. You are aware, I assume, that statements with the words "all" and "never" are rarely true, and that "belief" has nothing to do with "truth"? The title of your thread should really be "Do You Love Ugly Beliefs?"