The importance of objectivity

[Hadoblado]

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

I mean, a representation of the thing that is imperfect is not going to perfectly capture the concept.

I know, I'm playing around. If it had been your proposed metaphor, it'd be more of a blow out. It's less that you got wiped out, and more that Chibi's analogy was saved from proving the exact opposite of what they intended.

Also, I didn't try to "pin" beliefs on you. I just tried to understand you because you're being close-mouthed after saying some pretty wild things. Your initial claim was extremely bold, but it seems like it's relatively tame just phrased without concern for people's interpretation.

e.g. plenty of utilitarians would also claim there is a correct solution to the icecream problem. It would depend on who's preferences are more severe. Hedonic calculus yadiya.

I think you complicated things by defining objective truth in relation to questions at all. Reality is objective. Our interpretation of it is not. The goal of truth-seeking is to overlap the two as much as possible. This feels like a much simpler position to hold without all the complications of poorly phrased questions and competing answers.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I think the concept of Truth is precisely what my view is based on. There's not an "extra step" I am taking with this. If Truth = what is, then whatever corresponds best to the reality of truth is what is most correct. Of course, things are only in a way "gray" because we can't actually do what is perfect. But this doesn't mean there is not, in reality, a perfect ideal. I just ground it in something as fundamental as it gets, which is Truth = what is.

Do you agree with the following?

"The truth is what it is regardless of whether someone asks a question. The truth isn't merely an answer. The truth just is."

If so, I think you do your position a disservice by phrasing your views in terms of questions and answers.

 

[Old Things]

Also, @Hadoblado,

Just to be clear, you are right that I didn't have a "sensitivity" to how I would be perceived. I almost never say something, thinking about how what I say will be interpreted. I just try to speak the truth to the best of my ability. I may try to be gentle and not a jerk in what I am saying (or at least I stick to the current discussion and don't use ad homs), but I am primarily concerned with saying what is true above anything else.

Okay, but you create massive amounts of work and confusion for anyone reading when you do this! Also, it causes frustration for you too. You thought I was trying to "pin" something on you, when all I was trying to do was clarify what at first seemed nonsensical. This is what's going to happen every time. Don't you get sick of it?

If you put this burden on people, it's little wonder so many of your conversations end up with frustration. You're attempting to communicate without communicating.

I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea how people are going to take what I say. This is why questions are very important.

The way I tend to "debate," for lack of a better term, is I say something I believe to be a rock-solid truth that I can back up. If people don't get what I say originally, they can ask what I mean. I ask people what they mean if I don't understand something. I ask a lot of clarifying questions, to the point that people don't like me asking them (as evidenced by your getting sick of my questions in the other thread).

There is this concept known in debate called "clash," which is where you will ask clarifying questions (ideally back and forth) so that you can get at the fundamental thing two people disagree about in a debate. Because sometimes it's not just the details that you disagree on, but two people are starting from very different axioms, to the point that "convincing" the other person is basically impossible since you are starting from very different points of view. For example, @Chibi seems to believe in some sort of subjective morality. I tried to point out how that idea just doesn't work in reality, and they basically noped-out of the conversation at that point.

 

[Chibi]

seems to believe in some sort of subjective morality. I tried to point out how that idea just doesn't work in reality, and they basically noped-out of the conversation at that point.

That's just not true man, I gave you a full blown deep dive into why I don't think there is a correct choice for everything. I noped out of the conversation only because other people were confused why we are discussing any of this at all, because like Hablo said, you kinda just spit out your idea of what you believe is true without context to anything concrete or real. And I know you won't listen to me so why would I continue an empty argument?

 

[Old Things]

Sorry OT you had me convinced! Shades of grey confirmed.

I mean, a representation of the thing that is imperfect is not going to perfectly capture the concept.

I know, I'm playing around. If it had been your proposed metaphor, it'd be more of a blow out. It's less that you got wiped out, and more that Chibi's analogy was saved from proving the exact opposite of what they intended.

Also, I didn't try to "pin" beliefs on you. I just tried to understand you because you're being close-mouthed after saying some pretty wild things. Your initial claim was extremely bold, but it seems like it's relatively tame just phrased without concern for people's interpretation.

e.g. plenty of utilitarians would also claim there is a correct solution to the icecream problem. It would depend on who's preferences are more severe. Hedonic calculus yadiya.

I think you complicated things by defining objective truth in relation to questions at all. Reality is objective. Our interpretation of it is not. The goal of truth-seeking is to overlap the two as much as possible. This feels like a much simpler position to hold without all the complications of poorly phrased questions and competing answers.

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but I think the concept of Truth is precisely what my view is based on. There's not an "extra step" I am taking with this. If Truth = what is, then whatever corresponds best to the reality of truth is what is most correct. Of course, things are only in a way "gray" because we can't actually do what is perfect. But this doesn't mean there is not, in reality, a perfect ideal. I just ground it in something as fundamental as it gets, which is Truth = what is.

Do you agree with the following?

"The truth is what it is regardless of whether someone asks a question. The truth isn't merely an answer. The truth just is."

If so, I think you do your position a disservice by phrasing your views in terms of questions and answers.

Questing AKA inquiries (I call them inquiries and not necessarily questions originally because it may be more like, for example, a question from Jeopardy rather than a question with an actual question mark at the end) are paramount to my view because it's really the only way we can really ascertain what is true because we are not omniscient and have to learn what is the Truth = what is.

 

[Old Things]

seems to believe in some sort of subjective morality. I tried to point out how that idea just doesn't work in reality, and they basically noped-out of the conversation at that point.

That's just not true man, I gave you a full blown deep dive into why I don't think there is a correct choice for everything. I noped out of the conversation only because other people were confused why we are discussing any of this at all, because like Hablo said, you kinda just spit out your idea of what you believe is true without context to anything concrete or real. And I know you won't listen to me so why would I continue an empty argument?

Your idea of subjective morality doesn't work, and I showed exactly why that is the case. WTF does it matter what other people think of what we were saying? We were discussing the point of the thread!

 

[Chibi]

Man I just wanna know which flavor to get

We were discussing the point of the thread!

Honestly, not really. You can tell, because multiple people came in to say how we've gotten sidetracked from the original point of the thread, and I completely agreed with them.

Your idea of subjective morality doesn't work, and I showed exactly why that is the case.

Your idea of objective morality is based completely on your religious beliefs, and the fact that you don't want to say that outright is making all your points sound delusional and all over the place

Which is fine. I'm not saying it's not fine. It's fine. I just can't argue with you any more because my fundamental "truth" and your own are completely separate. Which honestly proves my point perfectly but I digress

 

[Hadoblado]

The original point of the thread was a pretense so that Cog could debate trans people again. That said, I don't think we're off-topic in discussing objectivity, Chibi. It's the thread title.

Chibi you're getting too personal w/ OT. He's deliberately holding back religious stuff on my request for him not to derail threads with his religion. You are not a moderator. If you think he's breaking a rule, report him and I'll adjudicate. But accusing him of breaking rules is a derail and not really your role.

Also, you need to stop treating this like a chat app. Posting back-to-back should be very rare. Four posts in a row is definitely too much. I'll merge them, but please in future hold from posting until you've completed your thought.

 

[Old Things]

We were discussing the point of the thread!

Honestly, not really. You can tell, because multiple people came in to say how we've gotten sidetracked from the original point of the thread, and I completely agreed with them.

There was ONE PERSON that said that, which was @ZenRaiden, who is starting way out in left field from the way I see things.

Your idea of subjective morality doesn't work, and I showed exactly why that is the case.

Your idea of objective morality is based completely on your religious beliefs, and the fact that you don't want to say that outright is making all your points sound delusional and all over the place

I never appealed to my religion or God in this whole conversation. There are atheists who would agree with everything I have said in this thread. I even told @Hadoblado, which I am now bringing up again, that I am not even thinking about God in this conversation. I explicitly said that my view of God has no bearing on my views on objectivity, morality, and truth in this thread.

 

[Chibi]

The original point of the thread was a pretense so that Cog could debate trans people again. That said, I don't think we're off-topic in discussing objectivity, Chibi. It's the thread title.

Chibi you're getting too personal w/ OT. He's deliberately holding back religious stuff on my request for him not to derail threads with his religion. You are not a moderator. If you think he's breaking a rule, report him and I'll adjudicate. But accusing him of breaking rules is a derail and not really your role.

Also, you need to stop treating this like a chat app. Posting back-to-back should be very rare. Four posts in a row is definitely too much. I'll merge them, but please in future hold from posting until you've completed your thought.

Noted.

OT, Im sorry for bringing up religion. I genuinely don't mean to start another religious argument, it's just that that's where the idea of objective morality originates in my head. I'm sorry that I can become quite argumentative with my own personal beliefs, I hold very strong convictions about things if you can't tell.

I really don't know where to go from here without going in circles, because I feel like I've explained my view of things very directly, and you haven't understood it or reasoned with it at all. so I'm gonna step away from a bit so others can jump in

Edit: And I wasn't trying to accuse him of breaking rules at all, I was genuinely pointing out that his ideas come from his religion. I don't mean or want to go into religion, I just wanted to confirm that that's where his ideas originate. I really wasn't trying to accuse him of rule breaking. Didn't even know that was a rule.

 

[Hadoblado]

Whether his ideas come from his religion or not:

a) He was proceeding in this argument as if they didn't. No part of his premises were religious.
b) We are able to engage with them regardless of their origin.

You are free to have strong convictions but they shouldn't cause this sort of escalation. While trans stuff is a sensitive topic, objectivity is not - and doesn't warrant this level of reactivity. You need to be comfortable disagreeing when differences are merely academic.

 

[Chibi]

Whether his ideas come from his religion or not:

a) He was proceeding in this argument as if they didn't. No part of his premises were religious.
b) We are able to engage with them regardless of their origin.

You are free to have strong convictions but they shouldn't cause this sort of escalation. While trans stuff is a sensitive topic, objectivity is not - and doesn't warrant this level of reactivity. You need to be comfortable disagreeing when differences are merely academic.

Yeah I'm sorry, I thought that was the entire point of this thread because that's what cog opened with and that's what was primarily addressed before the philosophy stuff. You pointing out that this thread is mainly about objectivity and not the objectivity of trans rights, and that it was just cog spewing hate, made me rethink it, so I will admit I was in the wrong for wanting to circle back to the topic of trans rights. And I do apologize for bringing up religion.

Again, I'm stepping away from this thread for now because I do tend to escalate things.

 

[fluffy]

Not my place to criticize, but if you want to move this discussion into something more tangible instead of gibberish and fiddling with words, then you have to provide a framework at least.
Because its whole lot of claims that are flying around, and no grounding to it.

Truth is truth and?
Subjective is not objective and?
We should strive for objectivity and?
People reason differently and?
My assumptions are different then yours and?
There are shades of grey and?

....literally just saying stuff that means nothing and is out of any real context.... leads to no objective criteria. Which just means we are still not closer to reasoning proper about reality.
This all said I don't want to say what is happening is wrong, but it does betray the point of OP.

How does one create a framework?

I think I have one but I don't know how to explain it.

I believe it's to do with self reflection and analysis of what comes out of it.

So reality is the way it is but in organizing those puzzle pieces I come to a bigger a picture, this is ever expanding and hard to dismantle overall but there are bits that crumble often I need to reassess.

I guess I look at things from a hierarchical view but at different angles when I shift around the levels.

This might be how Plato and Aristotle could be a new synthesis.

 

[ZenRaiden]

How does one create a framework?

I was using the word "framework" as something we can agree on linguistically that we can actually talk about how we reason.

You see everyone here assumes we have same concepts of things, but clearly we don't.

It would take forever to figure out who believes what and what assumptions are at play.

In normal world we make assumptions.
IN philosophy you have to make assumptions a priory and then work out the philosophy. That way when other philosophers agree with your core assumptions they can point out flaws in your reasoning.
Or they can attack the core assumption thus attack the core foundations like where philosophers can disagree whether the world is knowable or unknowable.

Or if someone is using wrong type of logic like saying something ridiculous like trans people are people therefore all people are penguins.

The issue here is we can't actually talk philosophy if a priory assumptions are different, because then that follows that if we are logically consistent we end up in different positions.

 

[Chibi]

Can we start by pointing out some examples of what is objective and what is subjective?

Objective: The earth is round and so are golf balls

Subjective: My favorite movie is Oldboy

(or would "I believe Oldboy is the best movie ever made" be a better example of subjectivity? Because that is stating a claim of something I personally believe is true, but others might not)

 

[fluffy]

How does one create a framework?

I was using the word "framework" as something we can agree on linguistically that we can actually talk about how we reason.

You see everyone here assumes we have same concepts of things, but clearly we don't.

It would take forever to figure out who believes what and what assumptions are at play.

In normal world we make assumptions.
IN philosophy you have to make assumptions a priory and then work out the philosophy. That way when other philosophers agree with your core assumptions they can point out flaws in your reasoning.
Or they can attack the core assumption thus attack the core foundations like where philosophers can disagree whether the world is knowable or unknowable.

Or if someone is using wrong type of logic like saying something ridiculous like trans people are people therefore all people are penguins.

The issue here is we can't actually talk philosophy if a priory assumptions are different, because then that follows that if we are logically consistent we end up in different positions.

I see that.

I don't think cog had a core argument what a woman is or is not. I don't think we cannot objectively know. We can objectively know. But getting there takes time and less emotional agitation.

Physical appearance is one thing but I also said psychological behavior and mode of being is important. Women or girls or females all should share psych traits males don't have or we get no distinction.

I have intuition on what a male or female is like. But I cannot make concrete terms that everyone agrees to. It's an aura of maleness or femaleness words make hard to describe properly. In text examples the way men and women write has been studied. I don't know if they use different words but they do combine them in ways unlike each other as to make clear who might be a gender by certain percentages.

 

[Old Things]

How does one create a framework?

I was using the word "framework" as something we can agree on linguistically that we can actually talk about how we reason.

You see everyone here assumes we have same concepts of things, but clearly we don't.

It would take forever to figure out who believes what and what assumptions are at play.

In normal world we make assumptions.
IN philosophy you have to make assumptions a priory and then work out the philosophy. That way when other philosophers agree with your core assumptions they can point out flaws in your reasoning.
Or they can attack the core assumption thus attack the core foundations like where philosophers can disagree whether the world is knowable or unknowable.

Or if someone is using wrong type of logic like saying something ridiculous like trans people are people therefore all people are penguins.

The issue here is we can't actually talk philosophy if a priory assumptions are different, because then that follows that if we are logically consistent we end up in different positions.

I see that.

I don't think cog had a core argument what a woman is or is not. I don't think we cannot objectively know. We can objectively know. But getting there takes time and less emotional agitation.

Physical appearance is on thing but I also said psychological behavior and mode of being is important. Women or girls or females all should share psych traits nales don't have or we get no distinction.

I have intuition on what a male or female is like. But I cannot make concrete terms that everyone agrees to. It's an aura of maleness or femaleness word make hard to describe properly. In text examples the way men and women write has been studied. I don't know if they use different words but they do combine them in ways unlike each other as to make clear who might be a gender by certain percentages.

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

 

[fluffy]

How does one create a framework?

I was using the word "framework" as something we can agree on linguistically that we can actually talk about how we reason.

You see everyone here assumes we have same concepts of things, but clearly we don't.

It would take forever to figure out who believes what and what assumptions are at play.

In normal world we make assumptions.
IN philosophy you have to make assumptions a priory and then work out the philosophy. That way when other philosophers agree with your core assumptions they can point out flaws in your reasoning.
Or they can attack the core assumption thus attack the core foundations like where philosophers can disagree whether the world is knowable or unknowable.

Or if someone is using wrong type of logic like saying something ridiculous like trans people are people therefore all people are penguins.

The issue here is we can't actually talk philosophy if a priory assumptions are different, because then that follows that if we are logically consistent we end up in different positions.

I see that.

I don't think cog had a core argument what a woman is or is not. I don't think we cannot objectively know. We can objectively know. But getting there takes time and less emotional agitation.

Physical appearance is on thing but I also said psychological behavior and mode of being is important. Women or girls or females all should share psych traits nales don't have or we get no distinction.

I have intuition on what a male or female is like. But I cannot make concrete terms that everyone agrees to. It's an aura of maleness or femaleness word make hard to describe properly. In text examples the way men and women write has been studied. I don't know if they use different words but they do combine them in ways unlike each other as to make clear who might be a gender by certain percentages.

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

You don't believe there is any psychological differences between male and female?

 

[Old Things]

How does one create a framework?

I was using the word "framework" as something we can agree on linguistically that we can actually talk about how we reason.

You see everyone here assumes we have same concepts of things, but clearly we don't.

It would take forever to figure out who believes what and what assumptions are at play.

In normal world we make assumptions.
IN philosophy you have to make assumptions a priory and then work out the philosophy. That way when other philosophers agree with your core assumptions they can point out flaws in your reasoning.
Or they can attack the core assumption thus attack the core foundations like where philosophers can disagree whether the world is knowable or unknowable.

Or if someone is using wrong type of logic like saying something ridiculous like trans people are people therefore all people are penguins.

The issue here is we can't actually talk philosophy if a priory assumptions are different, because then that follows that if we are logically consistent we end up in different positions.

I see that.

I don't think cog had a core argument what a woman is or is not. I don't think we cannot objectively know. We can objectively know. But getting there takes time and less emotional agitation.

Physical appearance is on thing but I also said psychological behavior and mode of being is important. Women or girls or females all should share psych traits nales don't have or we get no distinction.

I have intuition on what a male or female is like. But I cannot make concrete terms that everyone agrees to. It's an aura of maleness or femaleness word make hard to describe properly. In text examples the way men and women write has been studied. I don't know if they use different words but they do combine them in ways unlike each other as to make clear who might be a gender by certain percentages.

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

You don't believe there is any psychological differences between male and female?

I do, but those are generalities, and there are exceptions. There are masculine women and feminine men. This does not change their biology. I am actually quite a bit more feminine as a male than most men. This in no way makes me any less of a man because my manhood is based on biology, not my personality. If not, then, of course, everything is up for grabs and a person can identify any way they want no matter hor ridiculous like this guy:

 

[fluffy]

I do, but those are generalities, and there are exceptions. There are masculine women and feminine men. This does not change their biology. I am actually quite a bit more feminine as a male than most men. This in no way makes me any less of a man because my manhood is based on biology, not my personality. If not, then, of course, everything is up for grabs and a person can identify any way they want no matter hor ridiculous like this guy:

So what do you think about males who are 90% psychologically female. Would you say that they are more or less trans?

 

[Hadoblado]

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Old Things, I'm going to hold to the standard you prescribe here:

It must be nearly every day that someone assumes something about my position that I did not explicitly say.

The problem, in part, is that we live in a highly polarized culture, where we often assume what people's views are because we associate a person's arguments with "being like" a group of people we think we know something about. I have been guilty of this myself, with @Hadoblado probably taking the brunt of this from me on this forum.

Another problem in today's culture is that people are not very curious. They don't really care to understand what other people's views are. We are very argumentative in our anonymous online presence.

I think a good rule of thumb to help combat these problems is to only argue against (given you disagree) a person's position based only on what they have actually said, or, better yet, argue against the position you think could be made a better way than the way they have tried to articulate their position. This is called steelmanning. And if you can steelman a person's perspective and argue against it, that will make you a very formidable debater.

...

It's not good enough to dismiss it as sophistry without trying to understand it. It is also incredibly poor judgement on your part to continue the line of attack that contributed to Cog's banning.

If you progress with discussing trans issues, I will see evidence of you trying to understand alternative positions or you will receive a ban. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to meet your own standard. Dismissing an alternative perspective as sophistry without supporting reasoning is not a steel man and is the opposite of curiosity.

I strongly recommend you try summarising what you think other people are saying to check if you're actually addressing their beliefs before reducing their positions to sophistry.

 

[Old Things]

I do, but those are generalities, and there are exceptions. There are masculine women and feminine men. This does not change their biology. I am actually quite a bit more feminine as a male than most men. This in no way makes me any less of a man because my manhood is based on biology, not my personality. If not, then, of course, everything is up for grabs and a person can identify any way they want no matter hor ridiculous like this guy:

So what do you think about males who are 90% psychologically female. Would you say that they are more or less trans?

You would need to prove that that is a reality, and we don't even know enough about the brain/mind differences between males and females to be able to show this.

 

[fluffy]

I do, but those are generalities, and there are exceptions. There are masculine women and feminine men. This does not change their biology. I am actually quite a bit more feminine as a male than most men. This in no way makes me any less of a man because my manhood is based on biology, not my personality. If not, then, of course, everything is up for grabs and a person can identify any way they want no matter hor ridiculous like this guy:

So what do you think about males who are 90% psychologically female. Would you say that they are more or less trans?

You would need to prove that that is a reality, and we don't even know enough about the brain/mind differences between males and females to be able to show this.

What do you believe the psychology of female to be then?

 

[Old Things]

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Old Things, I'm going to hold to the standard you prescribe here:

It must be nearly every day that someone assumes something about my position that I did not explicitly say.

The problem, in part, is that we live in a highly polarized culture, where we often assume what people's views are because we associate a person's arguments with "being like" a group of people we think we know something about. I have been guilty of this myself, with @Hadoblado probably taking the brunt of this from me on this forum.

Another problem in today's culture is that people are not very curious. They don't really care to understand what other people's views are. We are very argumentative in our anonymous online presence.

I think a good rule of thumb to help combat these problems is to only argue against (given you disagree) a person's position based only on what they have actually said, or, better yet, argue against the position you think could be made a better way than the way they have tried to articulate their position. This is called steelmanning. And if you can steelman a person's perspective and argue against it, that will make you a very formidable debater.

...

It's not good enough to dismiss it as sophistry without trying to understand it. It is also incredibly poor judgement on your part to continue the line of attack that contributed to Cog's banning.

If you progress with discussing trans issues, I will see evidence of you trying to understand alternative positions or you will receive a ban. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to meet your own standard. Dismissing an alternative perspective as sophistry without supporting reasoning is not a steel man and is the opposite of curiosity.

I strongly recommend you try summarising what you think other people are saying to check if you're actually addressing their beliefs before reducing their positions to sophistry.

Hado, nothing I have said is inconsistent. I recall I explicitly told you how I go about a debate. I lead off with something I am very confident is true, and if people disagree, then we can debate it. This is the style I go about conversations and debates. Your worldview is different than mine on this issue. You are not taking into account how I generally approach what I say, which I have already told you very clearly in this very thread.

Also, @Hadoblado,

Just to be clear, you are right that I didn't have a "sensitivity" to how I would be perceived. I almost never say something, thinking about how what I say will be interpreted. I just try to speak the truth to the best of my ability. I may try to be gentle and not a jerk in what I am saying (or at least I stick to the current discussion and don't use ad homs), but I am primarily concerned with saying what is true above anything else.

Okay, but you create massive amounts of work and confusion for anyone reading when you do this! Also, it causes frustration for you too. You thought I was trying to "pin" something on you, when all I was trying to do was clarify what at first seemed nonsensical. This is what's going to happen every time. Don't you get sick of it?

If you put this burden on people, it's little wonder so many of your conversations end up with frustration. You're attempting to communicate without communicating.

I'm not a mind reader. I have no idea how people are going to take what I say. This is why questions are very important.

The way I tend to "debate," for lack of a better term, is I say something I believe to be a rock-solid truth that I can back up. If people don't get what I say originally, they can ask what I mean. I ask people what they mean if I don't understand something. I ask a lot of clarifying questions, to the point that people don't like me asking them (as evidenced by your getting sick of my questions in the other thread).

There is this concept known in debate called "clash," which is where you will ask clarifying questions (ideally back and forth) so that you can get at the fundamental thing two people disagree about in a debate. Because sometimes it's not just the details that you disagree on, but two people are starting from very different axioms, to the point that "convincing" the other person is basically impossible since you are starting from very different points of view. For example, @Chibi seems to believe in some sort of subjective morality. I tried to point out how that idea just doesn't work in reality, and they basically noped-out of the conversation at that point.

What am I basing this idea of sophistry on? It's not just an idea I came up with by myself.

It actually started in France hundreds of years ago. It is when people started to question or outright reject objectivity (the topic of this thread). It was a complete revolution of thought premised on the idea that things are relative rather than objective. This started a great debate that continues today on whether reality is objective or relative. The battle for objective truth has been raging ever since. Now, maybe you think there is no connection. However, consider that this is also when people in favor of relativism sought to alter the core definitions of words. In other words, what something means is now relative rather than based on something we can all agree with (also the topic of this thread).

 

[Old Things]

What do you believe the psychology of female to be then?

There are only generalities, not absolutes, with this.

For example, the Western world is completely lopsided in favor of females taking nursing jobs rather than men. This, for sure, says something about what women are like. Likewise, men are much more likely to be mechanics. These are generalities, but they demonstrate a trend that is hard to ignore.

 

[fluffy]

What do you believe the psychology of female to be then?

There are only generalities, not absolutes, with this.

For example, the Western world is completely lopsided in favor of females taking nursing jobs rather than men. This, for sure, says something about what women are like. Likewise, men are much more likely to be mechanics. These are generalities, but they demonstrate a trend that is hard to ignore.

This is one way to make distinctions.

Yes males seems to be about manipulation of things more so than being involved with living creatures.

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is close to how emotions happens in the genders as well.

This is also why it's hard sometimes for men and women to understand each other because they are coming from opposite orientations.

 

[Chibi]

This, for sure, says something about what women are like. Likewise, men are much more likely to be mechanics

You do know that there are female mechanics and male nurses, right? The only reason men and women gravitate towards a specific type of job is because of centuries long sexist cultural ideals, many of which don't exist anymore.

 

[Chibi]

This is also why it's hard sometimes for men and women to understand each other because they are coming from opposite orientations.

Yes, exactly what fluffy said; the biological male and female are inherently different in both brain and body. Nobody is arguing that.

This in no way shows why it's incorrect or wrong for a male to transition to female, though. You are arguing sex, when you should be arguing gender.

Yes, their body and mind won't change from when they were born on a biological level, but the concept of "gender" is extremely fluid. Gender is more of a personality trait, it's what you relate to the most.

 

[Hadoblado]

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Old Things, I'm going to hold to the standard you prescribe here:

It must be nearly every day that someone assumes something about my position that I did not explicitly say.

The problem, in part, is that we live in a highly polarized culture, where we often assume what people's views are because we associate a person's arguments with "being like" a group of people we think we know something about. I have been guilty of this myself, with @Hadoblado probably taking the brunt of this from me on this forum.

Another problem in today's culture is that people are not very curious. They don't really care to understand what other people's views are. We are very argumentative in our anonymous online presence.

I think a good rule of thumb to help combat these problems is to only argue against (given you disagree) a person's position based only on what they have actually said, or, better yet, argue against the position you think could be made a better way than the way they have tried to articulate their position. This is called steelmanning. And if you can steelman a person's perspective and argue against it, that will make you a very formidable debater.

...

It's not good enough to dismiss it as sophistry without trying to understand it. It is also incredibly poor judgement on your part to continue the line of attack that contributed to Cog's banning.

If you progress with discussing trans issues, I will see evidence of you trying to understand alternative positions or you will receive a ban. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to meet your own standard. Dismissing an alternative perspective as sophistry without supporting reasoning is not a steel man and is the opposite of curiosity.

I strongly recommend you try summarising what you think other people are saying to check if you're actually addressing their beliefs before reducing their positions to sophistry.

Hado, nothing I have said is inconsistent. I recall I explicitly told you how I go about a debate. I lead off with something I am very confident is true, and if people disagree, then we can debate it. This is the style I go about conversations and debates. Your worldview is different than mine on this issue. You are not taking into account how I generally approach what I say, which I have already told you very clearly in this very thread.

What am I basing this idea of sophistry on? It's not just an idea I came up with by myself.

It actually started in France hundreds of years ago. It is when people started to question or outright reject objectivity (the topic of this thread). It was a complete revolution of thought premised on the idea that things are relative rather than objective. This started a great debate that continues today on whether reality is objective or relative. The battle for objective truth has been raging ever since. Now, maybe you think there is no connection. However, consider that this is also when people in favor of relativism sought to alter the core definitions of words. In other words, what something means is now relative rather than based on something we can all agree with (also the topic of this thread).

When you say:

Look at the woo woo or wee wee. That is how you know if a person is male or female. People reject this common-sense approach because of sophistry.

Your are making a claim not about France 500 years ago, but the people that disagree with you right now. You are dismissing my and other's view(s) as sophistry without understanding them. I am not a relativist or whatever. I believe in objective reality. I also believe in gender. Some alarm bells should be ringing for you that I can hold these two perspectives simultaneously.

You are not steel-manning, you are not being curious. You are in fact being everything you say is wrong with society. Show me you are better than what you criticise others for.

 

[Old Things]

This, for sure, says something about what women are like. Likewise, men are much more likely to be mechanics

You do know that there are female mechanics and male nurses, right? The only reason men and women gravitate towards a specific type of job is because of centuries long sexist cultural ideals, many of which don't exist anymore.

No, that is wrong.

"The more egalitarian and rich a society is, the greater the differences between the sexes. In Norway, you therefore have the biggest differences between men and women. This materialises in working life: men become engineers, women become nurses," Peterson said, as quoted by the Norwegian daily Aftenposten.

https://www.sott.net/article/405390-Finnish-study-confirms-Jordan-Petersons-take-on-Nordic-feminism-and-gender-equity-in-employment

 

[Chibi]

You know that the modern gender revolution is only like, a couple decades old right? In the grand scheme of things it's incredibly recent. It takes time to break away from societal norms that have been established over centuries

 

[Old Things]

Your are making a claim not about France 500 years ago, but the people that disagree with you right now. You are dismissing my and other's view(s) as sophistry without understanding them. I am not a relativist or whatever. I believe in objective reality. I also believe in gender. Some alarm bells should be ringing for you that I can hold these two perspectives simultaneously.

You are not steel-manning, you are not being curious. You are in fact being everything you say is wrong with society. Show me you are better than what you criticise others for.

Please look in the mirror. You are largely an anomaly of society, Hado. If you want to argue for YOUR POSITION, please do so. I am talking about HOW the conversation about subjectivity got off the ground in the first place with sophistry. The general trend I am talking about is correct. Just because you are an anomaly (and BTW, you have not actually made any positive arguments about this) doesn't mean that history doesn't bear out that I am right, that much of the transgender fiasco started WITH the French Revolution. If you have a different view, or if you think your view is different, please discuss YOUR view. I don't know what YOUR VIEW is until you actually say what your view is. I am talking about the origin of the debate. If you disagree with me about the origin, please provide contrary evidence.

 

[Chibi]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

 

[fluffy]

Actually woo woo and wee wee psychology is a indepth topic in itself.

Why do girls and guys like the opposite parts.

Very curious?

 

[Old Things]

You know that the modern gender revolution is only like, a couple decades old right? In the grand scheme of things it's incredibly recent. It takes time to break away from societal norms that have been established over centuries

Yeah? I don't WANT to break away from the social norms! So far, doing so has been nothing but disastrous.

 

[fluffy]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

By externalizing I mean taking control which may not be introvert or extravert per say.

Internalizing might be with the emotions and body but so to the externalization I am not sure fit jungian categories.

 

[Old Things]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

By externalizing I mean taking control which may not be introvert or extravert per say.

Internalizing might be with the emotions and body but so to the externalization I am not sure fit jungian categories.

I think it is just more accurate to say men care about things more and women care about people more.

 

[Chibi]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

By externalizing I mean taking control which may not be introvert or extravert per say.

Internalizing might be with the emotions and body but so to the externalization I am not sure fit jungian categories.

But wouldn't you agree that introverts are more internalizing with their thoughts and emotions?

 

[Hadoblado]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

 

[Chibi]

Why do girls and guys like the opposite parts.

Sometimes they like the same parts, hey

 

[fluffy]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

By externalizing I mean taking control which may not be introvert or extravert per say.

Internalizing might be with the emotions and body but so to the externalization I am not sure fit jungian categories.

But wouldn't you agree that introverts are more internalizing with their thoughts and emotions?

Yes

I might point out that psychology is not a science. MBTI could be used in a way to make masculine and feminine distinctions. I have said the big data machines can make categories in this way even. But it's complex when some people are fine with any gender in any mbti type.

 

[Hadoblado]

Psychology is a science.

 

[fluffy]

Psychology is a science.

Was it all the time?

I thought it's predictive capabilities were severely lacking in empirical status long ago?

 

[Old Things]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

 

[Chibi]

The way I have heard it out is the men are externalizing and women are internalizing.

This is interesting fluffy. Do you think introverts tend to be more feminine than extroverts, in that case? Because I can see that.

By externalizing I mean taking control which may not be introvert or extravert per say.

Internalizing might be with the emotions and body but so to the externalization I am not sure fit jungian categories.

But wouldn't you agree that introverts are more internalizing with their thoughts and emotions?

Yes

I might point out that psychology is not a science. MBTI could be used in a way to make masculine and feminine distinctions. I have said the big data machines can make categories in this way even. But it's complex when some people are fine with any gender in any mbti type.

That's a good point. Although I tend to notice that more people who differ from their gender assigned at birth happen to be introverts than extroverts. I have no proof of this, just an observation.

I think the traits that we believe make masculinity and femininity are extremely fluid in themselves. Nobody is psychologically 100% masc or 100% fem. In a way, everybody is on the spectrum between the two. Even OT admitted that.

It's really not hard to believe that when that spectrum in somebody's head slides past 50% they could want to externally present themselves in a separate way, whether that be full on transitioning, changing their pronouns, or just changing their clothes.

And if that makes them more comfortable, then what's the harm? Objectively speaking, they are still the same person they were before. All that changes is how they present themselves externally.

 

[Hadoblado]

Psychology is a science.

Was it all the time?

I thought it's predictive capabilities were severely lacking in empirical status long ago?

It started off more like an area of philosophy, but shifted toward science over time. While there are obstacles to understanding that other sciences might not have (i.e. the subject matter it extremely complicated making predictive validity difficult), modern psychology adheres to the scientific method and is therefore a science.

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

 

[ZenRaiden]

I see that.

I don't think cog had a core argument what a woman is or is not. I don't think we cannot objectively know. We can objectively know. But getting there takes time and less emotional agitation.

Physical appearance is one thing but I also said psychological behavior and mode of being is important. Women or girls or females all should share psych traits males don't have or we get no distinction.

I have intuition on what a male or female is like. But I cannot make concrete terms that everyone agrees to. It's an aura of maleness or femaleness words make hard to describe properly. In text examples the way men and women write has been studied. I don't know if they use different words but they do combine them in ways unlike each other as to make clear who might be a gender by certain percentages.

My key concern here is that no one defined objective, subjective, male or female, but everyone complaining that they are misunderstood or their sensibilities got hurt.

Both sides are arguing their points, but if you look at what happened no one really constructed an argument.

Everyone is just disagreeing on very superficial level.
Some disagreements don't even make sense.

For instance even how we arrive at the truth is subject to lot of debate in philosophy, we are using philosophy here as if its a tool, but core assumptions are key to philosophy. That is we always start with assumptions.

So clearly the debate is moot until either someone defines a woman, or what it means to be male, or objective and subjective.

If everyone evades the criteria, then what exactly are we talking about?

That is what I mean by substance.
The substance of a framework will be something that will allow us to reason on even plane.

So if we don't know what woman is that is also valid open ended term.

 

[Chibi]

While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts.

Exactly. Objectively speaking, a trans woman is biologically a man. ALSO objectively speaking, a trans woman is a trans woman.

I think this is a common misconception among people who disagree with our beliefs. Nobody who supports trans rights believes that transitioning magically turns you into the opposite gender. They are, linguistically speaking, transexuals. That is an objective truth.

 

[Old Things]

Also not a steel man. I'm not an anomaly. You are dismissing every psychological expert on this matter as a subjectivist. Most psychologists aren't subjectivist.

I'm using me as an example because I can't speak for other people here. I can speak with absolute confidence that you are wrong when it comes to me, but I doubt that everyone here that disagrees with you is a subjectivist, even including Chibi who seemed to agree with me that there exists an objective reality.

Anyway. This is me being a mod. I won't argue further. I've explained how this will go down and now it's up to you to decide how you proceed. You've made strides forward recently but if you can't wrap your head around how you're systematically mischaracterising people that's on you.

Please, I am begging you. Make a positive case for YOUR VIEW for ONCE!

This is really hard for me because any time I talk about anything in general terms, you will turn around and be like, "I don't fit that mold, so you need to change what you are saying."

I don't even know how I'm supposed to discuss anything if I can't explain how things started or what the logic is behind my view, which you want me to essentially cover every exception and provide a comprehensive view where I dot every i and cross every t. I can't do that, and I feel that it's totally unfair of you to expect me to do so when you yourself don't exactly make a habit of presenting a positive case for your view. Instead, you seem to sit back and shoot down people's logic without actually having any skin in the game yourself. It's really frustrating for you to come at me like this as a mod and tell me how I need to engage with people based on your own "neutral" view, which you never actually make a positive case for.

Objective reality exists, but is not one-to-one with language. While it makes sense to call an adult human female a woman in most contexts, this ignores objective realities in other contexts. Such a context might include when the "woman" in question looks like this:

View attachment 8862

Yeah, well, that's a man, and I can tell based on how broad the shoulders are.

 

[ZenRaiden]

OK I actually don't know what trans woman exactly is, but from what I know....

trans woman is male at birth, due to physical characteristics.

Then along developmental phase the woman realizes she is in male body, ergo becomes aware that there is difference between her and body.

So at some point a trans woman is a person whos internal psychology follows patterns mostly like woman, but physically has mostly male body.

There is also body dysphoria where her body that is male feels wrong.

Is this correct?

 

[Chibi]

OK I actually don't know what trans woman exactly is, but from what I know....

trans woman is male at birth, due to physical characteristics.

Then along developmental phase the woman realizes she is in male body, ergo becomes aware that there is difference between her and body.

So at some point a trans woman is a person whos internal psychology follows patterns mostly like woman, but physically has mostly male body.

There is also body dysphoria where her body that is male feels wrong.

Is this correct?

You have it backwards, Zen. A trans woman is someone born as a male who later became (externally and within society) a woman.

And yes, trans people go through body dysphoria all the time. Every trans person knows that biologically they were born as the opposite gender. Some struggle with it more than others, but I'd say 90% struggle with it somewhat. Feeling removed from your own body in terms of sex is a wholly unique experience most cis people will never go through, and it can be incredibly crushing.

Edit, wait no I read what you said wrong. You do not not have it backwards, yes. Trans women is male to female. And everything else you said is 100% true, you seem to understand very correctly.