Simplified Psychology: Conservative and Progressive Ideology

Shadow Wolf · Jan 1, 2020

joe1776 said:
Logical deduction: If progressives are aligned with equality, they cannot at the same time feel superior.

People lie and people are hypocrites. Just as being Christian does not offer protection and magical wards to prevent Christians from sinning and keeping their leaders free of corruption, there is nothing in a political ideology that prevents arrogance, and indeed those as the "woke" are often holier than thou pricks. Same with vegans, many of whom have a sense of moral superiority and smugness (to the point of ignoring science) because they are vegan. Libs and progs love to boast they follow what science tells us, but then turn around and hype cannabis as a sort of super drug even though science has shown it only helps with a few things.

wellwisher · Jan 1, 2020

If we compare Conservative and Progressive psychology, one main difference is Conservative thinking is based on more data, while Progressive thinking is based on less data. Conservative implies conservation of the past, with the continuity of that past, generating lots of applied results and data. The basic family unit is thousands of years old with lots of data.

Progressive is often more about what is new and novel. This approach often lacks long term application data. This makes it more subjective. For example, Medicare for all has never been done in the USA, with the USA a place with a multicultural free style way of living. There is not enough data to know the end result of Medicare for all in a fast paced free society. Conservatives prefer a private sector approach which has worked for centuries. There is more data to support this approach.

If you are a scientist and one researcher gives you a pile of data and the other gives you one page, which will allow you to be more objective? In terms of psychology, the brain will not process reality the same way with less data as it can with more data. Less data makes the imagination and subjectivity more prevalent.

A good example of this psychological difference can be seen with the idea of Socialism, This form of government has been tried many time over the past hundred years and it does not turn out very well the majority of the time.The Conservatives, who are used to thinking in term of long term data trends, due to conservation of the past, can see this. The Progressives, who rarely have any long term data, do not bother to look backwards at previous data, since this is rarely available to them. They would prefer stay in the present and pretend socialism is new, and if attempted, it will turn out differently, based on idealized subjective thinking.

There is a difference in psychology. Another good one is connected to the transgender fad promoted by the Progressives. It turns out the suicide rates of transgenders is about ten times higher than the normal population, even in countries, like Sweden where this is socially acceptable.

The theory for this trend, even in Sweden, is the hormone treatments are messing with the limbic system, shrinking the brain and causing problems with thought processing. Science is trying to mimic the emotional nature of the target gender but this is causing side affects. The Progressives see an agenda driven fad that is idealized in an imaginary way, but which in fact, is causing a demographics to go extinct, faster. Push back by Conservatives, based on long term data, is considered being heartless, even of it saves lives.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 1, 2020

wellwisher said:
The basic family unit is thousands of years old with lots of data.

Thanks for disproving your claim. The nuclear family is not basic, not very old, and about the most anti-family model we've ever had as a species (about the only one where we expect family to not be living with each other, to the point many frown upon amd ridicule those who do).

Shadow Wolf · Jan 1, 2020

wellwisher said:
like Sweden where this is socially acceptable.

More stuff where you, the Conservative, do not have the data you claim to posses as Swedes themselves will tell you it's not really accepted that well there. Better laws, but not accepted. Unless you want to confuse laws with mores, norms, and taboo.

wellwisher said:
There is a difference in psychology. Another good one is connected to the transgender fad promoted by the Progressives. It turns out the suicide rates of transgenders is about ten times higher than the normal population, even in countries

More data and evidence you lack because what science does show as the whole picture is that transitioning is great for people with gender dysphoria, but bigotry and prejudice are the biggest challnges, with the risk in suicide revolving around how well or crappy other people treat them.

joe1776 · Jan 1, 2020

wellwisher said:
...
Socialism creates more than one set of rules, where Big Government has all the power and free enterprise is inhibited.

No, there won't be two sets of rules. The current rules will be changed. Example: Under the current rules, people with high intelligence and infected with greed can accumulate far more prime private property than they need depriving other citizens of their fair share of its use. That won't be possible when high intelligence is treated as an innate gift to be used in the service of others rather than an achievement deserving of reward.

How much power should a government have? This is a question that's easy to answer. If the government is corrupt, incompetent or both, it should have no power. It should be abandoned. If it produces clean, effective management of the state, the government should have the power it needs to implement its policies.

The capitalist free market currently is useful only because we humans have yet to invent a government that is free of corruption and capable of good decision-making. However, it's principal drawback is that all else being equal, competitions are won by cheaters who can get away with it.

The free market works okay with products that can be seen by informed consumers who are spending their own money because fraud, while still possible, is more difficult to pull off. On the other hand, fraud is rampant in financial services and healthcare. Even ineffective government regulation is better than none in these industries.

The better way to deal with the "disadvantaged" is through charity.

A smarter way is to deal with the problem would be to put everyone to work doing a job that is within their capability regardless of their "disadvantages." That approach would be better for the country and better for the individual.

joe1776 · Jan 1, 2020

Shadow Wolf said:
Very wrong. Violent and repressive regimes, violent and cruel druv cartels, Machavellian politics, businesses that put profit before people, and many Muslim countries have went backwards. The Western idea of social progress being of a linear progression and inevitable is wrong.

Evidence of moral progress is extensive. Here's a partial list:
• The hateful way the world's religions sometimes treat each other is still a problem today but the problem has diminished considerably since the time of the Crusades;
• The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam condone slavery and treat women as subservient to men in addition to giving other very bad moral advice. This is evidence that the men who wrote those texts two thousand years ago lived in societies that were morally immature by today's best standards;
• Racial and national prejudices have been weakening; among the nations, many once-traditional enemies are now trade partners;
• Imperialism is waning as powerful nations are much less likely today to want to dominate the weaker nations to extend their empire.
• Children of the poor are still used as cheap labor in a few cultures, but compared to the past, much progress has been made with Child Labor laws;
• In morally advanced cultures, men are learning to treat women as equals and they are not getting away with abusing women as they once did;
• Caste systems, like India's, which have resulted in unfairness for many over centuries, are gradually crumbling;
• Not very long ago, violent strikes were common during Management and Labor negotiations; it happens far less often today;
• Employers have learned that it is profitable to give both employees and consumers more respect and better treatment than they once did;
• Government corruption and oppression are still a problem but much progress has been made since governments for the people have been replacing governments for the privileged;
• During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants;
• Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history;
• We still hear about prisoners being tortured but, in the Middle Ages, torture was a thriving industry. Clever devices were designed and made to maximize pain;
• NFL Football provides mild violence as entertainment, but it is nothing compared to the spectacle of slaughter seen in Rome's Colosseum;
• The nations of the world have abolished slavery; it's still a problem but not nearly to the extent that it was just a few centuries back.
• Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.
• Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence. A brief summary of his argument can also be heard on his TED Talks video: The Surprising Decline of Violence.

No. Arrogance is a characteristic. Narcissism is a personality disorder. Anyone in the mental health field as well as physical health will use both terms, and not interchangeably because they do not describe the same thing.

Here's a list of NPD symptoms. Please explain why this list doesn't describe an extremely arrogant person:

-- Have an exaggerated sense of self-importance
-- Have a sense of entitlement and require constant, excessive admiration
-- Expect to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
-- Exaggerate achievements and talents
-- Be preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
-- Believe they are superior and can only associate with equally special people
-- Monopolize conversations and belittle or look down on people they perceive as inferior
-- Expect special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
-- Take advantage of others to get what they want
-- Have an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
-- Be envious of others and believe others envy them
-- Behave in an arrogant or haughty manner, coming across as conceited, boastful and pretentious

You are the one posting unsupported rubbish. This forum alone is sufficient evidence that people on "both sides" can be insufferably and intolerably arrogant. That doesn't mean--inherently, necessarily, or automatically--they are narcissists.

If the same person in this forum acted "insufferably and intolerably arrogant," it's highly likely that he or she would be labeled a narcissist by psychologists.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 1, 2020

joe1776 said:
• The hateful way the world's religions sometimes treat each other is still a problem today but the problem has diminished considerably since the time of the Crusades;

Places like Afghanistan and Iran have gotten worse. Overall, the Muslim World today is in ruin and shambles compared to their Golden Age. Indeed, places such as those have went backwards and stalled at best. Asia still has problems. Europe still has problems. Africa still has problems. N amd S America still have problems. Russia and India, you guessed it. They have problems as well. We've taken small steps that are only forward and an inevitable linear progression to the Western mind.

joe1776 said:
• The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam condone slavery and treat women as subservient to men in addition to giving other very bad moral advice. This is evidence that the men who wrote those texts two thousand years ago lived in societies that were morally immature by today's best standards;

And yet slavery is still rampant. Even in America, where some people still believe slavery should be allowed.

joe1776 said:
• Racial and national prejudices have been weakening;

And yet they've been getting worse in recent years.

joe1776 said:
• Imperialism is waning as powerful nations are much less likely today to want to dominate the weaker nations to extend their empire.

Except the troops in Afghanistan had an easier time getting American stuff like heavy metal CDs amd Starbucks than I did in rural Indiana. 711 amd KFC are very big in Japan. It's a new disguise and labels, but its the same old song and dance of oppressive foreign invaders who attempt to replace tue native culture. "We all live in Amerika," after all.

joe1776 said:
Here's a list of NPD symptoms. Please explain why this list doesn't describe an extremely arrogant person:

It would. But arrogance alone is not grounds enough for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. Similarly, many people have crappy social skills. But crappy social skills doesn't warrant a diagnosis of Aspergers (and is a weak diagnosis symptom because the syndrome comes with other personality quarks tjat are looked at to make that diagnosis).

joe1776 said:
If the same person in this forum acted "insufferably and intolerably arrogant," it's highly likely that he or she would be labeled a narcissist by psychologists.

Only if they are extremely irresponsible and shirk their ethical responsibilities and duties, and even if that member is one of their clients arrogance alone CANNOT be used to diagnose narcissistism.

joe1776 · Jan 1, 2020

Shadow Wolf said:
People lie and people are hypocrites...

Shadow Wolf said:
Places like Afghanistan and Iran have gotten worse. Overall, the Muslim World today is in ruin and shambles compared to their Golden Age. Indeed, places such as those have went backwards and stalled at best. Asia still has problems. Europe still has problems. Africa still has problems. N amd S America still have problems. Russia and India, you guessed it. They have problems as well. We've taken small steps that are only forward and an inevitable linear progression to the Western mind.

And yet slavery is still rampant. Even in America, where some people still believe slavery should be allowed.

And yet they've been getting worse in recent years.

Except the troops in Afghanistan had an easier time getting American stuff like heavy metal CDs amd Starbucks than I did in rural Indiana. 711 amd KFC are very big in Japan. It's a new disguise and labels, but its the same old song and dance of oppressive foreign invaders who attempt to replace tue native culture. "We all live in Amerika," after all.

It would. But arrogance alone is not grounds enough for a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder. Similarly, many people have crappy social skills. But crappy social skills doesn't warrant a diagnosis of Aspergers (and is a weak diagnosis symptom because the syndrome comes with other personality quarks tjat are looked at to make that diagnosis).

Only if they are extremely irresponsible and shirk their ethical responsibilities and duties, and even if that member is one of their clients arrogance alone CANNOT be used to diagnose narcissistism.

You're taking my general statements and pointing out exceptions as though they falsify the general rule.

You're also denying moral progress because the problem hasn't been entirely eliminated.

You aren't offering debate. You're simply being argumentative.

joe1776 · Jan 1, 2020

wellwisher said:
If we compare Conservative and Progressive psychology, one main difference is Conservative thinking is based on more data, while Progressive thinking is based on less data. Conservative implies conservation of the past, with the continuity of that past, generating lots of applied results and data. The basic family unit is thousands of years old with lots of data.

Both progressives and conservatives use the same data but they often have different perceptions of it. One sees a problem in need of change, the other doesn't.

Progressive is often more about what is new and novel. This approach often lacks long term application data. This makes it more subjective. For example, Medicare for all has never been done in the USA, with the USA a place with a multicultural free style way of living. There is not enough data to know the end result of Medicare for all in a fast paced free society. Conservatives prefer a private sector approach which has worked for centuries. There is more data to support this approach.

The free market works okay with products that can be seen and comparison-shopped by well-informed consumers spending their own money. It's the wrong tool for the job in insured healthcare because the consumer doesn't know what he needs and doesn't care what it costs. In healthcare, there's no such thing as well-informed consumers.

Healthcare providers and malpractice lawyers easily justify engaging in price-gouging and fraud against the deep-pocket insurance carriers. Moreover, the insurance carriers benefit from fraud which adds to the bottom line as long as it can be passed along as a cost + profit item to consumers.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 1, 2020

joe1776 said:
You're taking my general statements and pointing out exceptions as though they falsify the general rule.

I am pointing out things that demonstrate there is no such thing as a hard/concrete linear moral progression. The gains we've made are fragile, and we must ensure we retain them to pass them on, because we have more than sufficient examples to show we "slip backwards" when one tries to say morality (or society, culture, or economy) exists on a linear path of progression. This linear progression doesn't exist. We callvit progress, which does exist from the perspective of some thinkers, bit much like Nazi Germany our gains can be lost in the blink of an eye.

joe1776 · Jan 2, 2020

Shadow Wolf said:
...The gains we've made are fragile, and we must ensure we retain them to pass them on, because we have more than sufficient examples to show we "slip backwards"...

So, you think it likely that humanity will backslide and moral gains, like the abolition of legal slavery, which took more than three centuries to encompass every culture in the world, will someday return as an accepted practice? Or women will lose ground and advanced societies will return to the way we treated women a hundred years ago?

Do you think the gore of violent entertainment offered in Rome's Colosseum is likely to return to TV? Will the Child Labor laws be abolished?

You say we have more than sufficient evidence to show that we "slip backwards" but my bet is that you won't be able to name one example without redefining the concept of "backsliding" (which assumes that a level of success has been attained).

ImmortalFlame · Jan 2, 2020

wellwisher said:
If we compare Conservative and Progressive psychology, one main difference is Conservative thinking is based on more data, while Progressive thinking is based on less data. Conservative implies conservation of the past, with the continuity of that past, generating lots of applied results and data. The basic family unit is thousands of years old with lots of data.

The difference is that this kind of thinking isn't ACTUALLY supported by data, just by the presumption that, because things are the way that they are, change must always be for the worse.

Conservation of the past isn't always for the better, you would agree. The progression from slavery to non-slavery was a good progression, despite slavery "working". So this idea that conserving the past is always a benefit and always based on better data is inaccurate.

wellwisher said:
Progressive is often more about what is new and novel. This approach often lacks long term application data. This makes it more subjective. For example, Medicare for all has never been done in the USA, with the USA a place with a multicultural free style way of living. There is not enough data to know the end result of Medicare for all in a fast paced free society. Conservatives prefer a private sector approach which has worked for centuries. There is more data to support this approach.

By what measure has the private sector approach "worked for centuries"? Millions of Americans are uninsured, healthcare bills are currently one of the leading causes of bankruptcy, and the USA currently lags behind several other first-world nations in terms of availability and quality of healthcare despite national wealth, escalating costs and far more available resources. The system doesn't work. It fails in all the most important areas.

What's more, this approach completely ignores all of the countries which have successfully implemented nationalized and socialized healthcare, and all of the data they produce. It's not based on data, it's based on an assumption that because it hasn't been done yet, it most likely won't work in the USA (despite it working well elsewhere). That's not basing your position on data - that's willfully IGNORING data in order to retain the existing system.

wellwisher said:
There is a difference in psychology. Another good one is connected to the transgender fad promoted by the Progressives. It turns out the suicide rates of transgenders is about ten times higher than the normal population, even in countries, like Sweden where this is socially acceptable.

Except transgender people are still significantly more likely to be victims of abuse, social pressure, violence and rape in Sweden as well:
SOURCE: https://watermark.silverchair.com/c...LFJU5RngvmL9kbYoYPlDu6vQHWHPtJItCl28Svxl19YP0

wellwisher said:
The theory for this trend, even in Sweden, is the hormone treatments are messing with the limbic system, shrinking the brain and causing problems with thought processing.

Please provide citation for this claim.

The studies I have read show that transgender suicide rates correlate precisely with victimization:
Targeted Victimization and Suicidality Among Trans People: A Web-Based Survey

wellwisher said:
Science is trying to mimic the emotional nature of the target gender but this is causing side affects. The Progressives see an agenda driven fad that is idealized in an imaginary way, but which in fact, is causing a demographics to go extinct, faster. Push back by Conservatives, based on long term data, is considered being heartless, even of it saves lives.

In order to make this claim, you present absolutely no evidence whatsoever, and present a totally un-sourced claim. Meanwhile, the evidence suggests that the opposite of what you're saying is true: that it is Conservative thinking and regressive attitudes that directly contribute to the suicide rates of transgender people.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 2, 2020

joe1776 said:
So, you think it likely that humanity will backslide and moral gains

Its not inevitable, but it's possible and it has amd does happen. If we don't remain vigilant to preserve our gains, we will lose them.

joe1776 said:
You say we have more than sufficient evidence to show that we "slip backwards" but my bet is that you won't be able to name one example without redefining the concept of "backsliding" (which assumes that a level of success has been attained).

I've provided many examples already. And don't forget I utterly and entirely reject the notion of society and morality following a linear path that will happen.
As for the Colliseum, we already do. We glorify men (and increasingly women) beatimg each others brains in. We watch people kill animals in a sporting manner and callbof entertainment. Ever hear people they watch racing for the crashes? Those crashes were also a popular part of the Circus Maximus.

Shadow Wolf · Jan 2, 2020

ImmortalFlame said:
Meanwhile, the evidence suggests that the opposite of what you're saying is true: that it is Conservative thinking and regressive attitudes that directly contribute to the suicide rates of transgender people.

Liberals aren't necessarily accepting either. In my experience, they still do sometimes refuse to accept us and worse get expect us to forfeit our protections and yield our HIPPA rights and disclose our medical history to people. Some of them are even big supporters and promoters of separate but equal facilities.

wellwisher · Jan 2, 2020

Conservative is based on things that have a long track record. There is a lot of data, for proof of concept. Progressive thinking tends to be more about new things that have a shorter track record and less field data.

I am not saying just because something has been done for centuries it is automatically good. Change can be good. This is especially true if it pans out in the long term, and is not just a temporary fad that disrupts something that did work. Too little data, makes the future hard to determine. Conservative are slower to change, until the data comes in.

What I am saying is more data allows you to be more objective than does less data, all else being equal. Less data will drift your mind more toward subjectivity; idealized. Subjectivity is easy to manipulate by using feelings. Logic works better with lots of data and proven theories.

As far as slavery, slaves were expensive and very few people could afford to own slaves, even if they wanted. In 1860, at the peak the slavery, only about 1.4% of white people owned slaves. Slaves were not direct part of the long term experience of the majority of people. Peasants are only a notch above a slave and have more in common with slaves that with the rich and powerful. This was the long terms data for most people of the time.

It was not hard to get rid of slavery, since it was not a majority; conservation, way of life. Rather it only affected a group of the rich and the elite. Their long term data may have added up as beneficial to them, but the majority had less beneficial data and were more open to change.

As far as transsexuals, the Progressives are their own worse enemy, due to selling things before there is enough data. The result is over compensation as a way to appease inner doubt. This shows up as the in your face style of force feeding the latest novelty item. This creates a backlash, since one can sense insincerity and irrationality.

Let me make a prediction, based on observing long term patterns of behavior of Progressive psychology. One of the latest fads, wth little data, is defining gender as a multifaceted novelty item. Now there are 64 or whatever genders, with only two with much data. The first thing that will happen is subjectivity. Then there is over compensation and the in your face behavior trying to force feed everyone this subjective reality. This will lead to a backlash, which is them blamed, for why it did not work.

A better way to run this experiment is to keep this on the low so as to avoid over compensation and annoying everyone with the in your face force feeding.. Let the experiment run, under the radar, and collect data. The problem is short term fads, do not have much time. They need hot air and marketing to force a supply side pet rock on the masses, during it short life expectancy. You can go slower with things that last.

ImmortalFlame · Jan 3, 2020

Shadow Wolf said:
Liberals aren't necessarily accepting either. In my experience, they still do sometimes refuse to accept us and worse get expect us to forfeit our protections and yield our HIPPA rights and disclose our medical history to people. Some of them are even big supporters and promoters of separate but equal facilities.

Perhaps "Conservative" may be the wrong term to use for groups with anti-trans sentiment, then. "Regressive" may be more appropriate.

ImmortalFlame · Jan 3, 2020

wellwisher said:
Conservative is based on things that have a long track record. There is a lot of data, for proof of concept. Progressive thinking tends to be more about new things that have a shorter track record and less field data.

But this logic ignores WHY something has been going on for a long time, since - as you already accept - change is not always for the worse. You're oversimplifying and missing the point.

wellwisher said:
I am not saying just because something has been done for centuries it is automatically good. Change can be good. This is especially true if it pans out in the long term, and is not just a temporary fad that disrupts something that did work. Too little data, makes the future hard to determine. Conservative are slower to change, until the data comes in.

Problem is, some changes demand quick change. Slavery being an obvious one, civil rights being another. Slow change can and does lead to more harm - something which you previously said was a negative consequences of progressivism. Both carry risks.

wellwisher said:
What I am saying is more data allows you to be more objective than does less data, all else being equal. Less data will drift your mind more toward subjectivity; idealized. Subjectivity is easy to manipulate by using feelings. Logic works better with lots of data and proven theories.

But Conservativism is just as affected by that as anything else. Often, Conservativism isn't based on actual data, but a sense of familiarity and comfort with the established status quo. The core principal of strict Conervativism is the preservation of established norms, which can be based just as much on emotion as anything else.

wellwisher said:
As far as slavery, slaves were expensive and very few people could afford to own slaves, even if they wanted. In 1860, at the peak the slavery, only about 1.4% of white people owned slaves. Slaves were not direct part of the long term experience of the majority of people. Peasants are only a notch above a slave and have more in common with slaves that with the rich and powerful. This was the long terms data for most people of the time.

None of which has anything to do with slavery as an abhorrent moral evil. Do you think slavery was perfectly okay because they were only owned by the wealthy?

wellwisher said:
It was not hard to get rid of slavery,

...

Did you forget about the civil war?

wellwisher said:
As far as transsexuals, the Progressives are their own worse enemy, due to selling things before there is enough data. The result is over compensation as a way to appease inner doubt. This shows up as the in your face style of force feeding the latest novelty item. This creates a backlash, since one can sense insincerity and irrationality.

Let me make a prediction, based on observing long term patterns of behavior of Progressive psychology. One of the latest fads, wth little data, is defining gender as a multifaceted novelty item. Now there are 64 or whatever genders, with only two with much data. The first thing that will happen is subjectivity. Then there is over compensation and the in your face behavior trying to force feed everyone this subjective reality. This will lead to a backlash, which is them blamed, for why it did not work.

A better way to run this experiment is to keep this on the low so as to avoid over compensation and annoying everyone with the in your face force feeding.. Let the experiment run, under the radar, and collect data. The problem is short term fads, do not have much time. They need hot air and marketing to force a supply side pet rock on the masses, during it short life expectancy. You can go slower with things that last.

I asked you to present evidence of your claim that higher suicide rates among trans people were due to hormone treatments rather than abuse. Where is your data?

Augustus · Jan 3, 2020

joe1776 said:
So, you think it likely that humanity will backslide and moral gains,

The idea is that history is not teleological. Teleology relies on a religious worldview that involves something equivalent to Divine Providence. Your 'inevitable progress' is just a rebranding of Divine Providence and is purely a position of faith with no rational evidence that supports the projection of inevitability.

Without god, there is no teleology to human existence, we are just animals like any other and thus nothing is inevitable. There are only possibilities and probabilities, along with a great deal of randomness. Someone with a bit more intellectual humility would simply accept that the long-term future is unknowable.

Twice in the past 60 years have we avoided nuclear holocaust only through great fortune. It just happened that the 2 normal, everyday people who had to make a call had the calmness and strength of character to go, in one case, go against their commander and in the other, wilfully disobey direct orders. Pure, dumb luck.

Had we been less lucky, and (mis)fortune had led to a weaker or more bellicose individual making either of the calls, you wouldn't be making such an argument as you'd likely be dead, and the living people wouldn't look at the smoking nuclear wastelands and think they were doing much better than in the 'bad old days'.

wellwisher · Jan 3, 2020

ImmortalFlame said:
I asked you to present evidence of your claim that higher suicide rates among trans people were due to hormone treatments rather than abuse. Where is your data?

The study I heard was from a Scientist in Australia who was primarily against transgender hormonal treatments for children and adolescents, because he claim it had an adverse impact on brain development. He then extrapolated this to the hormone treatments, in general, altering thought patterns, which could lead to increased suicide.

The problem is, Transgender augmentation is a growing industry, where the more units sold, means more money being made. Even if he was right, money comes first, until they are forced to reevaluate. If the industry could convince parent to treat babies it would mean more $$$$, They will say this is safe.

In my experience, two people can be brought up in the same environment and circumstances, yet each can person turn out differently. This means that the external input is only part of the story. There is also internal processing which can be different for two different people. Some people are more or less sensitive and will process the same data differently. It makes sense that hormonal treatment could alter how the input data is perceived and processed. This change in perception can make harassment harder to take from the internal side of the equation.

Consider alcohol, a few drinks is enough to alter behavior in terms of externally generate data. Some people will be more aggressive to the same words. Others will laugh and let things bounce off them, easier. Others will overcome inhibitions, etc. If you are messing with the limbic system, trying to turn a male body into a female, there will a change in the background emotional valence, from which data is processed.

A trans "female", who had previously been a male, will requires adaptation to the new emotional valence set point of a female. The original person held firm to their conviction in spite of the odds and harassment. Once they made the change, now they second guess their previous resolve. The outside world does not necessarily change. A successful transformation should place them more under the radar, and should be less stressful, all else equal. That was the goal of all the conviction and augmentation.

When memory is created, aspects of the limbic system will add emotional tags to the sensory content. Our memory is composed of feeling and content. If we stagger the emotional set point, with hormones of the opposite sex, the writing process is altered in a way that will take getting used to. In the short term, the same sensory data can be written differently due to the altered set point.

A female going through her monthly cycle will react differently to the same external data depending on where in the cycle she is. Hormone treatment staggers the cycle. The change in physically written to memory, storing a different POV, that can soon be overwhelming.

ImmortalFlame · Jan 3, 2020

wellwisher said:
The study I heard was from a Scientist in Australia who was primarily against transgender hormonal treatments for children and adolescents, because he claim it had an adverse impact on brain development. He then extrapolated this to the hormone treatments, in general, altering thought patterns, which could lead to increased suicide.

Could you please provide this study? And how does this study explain the higher suicide rates for trans people who aren't undergoing hormone therapy?

wellwisher said:
In my experience, two people can be brought up in the same environment and circumstances, yet each can person turn out differently. This means that the external input is only part of the story. There is also internal processing which can be different for two different people. Some people are more or less sensitive and will process the same data differently. It makes sense that hormonal treatment could alter how the input data is perceived and processed. This change in perception can make harassment harder to take from the internal side of the equation.

So harassment is still to blame, right? If people went through treatment and weren't harassed, they would be less likely to be suicidal.

wellwisher said:
Consider alcohol, a few drinks is enough to alter behavior in terms of externally generate data. Some people will be more aggressive to the same words. Others will laugh and let things bounce off them, easier. Others will overcome inhibitions, etc. If you are messing with the limbic system, trying to turn a male body into a female, there will a change in the background emotional valence, from which data is processed.

But you have yet to provide any evidence of this, and any reason to think that harassment isn't a far more significant factor.

wellwisher said:
A trans "female", who had previously been a male, will requires adaptation to the new emotional valence set point of a female. The original person held firm to their conviction in spite of the odds and harassment. Once they made the change, now they second guess their previous resolve. The outside world does not necessarily change. A successful transformation should place them more under the radar, and should be less stressful, all else equal. That was the goal of all the conviction and augmentation.

When memory is created, aspects of the limbic system will add emotional tags to the sensory content. Our memory is composed of feeling and content. If we stagger the emotional set point, with hormones of the opposite sex, the writing process is altered in a way that will take getting used to. In the short term, the same sensory data can be written differently due to the altered set point.

A female going through her monthly cycle will react differently to the same external data depending on where in the cycle she is. Hormone treatment staggers the cycle. The change in physically written to memory, storing a different POV, that can soon be overwhelming.

You've made a lot of claims, but do you have any actual evidence to support this? I've provided a study which shows that suicide rates among trans individuals correlate strongly with harassment and social stigma. Can you provide evidence of significant emotional imbalances caused by hormone replacement therapy leading to increased suicide?

Simplified Psychology: Conservative and Progressive Ideology

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin

Certified People sTabber

Certified People sTabber

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin

Woke gremlin

…

Well-Known Member

Woke gremlin