West Coast Connection Forum
DUBCC - Tha Connection => West Coast Connection => Topic started by: Proc pka KP on December 09, 2021, 08:18:18 PM
-
There's too much arguing in the posts where we finally got new music. If you don't like the song that's fine but continuing to argue that is a losing as been top notch return to his aggressive style.
-
so now you’re advocating for nazi proctoring
:dwill:
-
so now you’re advocating for nazi proctoring
:dwill:
No but your pops is after analyzing his bank statement and seeing this website on it.
Remember you got proctored to death, then you reached your arm out the rubble with your pops credit card in hand. Seer should have took the card and left you there Jason "Sccit" Mazza or is it Remy Mormon?
-
No one needs to be banned for that. Plus, you opened the thread with an argument but you're asking people to stop arguing. No one wants to ban you for it so...
This forum serves a number of purposes and most of them involve constructive arguments that get people doing what the bottom line of this platform is about: talking about music. Everyone has the freedom to remove themselves from any conversation they don't want to be a part of and join the discussions they are interested in contributing to. Trying to tell people what they can and can't discuss pertaining to music in a forum whose premise is music is pretty self-defeating. Just don't engage with anything you don't like. Simple. There's plenty of threads I think are bullshit on here. Doesn't bother me though - I just skip them. No need to launch a crusade. Everything's fine.
-
No one needs to be banned for that. Plus, you opened the thread with an argument but you're asking people to stop arguing. No one wants to ban you for it so...
This forum serves a number of purposes and most of them involve constructive arguments that get people doing what the bottom line of this platform is about: talking about music. Everyone has the freedom to remove themselves from any conversation they don't want to be a part of and join the discussions they are interested in contributing to. Trying to tell people what they can and can't discuss pertaining to music in a forum whose premise is music is pretty self-defeating. Just don't engage with anything you don't like. Simple. There's plenty of threads I think are bullshit on here. Doesn't bother me though - I just skip them. No need to launch a crusade. Everything's fine.
Actually he banned me for requesting Lebron be shipped out.
To your point, no one wants pages and pages of back and forth when looking for new tracks. Dre's new stuff has been quite promising from the song with Eminem to other song dissing his wife to this latest snippet.
-
so now you’re advocating for nazi proctoring
:dwill:
Yeah but this is Dre we are talking about
-
I'm assuming this is satire. Point noted tho.
-
Yeah but this is Dre we are talking about
If anyone disses Lamb, they get met with a strong response. It's apparently ok to delete legitimate posts or change people's usernames or otherwise mess with their account but banning them for continually arguing is a violation of free speech. I'm all for having an opinion if you don't like the new Dre joints, that's not pages of arguing.
-
Lamb and new dr Dre suck so does snoop and dazz. There I said it, get banned or whatever
-
Lamb and new dr Dre suck so does snoop and dazz. There I said it, get banned or whatever
Nah holding an opinion is fine. Fuck Lamb! The Nazi child keeps messing with my account. Pages and pages of arguing is the issue not the opinion.
-
Not sure what this is all about.. But I will say in all seriousness I'm against censorship. I think spam is about the only thing that should be censored or condensed. Like in the keystyle forum I just tried merging some threads and having people post similar topics to one thread so it didn't get flooded—but I see that more as a maintenance and upkeep type of deal.
It's tempting when you are a mod to go crazy and censor and ban mufuckaz but you got to resist the urge for the greater good which is freedom.
-
Not sure what this is all about.. But I will say in all seriousness I'm against censorship. I think spam is about the only thing that should be censored or condensed. Like in the keystyle forum I just tried merging some threads and having people post similar topics to one thread so it didn't get flooded—but I see that more as a maintenance and upkeep type of deal.
It's tempting when you are a mod to go crazy and censor and ban mufuckaz but you got to resist the urge for the greater good which is freedom.
What's your thoughts on editing/deleting legit posts, changing people's usernames and signatures? Or putting people's posts in moderation before they appear? Are you for or against Nazi proctoring?
-
No but your pops is after analyzing his bank statement and seeing this website on it.
Remember you got proctored to death, then you reached your arm out the rubble with your pops credit card in hand. Seer should have took the card and left you there Jason "Sccit" Mazza or is it Remy Mormon?
Is this true? Do the old posts still exist? Sccit, speak on it.
-
What's your thoughts on editing/deleting legit posts, changing people's usernames and signatures? Or putting people's posts in moderation before they appear? Are you for or against Nazi proctoring?
What's with the use of the "Nazi" adjective to describe alleged proctoring in an online rap music forum? There's probably better and more accurate adjectives that can modify the nouns you use to accentuate the point you're trying to make. Whatever that point is, it certainly has nothing to do with the third reich.
-
What's with the use of the "Nazi" adjective to describe alleged proctoring in an online rap music forum? There's probably better and more accurate adjectives that can modify the nouns you use to accentuate the point you're trying to make. Whatever that point is, it certainly has nothing to do with the third reich.
Now that I've witnessed the WorldWide Covid Scam where nearly everybody--including the regular guy next door types has so quickly turned into a "Nazi" ready to send the unvaxxinated off to quarantine camps in a New York minute if the government gives the order.
Seeing such a worldwide scam makes me sort of call everything into question. It led me to becoming a flat Earther and I even question if the whole narrative on Germany and Nazism is even all its cracked up to be. I mean look how quickly Israel turned on their own people with forced vaxxination and quarantine.
-
Now that I've witnessed the WorldWide Covid Scam where nearly everybody--including the regular guy next door types has so quickly turned into a "Nazi" ready to send the unvaxxinated off to quarantine camps in a New York minute if the government gives the order.
Seeing such a worldwide scam makes me sort of call everything into question. It led me to becoming a flat Earther and I even question if the whole narrative on Germany and Nazism is even all its cracked up to be. I mean look how quickly Israel turned on their own people with forced vaxxination and quarantine.
smh i have family that was in the holocaust u idiot
-
F**k Dre...theres way more talented artists & producers in the West thats deserving
-
Now that I've witnessed the WorldWide Covid Scam where nearly everybody--including the regular guy next door types has so quickly turned into a "Nazi" ready to send the unvaxxinated off to quarantine camps in a New York minute if the government gives the order.
Seeing such a worldwide scam makes me sort of call everything into question. It led me to becoming a flat Earther and I even question if the whole narrative on Germany and Nazism is even all its cracked up to be. I mean look how quickly Israel turned on their own people with forced vaxxination and quarantine.
Ironically, it's unfounded conspiracy-driven anti-science and anti-Semitic content like this that should be properly moderated - not people's opinions about Dr. Dre.
-
Fuck dre, he's a bitch.
-
F**k Dre...theres way more talented artists & producers in the West thats deserving
if there is smth called "west coast" and west coast artist and producers, its because of dre. if you are a hiphop fan today and fucking around here in a west coast hip hop forum, you owe this to dre.
you can fuck dre in your dreams while fingering yourself and scream "fuck you dre"... but you can't change the fact that, not only in hiphop, in whole music history dre is one of the most talented and succesful producer/musician/genius ever.
-
Ironically, it's unfounded conspiracy-driven anti-science and anti-Semitic content like this that should be properly moderated - not people's opinions about Dr. Dre.
See dawg... this is the exact shit I’m talking about you are exposing yourself as being the same fuccing Nazi you allege the Germans to be...
Look at what I said... I said “calls into question” you wanna ban someone or censor someone for the mere thought of “questioning” something—and then in the same token act like you give a fucc about the Jews and hate Nazi’s or whatever u are the fool that needs to be checked tryna ban someone for the mere “questioning” of a narrative exposes you for what you really are
-
Dr Dre belongs To the 80's and 90's.
no doubt he s a legend but he s washed up.
i like this website but i m surprised people still talkin about him everyday. same shit with snoop or Cube and i like them but we not livin in the past . and it s not about the age but it s all about music . too short 's music is still dope, jayo felony and big hutch too. Dr Dre is a multimillionnaire for grannys or the old ass television. .dr dre representin The opposite of the NWA or death row spirit .
i remember when the chronic was released, it was a classic , a revolution, a new world on music...
westcoast music is still bangin , im into 03Greedo,drakeo the ruler, mac lucci,lil sodi
...
-
See dawg... this is the exact shit I’m talking about you are exposing yourself as being the same fuccing Nazi you allege the Germans to be...
Look at what I said... I said “calls into question” you wanna ban someone or censor someone for the mere thought of “questioning” something—and then in the same token act like you give a fucc about the Jews and hate Nazi’s or whatever u are the fool that needs to be checked tryna ban someone for the mere “questioning” of a narrative exposes you for what you really are
What you're saying is completely incoherent and racist. You have absolutely no idea who or what I am. You're certainly no historian, nor are you a scientist. So you're not really qualified in any academic or professional capacity to speak on either of those topics and be taken seriously. You're entitled to have your opinions but racism and anti-semitism have no place on any platform. There's enough hate in the world. Take it out there and off this forum if that's really how you feel. "Questioning" empirically verified facts and documented history that is publicly available is merely a euphemism for the abundantly clear xenophobia and anti-intellectualism you're displaying. Throwing around the word Nazi in that fashion demonstrates a gross lack of education, competency, and highlights the extraordinary level of ignorance and insensitivity you have for other groups of people. It's ugly and disgusting. If you spent half as much time pursuing an education as you do on here throwing your weight around with anti-science and bigotry, your community would be better for it. And FYI, I'm not a moderator so I can't kick you off the forum... so I'm not "tryna ban" you. But anyone who thinks racism and prejudice are permissible forms of behavior shouldn't be given the privilege of having a platform to amplify those views.
-
What he's saying is you believe what other people, even when what other people say contradicts common sense and what you see with your own two eyes. Of course, you won't admit that because you can't see that because you've been trained to accept the mainstream narrative without question.
All of the flat earth lunacy, aliens living in the north pole and other kinds of madness come with the territory of "awakening" it seems because it makes it easier to brush off as crazy/stupid. All for a reason.
Both of your are still in The Matrix, in an intellectual sense. Safe in the mainstream bubble, 1996 in the bubble that surrounds the bubble to contain those who think they've escaped. 96 will get exactly what I mean in around a decade if he keeps this line of questioning up, Safe will go to his grave thinking he knew best when in reality he didn't know a thing outside what he was told.
No point arguing with either of you, or you with either for above reasons. You're both victims to accepting external narratives with no direct proof of anything as fact then acting on it.
-
What he's saying is you believe what other people, even when what other people say contradicts common sense and what you see with your own two eyes. Of course, you won't admit that because you can't see that because you've been trained to accept the mainstream narrative without question.
All of the flat earth lunacy, aliens living in the north pole and other kinds of madness come with the territory of "awakening" it seems because it makes it easier to brush off as crazy/stupid. All for a reason.
Both of your are still in The Matrix, in an intellectual sense. Safe in the mainstream bubble, 1996 in the bubble that surrounds the bubble to contain those who think they've escaped. 96 will get exactly what I mean in around a decade if he keeps this line of questioning up, Safe will go to his grave thinking he knew best when in reality he didn't know a thing outside what he was told.
No point arguing with either of you, or you with either for above reasons. You're both victims to accepting external narratives with no direct proof of anything as fact then acting on it.
and you are unequivocally wise.. intellectually well above the other 2 in question. your capacity for understanding is unparalleled.
:lulz:
-
and you are unequivocally wise.. intellectually well above the other 2 in question. your capacity for understanding is unparalleled.
Dress it how you wish but you know you've just spoken the truth so we'll leave it at that.
-
What he's saying is you believe what other people, even when what other people say contradicts common sense and what you see with your own two eyes. Of course, you won't admit that because you can't see that because you've been trained to accept the mainstream narrative without question.
All of the flat earth lunacy, aliens living in the north pole and other kinds of madness come with the territory of "awakening" it seems because it makes it easier to brush off as crazy/stupid. All for a reason.
Both of your are still in The Matrix, in an intellectual sense. Safe in the mainstream bubble, 1996 in the bubble that surrounds the bubble to contain those who think they've escaped. 96 will get exactly what I mean in around a decade if he keeps this line of questioning up, Safe will go to his grave thinking he knew best when in reality he didn't know a thing outside what he was told.
No point arguing with either of you, or you with either for above reasons. You're both victims to accepting external narratives with no direct proof of anything as fact then acting on it.
Getting through this was like grammatical gymnastics.
I don't know what language you're speaking but it's not anything based in reality. You're borrowing terminology from movies to try and describe some sort of abstract, deterministic, warped perception you have. So, I'm not a victim of this fantasy you have of what you think the world is.
For the record, my views are not based on what I am told. They are based on experiments, studies, years of intense academic work and a wealth of information dating back hundreds of years that was (and continues to be) responsible for the advancement of civilization as we know it - You know, the kinds of ideas that people like Newton, Galileo, Russell, Lorenz, Einstein, Schrodinger, Leibniz and Turing put fourth that allow you to exist online and type on a computer for starters. It's called Calculus and it is the metric we use for virtually everything that allows your modern life to even take place. Direct proofs are how mathematics work and they compose the physical laws of the world and universe as we know it. They also govern the framework of engineering that keeps whatever house you live in from collapsing on you and your car running. Feel free to read some material of the names mentioned if proof is what you want. It's all there for anyone with a curious mind. I don't have the time to give you a crash course in these areas - get up and get your own damn education. Also, the only "training" I have is based on the aforementioned principles from the pioneers of modern society - from medicine, biochemistry, and neuroscience to mathematics and astrophysics.
Science is fundamentally based on trying to prove something wrong. Leaning on ideas to test their efficacy is how we figure out what actually works and move forward. We learn to identify and price in our own human biases so that we can effectively factor them out of important experiments. Human influence is exactly what we don't want. That teaches you how to think outside of a bubble, not inside of one. Every person I have encountered like you hasn't had an ounce of exposure to anything STEM related. That's not a coincidence. It's simple scientific illiteracy. But the good news is anyone can learn about it and teach themselves how to critically think using valid forms of logic instead of mere opinions pulled straight out of the asshole. We didn't get this far by being idiots. Bonafide scholars who dedicated their lives to careers in these fields whose work spanned multiple generations is why. Take a lesson from them and don't be the truck driver who thinks he can offer meaningful contributions to quantum mechanics.
-
What you're saying is completely incoherent and racist. You have absolutely no idea who or what I am. You're certainly no historian, nor are you a scientist. So you're not really qualified in any academic or professional capacity to speak on either of those topics and be taken seriously. You're entitled to have your opinions but racism and anti-semitism have no place on any platform. There's enough hate in the world. Take it out there and off this forum if that's really how you feel. "Questioning" empirically verified facts and documented history that is publicly available is merely a euphemism for the abundantly clear xenophobia and anti-intellectualism you're displaying. Throwing around the word Nazi in that fashion demonstrates a gross lack of education, competency, and highlights the extraordinary level of ignorance and insensitivity you have for other groups of people. It's ugly and disgusting. If you spent half as much time pursuing an education as you do on here throwing your weight around with anti-science and bigotry, your community would be better for it. And FYI, I'm not a moderator so I can't kick you off the forum... so I'm not "tryna ban" you. But anyone who thinks racism and prejudice are permissible forms of behavior shouldn't be given the privilege of having a platform to amplify those views.
yeah.. when you are losing an argument just call the other person racist. This is lib-tard logic.
...so any historical narrative is empirical fact and not allowed to be questioned? His-story is written by the winners not the losers. The one who wins the war gets to write the history about it. That doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the history is accurate; sometimes it is accurate. Sometimes both sides are represented. Some times they are not. It may be that you question something, and find out the official narrative rings true—but how would you know that yourself if you never questioned it?
You are still in the dark ages in which the clergy were above questioning. The clergy created the official narrative and were above reproach. These days; it's the Medical Experts who are above reproach or questioning and they are able to mandate and control every aspects down to forcible injections, lockdowns, and even. our breathing.
Not questioning anything means remaining a pro-censorship ignorant lib-tard like yourself that's taking society back into the dark ages.
-
yeah.. when you are losing an argument just call the other person racist. This is lib-tard logic.
...so any historical narrative is empirical fact and not allowed to be questioned? His-story is written by the winners not the losers. The one who wins the war gets to write the history about it. That doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the history is accurate; sometimes it is accurate. Sometimes both sides are represented. Some times they are not. It may be that you question something, and find out the official narrative rings true—but how would you know that yourself if you never questioned it?
You are still in the dark ages in which the clergy were above questioning. The clergy created the official narrative and were above reproach. These days; it's the Medical Experts who are above reproach or questioning and they are able to mandate and control every aspects down to forcible injections, lockdowns, and even. our breathing.
Not questioning anything means remaining a pro-censorship ignorant lib-tard like yourself that's taking society back into the dark ages.
but questioning something that’s well documented and easily researchable like the holocaust pretty much makes u an idiot and also is a regularity amongst neo-nazis, the kkk and various other factions of white supremacy
it’s like if i were to question whether there was truly a beef between pac and big.. you would think i was retarded, right?
-
I rarely post anymore, but I still lurk these forums as well as others like thecoli, and I have to say that I don't think there is anyone on any forum that is as simple as this Infinite character. It's been interesting to watch him lose touch with reality over the years, and to think he's on some next shit when, in reality, we all know people like Infinite who think they are "enlightened" while being the most basic of basic bitches.
Except to say that much of the shit Infinite posts doesn't belong on a hiphop forum. Someone please restrict his posts to other areas of the forum so that others like myself aren't put off with the mindless drivel he spouts that he thinks is unique when in reality people with his views are everywhere nowadays.
Safe and Sound put a lot more effort into his posts and said it much better than I could ever, so I'll stop here.
-
Now that I've witnessed the WorldWide Covid Scam where nearly everybody--including the regular guy next door types has so quickly turned into a "Nazi" ready to send the unvaxxinated off to quarantine camps in a New York minute if the government gives the order.
Seeing such a worldwide scam makes me sort of call everything into question. It led me to becoming a flat Earther and I even question if the whole narrative on Germany and Nazism is even all its cracked up to be. I mean look how quickly Israel turned on their own people with forced vaxxination and quarantine.
https://spirituallysmart.com/nazi.html
Here is what really happened.
-
but questioning something that’s well documented and easily researchable like the holocaust pretty much makes u an idiot and also is a regularity amongst neo-nazis, the kkk and various other factions of white supremacy
it’s like if i were to question whether there was truly a beef between pac and big.. you would think i was retarded, right?
Questioning is the very root function and pre-requisite to seeking knowledge. There is no knowledge attained without first questioning.
You don’t get the number 2 without first questioning what is 1 + 1
-
Questioning is the very root function and pre-requisite to seeking knowledge. There is no knowledge attained without first questioning.
You don’t get the number 2 without first questioning what is 1 + 1
some things are beyond questioning
for example, do you need to question whether snoop made an album called doggystyle?
let’s not argue semantics and understand the point here
-
yeah.. when you are losing an argument just call the other person racist. This is lib-tard logic.
...so any historical narrative is empirical fact and not allowed to be questioned? His-story is written by the winners not the losers. The one who wins the war gets to write the history about it. That doesn't mean that there aren't cases where the history is accurate; sometimes it is accurate. Sometimes both sides are represented. Some times they are not. It may be that you question something, and find out the official narrative rings true—but how would you know that yourself if you never questioned it?
You are still in the dark ages in which the clergy were above questioning. The clergy created the official narrative and were above reproach. These days; it's the Medical Experts who are above reproach or questioning and they are able to mandate and control every aspects down to forcible injections, lockdowns, and even. our breathing.
Not questioning anything means remaining a pro-censorship ignorant lib-tard like yourself that's taking society back into the dark ages.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The concept of the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on a 1999 paper by Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger [1]. The pair tested participants on their logic, grammar, and sense of humor, and found that those who performed in the bottom quartile rated their skills far above average. For example, those in the 12th percentile self-rated their expertise to be, on average, in the 62nd percentile.
The researchers attributed the trend to a problem of metacognition—the ability to analyze one’s own thoughts or performance. “Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” they wrote.
Confidence is so highly prized that many people would rather pretend to be smart or skilled than risk looking inadequate and losing face. Even smart people can be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect because having intelligence isn’t the same thing as learning and developing a specific skill. Many individuals mistakenly believe that their experience and skills in one particular area are transferable to another.
Many people would describe themselves as above average in intelligence, humor, and a variety of skills. They can’t accurately judge their own competence, because they lack metacognition, or the ability to step back and examine oneself objectively. In fact, those who are the least skilled are also the most likely to overestimate their abilities.
Incompetent people, the researchers found, are not only poor performers, they are also unable to accurately assess and recognize the quality of their own work. This is the reason why students who earn failing scores on exams sometimes feel that they deserved a much higher score. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability and are incapable of seeing the poorness of their performance. Low performers are unable to recognize the skill and competence levels of other people, which is part of the reason why they consistently view themselves as better, more capable, and more knowledgeable than others.
Dunning and his colleagues have also performed experiments in which they ask respondents if they are familiar with a variety of terms related to subjects including politics, biology, physics, and geography. Along with genuine subject-relevant concepts, they interjected completely made-up terms. In one such study, approximately 90 percent of respondents claimed that they had at least some knowledge of the made-up terms. Consistent with other findings related to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the more familiar participants claimed that they were with a topic, the more likely they were to also claim they were familiar with the meaningless terms. As Dunning has suggested, the very trouble with ignorance is that it can feel just like expertise [2].
This tendency may occur because gaining a small amount of knowledge in an area about which one was previously ignorant can make people feel as though they’re suddenly virtual experts. Only after continuing to explore a topic do they realize how extensive it is and how much they still have to master.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has been found in domains ranging from logical reasoning to emotional intelligence, financial knowledge, and firearm safety. And the effect isn't spotted only among incompetent individuals; most people have weak points where the bias can take hold. It also applies to people with a seemingly solid knowledge base.
So what explains this psychological effect? Are some people simply too dense, to be blunt, to know how dim-witted they are? Dunning and Kruger suggest that this phenomenon stems from what they refer to as a "dual burden." People are not only incompetent; their incompetence robs them of the mental ability to realize just how inept they are.
Dunning has pointed out that the very knowledge and skills necessary to be good at a task are the exact same qualities that a person needs to recognize that they are not good at that task. So if a person lacks those abilities, they remain not only bad at that task but ignorant to their own inability. Dunning suggests that deficits in skill and expertise create a two-pronged problem. First, these deficits cause people to perform poorly in the domain in which they are incompetent. Secondly, their erroneous and deficient knowledge makes them unable to recognize their mistakes [3].
The Dunning-Kruger effect is also related to difficulties with metacognition, or the ability to step back and look at one's own behavior and abilities from outside of oneself. People are often only able to evaluate themselves from their own limited and highly subjective point of view. From this limited perspective, they seem highly skilled, knowledgeable, and superior to others. Because of this, people sometimes struggle to have a more realistic view of their own abilities [4].
Another contributing factor is that sometimes a tiny bit of knowledge on a subject can lead people to mistakenly believe that they know all there is to know about it. As the old saying goes, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. A person might have the slimmest bit of awareness about a subject, yet thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, believe that he or she is an expert. Other factors that can contribute to the effect include our use of heuristics, or mental shortcuts that allow us to make decisions quickly, and our tendency to seek out patterns even where none exist. Our minds are primed to try to make sense of the disparate array of information we deal with on a daily basis. As we try to cut through the confusion and interpret our own abilities and performance within our individual worlds, it is perhaps not surprising that we sometimes fail so completely to accurately judge how well we do [5].
So is there anything that can minimize this phenomenon? Is there a point at which the incompetent actually recognize their own ineptitude? "We are all engines of misbelief," Dunning has suggested. While we are all prone to experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, learning more about how the mind works and the mistakes we are all susceptible to might be one step toward correcting such patterns. I study the brain and how the mind works for a living.
Source [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/
Source [2]: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/59805/Atir_cornellgrad_0058F_11018.pdf?sequence=1
Source [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123855220000056?via%3Dihub
Source [4]: https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000579
Source [5]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1242-7
-
Questioning is the very root function and pre-requisite to seeking knowledge. There is no knowledge attained without first questioning.
You don’t get the number 2 without first questioning what is 1 + 1
Don't listen to this group think bs. Everything we have been taught is a lie. Keep searching for the truth.
-
Don't listen to this group think bs. Everything we have been taught is a lie. Keep searching for the truth.
do you know what balance means?
it’s ok to question certain things while realizing some things do not need questioning
like i don’t need to question whether the sky is blue .. that’s how people become schizophrenic- overthinking and questioning that which is plain and simple. i’m all for a good conspiracy theory, but when u start delving too deep you lose sight of what’s obvious.
-
do you know what balance means?
it’s ok to question certain things while realizing some things do not need questioning
like i don’t need to question whether the sky is blue .. that’s how people become schizophrenic- overthinking and questioning that which is plain and simple. i’m all for a good conspiracy theory, but when u start delving too deep you lose sight of what’s obvious.
I'd like to take your example of the sky to make another point that fits into this context of rational questioning versus ignorant defiance masquerading as questioning. I think it's a good example.
So, people at one time - specifically physicists - questioned the perception of color, which obviously included the color of the sky. As it turns out, through a long series of technological experimentation that I won't bore you with, the sky is actually not blue at all. It's actually violet. The "blue" sky is the limitation of our vision in the electromagnetic spectrum but is not the true frequency - sort of like now information is downgraded from a master quality 24-bit WAV track to an 8-bit mp3 (fun fact: birds can see much more of the color spectrum than humans can, including UV). But there is no such thing as color in the physical world, only an electromagnetic spectrum through which varying wavelengths of light are processed from objects that reflect them and brains that process them. Perception is based on the brain's interpretation of distributed patterns of activity, not literal snapshots of the world. This gets into mapping between V1 (striated cortex) and the retina but I digress.
As an aside, schizophrenia is not caused by "overthinking and questioning that which is plain and simple." Its causes remain unknown, but research thus far points to a combination of genetics, brain chemistry and environment that contributes to development of the disorder. Risk factors mainly stem from a family history, which points to genetics. Problems with certain naturally occurring brain chemicals, including neurotransmitters called dopamine and glutamate, may contribute to it. Neuroimaging studies show morphological differences in the brain structure and central nervous system of people with schizophrenia. Symptoms can vary between teens and adults. Just FYI.
-
I'd like to take your example of the sky to make another point that fits into this context of rational questioning versus ignorant defiance masquerading as questioning. I think it's a good example.
So, people at one time - specifically physicists - questioned the perception of color, which obviously included the color of the sky. As it turns out, through a long series of technological experimentation that I won't bore you with, the sky is actually not blue at all. It's actually violet. The "blue" sky is the limitation of our vision in the electromagnetic spectrum but is not the true frequency - sort of like now information is downgraded from a master quality 24-bit WAV track to an 8-bit mp3 (fun fact: birds can see much more of the color spectrum than humans can, including UV). But there is no such thing as color in the physical world, only an electromagnetic spectrum through which varying wavelengths of light are processed from objects that reflect them and brains that process them. Perception is based on the brain's interpretation of distributed patterns of activity, not literal snapshots of the world. This gets into mapping between V1 (striated cortex) and the retina but I digress.
As an aside, schizophrenia is not caused by "overthinking and questioning that which is plain and simple." Its causes remain unknown, but research thus far points to a combination of genetics, brain chemistry and environment that contributes to development of the disorder. Risk factors mainly stem from a family history, which points to genetics. Problems with certain naturally occurring brain chemicals, including neurotransmitters called dopamine and glutamate, may contribute to it. Neuroimaging studies show morphological differences in the brain structure and central nervous system of people with schizophrenia. Symptoms can vary between teens and adults. Just FYI.
i get what you’re saying about the color spectrum and perception of color, which is something i’ve thought my entire life… i remember asking my mom as a small child “how do i know what’s blue to me isn’t actually red to you?” .. it stuck with her and she even questioned me about it decades later.
but this goes beyond what i was actually saying and is, again, semantics .. my point was that some things are so obvious that questioning them is counter productive .. another example would be me questioning whether or not a piano is actually a musical instrument .. i’m pretty sure if some1 was adamant enough they could find a way to argue it wasn’t LOL.
as for schizophrenia, you just said the cause remains unknown .. yet you confidently tell me what it’s not. how can you know what it’s not when u don’t know what it is? i’ve known many people with schizophrenia and one thing that they all share in common- overthinking and the inability to simplify their excessive thoughts. pretty much every “mental disorder” is attributed to a chemical imbalance. the question is, what causes this imbalance and can it be managed with some mental prowess? the answer is yes, meaning it’s all in your head. literally.
-
some things are beyond questioning
for example, do you need to question whether snoop made an album called doggystyle?
let’s not argue semantics and understand the point here
Possibly my son would question if Snoop made an album called Doggystyle. When I was a kid I questioned if Dre made an album before the Chronic.
The answer would of been that Dre had a group album with NWA but the Chronic was his first solo. And then Now I Know.. That’s how you get knowledge. I used to ask my dad questions about sports everyday that might be obvious to most. Like, is 3 strikes an out? And then he would answer me and confirm that three strikes is an out—and that’s called learning.
There is nothing wrong with those questions. You question and you get a fuccin answer. It’s not wrong to question anything.
So my son questions whether Snoop has an album called Doggystyle. And I tell him yes. He should be censored from asking that question??
(It’s ironic your nickname used to be “Now I Know” because we come into knowledge through questioning. Before you can make the statement “Now I Know” you first have to question. It’s pretentious to claim to “know” without questioning)
-
Possibly my son would question if Snoop made an album called Doggystyle. When I was a kid I questioned if Dre made an album before the Chronic.
The answer would of been that Dre had a group album with NWA but the Chronic was his first solo. And then Now I Know.. That’s how you get knowledge. I used to ask my dad questions about sports everyday that might be obvious to most. Like, is 3 strikes an out? And then he would answer me and confirm that three strikes is an out—and that’s called learning.
There is nothing wrong with those questions. You question and you get a fuccin answer. It’s not wrong to question anything.
So my son questions whether Snoop has an album called Doggystyle. And I tell him yes. He should be censored from asking that question??
(It’s ironic your nickname used to be “Now I Know” because we come into knowledge through questioning. Before you can make the statement “Now I Know” you first have to question. It’s pretentious to claim to “know” without questioning)
you’re missing the point..
once you’ve already learned that 3 strikes is an out, it THEN becomes dumb to question it
as someone learning the sport, yes, you ask questions and learn accordingly
but for a 40 year old who’s watched baseball his entire life to say, “hey i’m not really sure if 3 strikes is an out!”, he’d have to be pretty moronic
-
i get what you’re saying about the color spectrum and perception of color, which is something i’ve thought my entire life… i remember asking my mom as a small child “how do i know what’s blue to me isn’t actually red to you?” .. it stuck with her and she even questioned me about it decades later.
but this goes beyond what i was actually saying and is, again, semantics .. my point was that some things are so obvious that questioning them is counter productive .. another example would be me questioning whether or not a piano is actually a musical instrument .. i’m pretty sure if some1 was adamant enough they could find a way to argue it wasn’t LOL.
as for schizophrenia, you just said the cause remains unknown .. yet you confidently tell me what it’s not. how can you know what it’s not when u don’t know what it is? i’ve known many people with schizophrenia and one thing that they all share in common- overthinking and the inability to simplify their excessive thoughts. pretty much every “mental disorder” is attributed to a chemical imbalance. the question is, what causes this imbalance and can it be managed with some mental prowess? the answer is yes, meaning it’s all in your head. literally.
Briefly with schizophrenia: to answer your question, it boils down to inductive and deductive reasoning. Here's an example of inductive:
Observation (premise): My Welsh Corgis were incredibly stubborn and independent (specific observation of behavior).
Observation (premise): My neighbor's Corgis are the same way (another specific observation of behavior).
Theory: All Welsh Corgis are incredibly stubborn and independent (general statement about the behavior of Corgis).
As you can see, I'm basing my theory on my observations of the behavior of a number of Corgis. Since I only have a small amount of data, my conclusion or theory will be quite weak.
If I was able to observe the behavior of 1000 Corgis (omg that would be amazing), my conclusion would be stronger – but still not certain. Because what if 10 of them were extremely well-behaved and obedient? Or what if the 1001st Corgi was?
So, as you can see, I can make a general statement about Corgis being stubborn, but I can't say that ALL of them are.
Increasing the strength of this form of reasoning lies in larger sample sizes & data sets along with subsets of inductive reasoning like enumerative and eliminative.
Then we move to deductive. Once you have a theory, you'll want to test it to see if it's valid and your conclusions are sound. You do this by performing experiments and testing your theory, narrowing down your ideas as the results come in. You perform these tests until only valid conclusions remain. Here's an example of that:
Theory: All men are mortal
Premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
As you can see here, we start off with a general theory – that all men are mortal. (This is assuming you don't believe in elves, fairies, and other beings...)
Then we make an observation (develop a premise) about a particular example of our data set (Socrates). That is, we say that he is a man, which we can establish as a fact.
Finally, because Socrates is a man, and based on our theory, we conclude that Socrates is therefore mortal (since all men are mortal, and he's a man).
You'll notice that deductive reasoning relies less on information that could be biased or uncertain. It uses facts to prove the theory you're trying to prove. If any of your facts lead to false premises, then the conclusion is invalid. And you start the process over.
This is all very basic to give you an idea of how we can deduce and distill what certain things are or are not to point us in the right direction. Would you look for an apple in an orange field?
With a disease like schizophrenia, its causes are not voluntary. Modern methodologies in fields like genetics, biochemistry, and neuroscience have made it much easier to triangulate afflictions in the brain. From what has been gathered and studied, we have a general neighborhood but not a specific address so to speak. Medications are the cornerstone of schizophrenia treatment, and antipsychotic medications are the most commonly prescribed drugs. They can control symptoms by affecting the brain neurotransmitter dopamine. This wouldn't be possible without an idea of some of the causal factors. The goal of treatment with antipsychotic medications is to effectively manage signs and symptoms at the lowest possible dose.
P.S. I don't know if you read but if you do and would like a decent (and profound) account of schizophrenia from a professional and personal perspective, I highly recommend The Quiet Room by Lori Schiller.
-
Briefly with schizophrenia: to answer your question, it boils down to inductive and deductive reasoning. Here's an example of inductive:
Observation (premise): My Welsh Corgis were incredibly stubborn and independent (specific observation of behavior).
Observation (premise): My neighbor's Corgis are the same way (another specific observation of behavior).
Theory: All Welsh Corgis are incredibly stubborn and independent (general statement about the behavior of Corgis).
As you can see, I'm basing my theory on my observations of the behavior of a number of Corgis. Since I only have a small amount of data, my conclusion or theory will be quite weak.
If I was able to observe the behavior of 1000 Corgis (omg that would be amazing), my conclusion would be stronger – but still not certain. Because what if 10 of them were extremely well-behaved and obedient? Or what if the 1001st Corgi was?
So, as you can see, I can make a general statement about Corgis being stubborn, but I can't say that ALL of them are.
Increasing the strength of this form of reasoning lies in larger sample sizes & data sets along with subsets of inductive reasoning like enumerative and eliminative.
Then we move to deductive. Once you have a theory, you'll want to test it to see if it's valid and your conclusions are sound. You do this by performing experiments and testing your theory, narrowing down your ideas as the results come in. You perform these tests until only valid conclusions remain. Here's an example of that:
Theory: All men are mortal
Premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
As you can see here, we start off with a general theory – that all men are mortal. (This is assuming you don't believe in elves, fairies, and other beings...)
Then we make an observation (develop a premise) about a particular example of our data set (Socrates). That is, we say that he is a man, which we can establish as a fact.
Finally, because Socrates is a man, and based on our theory, we conclude that Socrates is therefore mortal (since all men are mortal, and he's a man).
You'll notice that deductive reasoning relies less on information that could be biased or uncertain. It uses facts to prove the theory you're trying to prove. If any of your facts lead to false premises, then the conclusion is invalid. And you start the process over.
This is all very basic to give you an idea of how we can deduce and distill what certain things are or are not to point us in the right direction. Would you look for an apple in an orange field?
With a disease like schizophrenia, its causes are not voluntary. Modern methodologies in fields like genetics, biochemistry, and neuroscience have made it much easier to triangulate afflictions in the brain. From what has been gathered and studied, we have a general neighborhood but not a specific address so to speak. Medications are the cornerstone of schizophrenia treatment, and antipsychotic medications are the most commonly prescribed drugs. They can control symptoms by affecting the brain neurotransmitter dopamine. This wouldn't be possible without an idea of some of the causal factors. The goal of treatment with antipsychotic medications is to effectively manage signs and symptoms at the lowest possible dose.
P.S. I don't know if you read but if you do and would like a decent (and profound) account of schizophrenia from a professional and personal perspective, I highly recommend The Quiet Room by Lori Schiller.
Wtf does all y'all back and forth have to do with Dr Dre? Why don't y'all get a room somewhere if y'all wanna argue back and forth, no-one wants to read that bullshit
-
Briefly with schizophrenia: to answer your question, it boils down to inductive and deductive reasoning. Here's an example of inductive:
Observation (premise): My Welsh Corgis were incredibly stubborn and independent (specific observation of behavior).
Observation (premise): My neighbor's Corgis are the same way (another specific observation of behavior).
Theory: All Welsh Corgis are incredibly stubborn and independent (general statement about the behavior of Corgis).
As you can see, I'm basing my theory on my observations of the behavior of a number of Corgis. Since I only have a small amount of data, my conclusion or theory will be quite weak.
If I was able to observe the behavior of 1000 Corgis (omg that would be amazing), my conclusion would be stronger – but still not certain. Because what if 10 of them were extremely well-behaved and obedient? Or what if the 1001st Corgi was?
So, as you can see, I can make a general statement about Corgis being stubborn, but I can't say that ALL of them are.
Increasing the strength of this form of reasoning lies in larger sample sizes & data sets along with subsets of inductive reasoning like enumerative and eliminative.
Then we move to deductive. Once you have a theory, you'll want to test it to see if it's valid and your conclusions are sound. You do this by performing experiments and testing your theory, narrowing down your ideas as the results come in. You perform these tests until only valid conclusions remain. Here's an example of that:
Theory: All men are mortal
Premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal
As you can see here, we start off with a general theory – that all men are mortal. (This is assuming you don't believe in elves, fairies, and other beings...)
Then we make an observation (develop a premise) about a particular example of our data set (Socrates). That is, we say that he is a man, which we can establish as a fact.
Finally, because Socrates is a man, and based on our theory, we conclude that Socrates is therefore mortal (since all men are mortal, and he's a man).
You'll notice that deductive reasoning relies less on information that could be biased or uncertain. It uses facts to prove the theory you're trying to prove. If any of your facts lead to false premises, then the conclusion is invalid. And you start the process over.
This is all very basic to give you an idea of how we can deduce and distill what certain things are or are not to point us in the right direction. Would you look for an apple in an orange field?
With a disease like schizophrenia, its causes are not voluntary. Modern methodologies in fields like genetics, biochemistry, and neuroscience have made it much easier to triangulate afflictions in the brain. From what has been gathered and studied, we have a general neighborhood but not a specific address so to speak. Medications are the cornerstone of schizophrenia treatment, and antipsychotic medications are the most commonly prescribed drugs. They can control symptoms by affecting the brain neurotransmitter dopamine. This wouldn't be possible without an idea of some of the causal factors. The goal of treatment with antipsychotic medications is to effectively manage signs and symptoms at the lowest possible dose.
P.S. I don't know if you read but if you do and would like a decent (and profound) account of schizophrenia from a professional and personal perspective, I highly recommend The Quiet Room by Lori Schiller.
with enough discipline, one could regulate the dopamine neurotransmitters in their brain naturally
do you believe this to be true?
-
Wtf does all y'all back and forth have to do with Dr Dre? Why don't y'all get a room somewhere if y'all wanna argue back and forth, no-one wants to read that bullshit
have you ever visited a forum before? discussions go off topic regularly, just like any human discussion. this thread is about banning dr. dre haters…. are u really so interested in the topic that you need more info on that? if u don’t care no one is forcing u to read homie.
-
with enough discipline, one could regulate the dopamine neurotransmitters in their brain naturally
do you believe this to be true?
Science is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. So it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe. What is proven to be true through rigorous experimentation, replication, and testing is how real answers to serious questions are discovered. I'd love to see your sources (along with their authors) that make these claims. But no, you cannot self-regulate your own biochemistry with your mind haha (don't we all wish! It's certainly a pleasant fiction and would make for an interesting movie).
Dopamine is a chemical produced by the brain and is released when we take a bite of delicious food, when we have sex, after we exercise, and, importantly, when we have successful social interactions. In an evolutionary context, it rewards us for beneficial behaviors and motivates us to repeat them. There are series of different pathways (mesocortical, mesolimbic, nigrostriatal, and tuberoinfundibular) that dictate which parts of the brain receive dopamine and also regulatory functions that control its release dictated by other hormones like prolactin. To give you a quick idea of how complex a dopamine synthesis pathway is, I'll offer the following explanation: The dopamine synthesis and storage pathway involves several enzymes and co-factors, any one of which could be manipulated genetically to yield increased dopamine levels. The rate-limiting enzyme in dopamine production is tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), which converts the amino acid tyrosine to l-dopa. l-dopa is then metabolised to dopamine by aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). Another factor that influences this pathway is the essential TH co-factor 6-tetrahydrabiopterin (BH4), the level of which is limited by availability of the enzyme GTP-cyclohydrolase I (GTPCHI). Modification of the levels of any of these three key enzymes (TH, AADC or GTPCHI) through gene therapy could significantly impact on striatal dopamine levels and many studies have been published on the use of genes encoding these enzymes in both rodent and primate PD models.
As you can see, these concepts are very involved and require a solid background in areas like neuroanatomy and biology to understand how things actually work when it comes to the brain (and the human body in general). If this sort of thing interests you, I'd encourage you to enroll in a STEM program at an accredited university to get your bearings. Any professional career in these disciplines require at least a 4 year degree in a hard science.
-
Science is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of fact. So it ultimately doesn't matter what I believe. What is proven to be true through rigorous experimentation, replication, and testing is how real answers to serious questions are discovered. I'd love to see your sources (along with their authors) that make these claims. But no, you cannot self-regulate your own biochemistry with your mind haha (don't we all wish! It's certainly a pleasant fiction and would make for an interesting movie).
Dopamine is a chemical produced by the brain and is released when we take a bite of delicious food, when we have sex, after we exercise, and, importantly, when we have successful social interactions. In an evolutionary context, it rewards us for beneficial behaviors and motivates us to repeat them. There are series of different pathways (mesocortical, mesolimbic, nigrostriatal, and tuberoinfundibular) that dictate which parts of the brain receive dopamine and also regulatory functions that control its release dictated by other hormones like prolactin. To give you a quick idea of how complex a dopamine synthesis pathway is, I'll offer the following explanation: The dopamine synthesis and storage pathway involves several enzymes and co-factors, any one of which could be manipulated genetically to yield increased dopamine levels. The rate-limiting enzyme in dopamine production is tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), which converts the amino acid tyrosine to l-dopa. l-dopa is then metabolised to dopamine by aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). Another factor that influences this pathway is the essential TH co-factor 6-tetrahydrabiopterin (BH4), the level of which is limited by availability of the enzyme GTP-cyclohydrolase I (GTPCHI). Modification of the levels of any of these three key enzymes (TH, AADC or GTPCHI) through gene therapy could significantly impact on striatal dopamine levels and many studies have been published on the use of genes encoding these enzymes in both rodent and primate PD models.
As you can see, these concepts are very involved and require a solid background in areas like neuroanatomy and biology to understand how things actually work when it comes to the brain (and the human body in general). If this sort of thing interests you, I'd encourage you to enroll in a STEM program at an accredited university to get your bearings. Any professional career in these disciplines require at least a 4 year degree in a hard science.
i was fuckin wit u for a minute, but now i see you have no idea what you’re actually talkin bout
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054695/
https://www.sfn.org/sitecore/content/home/brainfacts2/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/thinking-and-awareness/2019/understanding-the-power-of-meditation-041919
(https://i.ibb.co/HHy0sxQ/EF83-B918-37-E4-4-EE1-94-AD-D2497-A37425-B.jpg)
-
i was fuckin wit u for a minute, but now i see you have no idea what you’re actually talkin bout
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4054695/
https://www.sfn.org/sitecore/content/home/brainfacts2/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/thinking-and-awareness/2019/understanding-the-power-of-meditation-041919
(https://i.ibb.co/HHy0sxQ/EF83-B918-37-E4-4-EE1-94-AD-D2497-A37425-B.jpg)
Hahahaha, omg meditation??? Really?? That's what you're talking about? Also, just typing what you want into a search engine for an answer that agrees with you is infantile. Search engines aren't objective truth-telling fact machines. You actually have to sift through a TON of garbage (like the blog you got that screen shot from). I can type in something about Bigfoot and get plenty of junk "confirmations" I could mindlessly send you. Does that mean it's true?
The study you cited is about sleep propensity and wakefulness based on "subjective, behavioral, and neuroimaging studies of meditation." Did you even read it? This has nothing to do with mental illness.
The text on that screen shot is from a blog and is actually from a 2002 abstract. It's not even a paper. Total junk.
Yes, of course we can all do things to try and mitigate stress but they do not always work - especially when we're on the topic of a diseased brain. Self regulation in the strictest sense assumes autonomous control over bodily functions. That is simply outside the human domain of possibilities. If we had to pay attention to every single thing the body did, consciousness as we know it would cease to exist.
There are certain forms of supplemental treatment that included CBT and mindfulness, which have shown some promise in some patients but certainly not all. Patients require medication for proper biochemical regulation when dealing with afflictions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People cannot achieve that on their own simply by meditation training. The entire problem is the inability to control many mental functions due to biochemical deficiencies. Restoration doesn't happen out of thin air. Try teaching a paranoid schizophrenic how to meditate.
Also, keep in mind that studies have to be duplicated many times independently to gain any ground. There are studies that say smoking doesn't cause cancer. Do you believe them? Do you understand how statisticians can manipulate numbers to skew the results to their favor? Do you know what to look for to be able to tell?
At this point I think the real issue is communication and being mindful of how to formulate questions. Also, feel free to chime in with thoughts on the dopamine pathways since you have such a high opinion of yourself ;D I'm interested to hear what your ideas are on that. Maybe we can get into a a juicy discussion about Neuron–Glia Coupling in Glutathione Metabolism. What do you do for a living?
In all seriousness, this has been fun but real life calls. Being in this forum doesn't save lives or get any work done so the shadow boxing is coming to a halt. I have to return to my evil lair and conspire at my round table on how to turn you all into zombies. ;D ;D
-
Hahahaha, omg meditation??? Really?? That's what you're talking about? Also, just typing what you want into a search engine for an answer that agrees with you is infantile. Search engines aren't objective truth-telling fact machines. You actually have to sift through a TON of garbage (like the blog you got that screen shot from). I can type in something about Bigfoot and get plenty of junk "confirmations" I could mindlessly send you. Does that mean it's true?
The study you cited is about sleep propensity and wakefulness based on "subjective, behavioral, and neuroimaging studies of meditation." Did you even read it? This has nothing to do with mental illness.
The text on that screen shot is from a blog and is actually from a 2002 abstract. It's not even a paper. Total junk.
Yes, of course we can all do things to try and mitigate stress but they do not always work - especially when we're on the topic of a diseased brain. Self regulation in the strictest sense assumes autonomous control over bodily functions. That is simply outside the human domain of possibilities. If we had to pay attention to every single thing the body did, consciousness as we know it would cease to exist.
There are certain forms of supplemental treatment that included CBT and mindfulness, which have shown some promise in some patients but certainly not all. Patients require medication for proper biochemical regulation when dealing with afflictions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. People cannot achieve that on their own simply by meditation training. The entire problem is the inability to control many mental functions due to biochemical deficiencies. Restoration doesn't happen out of thin air. Try teaching a paranoid schizophrenic how to meditate.
Also, keep in mind that studies have to be duplicated many times independently to gain any ground. There are studies that say smoking doesn't cause cancer. Do you believe them? Do you understand how statisticians can manipulate numbers to skew the results to their favor? Do you know what to look for to be able to tell?
At this point I think the real issue is communication and being mindful of how to formulate questions. Also, feel free to chime in with thoughts on the dopamine pathways since you have such a high opinion of yourself ;D I'm interested to hear what your ideas are on that. Maybe we can get into a a juicy discussion about Neuron–Glia Coupling in Glutathione Metabolism. What do you do for a living?
In all seriousness, this has been fun but real life calls. Being in this forum doesn't save lives or get any work done so the shadow boxing is coming to a halt. I have to return to my evil lair and conspire at my round table on how to turn you all into zombies. ;D ;D
my point was that you could naturally regulate dopamine levels wit will and discipline .. something you said was “impossible” and “movie worthy”.
typing up long paragraphs of things that you read doesn’t give you an edge. in fact, the smartest people know how to simplify things and have the ability to say just as much with using far less words.
i fux wit u mayn, but your thought process in this thread has shown that while you’re a well learned dude, you tend to lack the ability to see outside the box. which i guess is what infinite was originally getting at LOL. but infinite is the opposite end of the spectrum, questioning if the holocaust was legit and dumbass shit like that. gota find a balance.
-
my point was that you could naturally regulate dopamine levels wit will and discipline .. something you said was “impossible” and “movie worthy”.
typing up long paragraphs of things that you read doesn’t give you an edge. in fact, the smartest people know how to simplify things and have the ability to say just as much with using far less words.
i fux wit u mayn, but your thought process in this thread has shown that while you’re a well learned dude, you tend to lack the ability to see outside the box. which i guess is what infinite was originally getting at LOL. but infinite is the opposite end of the spectrum, questioning if the holocaust was legit and dumbass shit like that. gota find a balance.
There is no way for me to know what your level of competency is on anything related to neurobiology (or anything else for that matter). But from the brief interchange on the topic, it's clear this is very far from your area of expertise. So what may not make initial sense to you, may make perfect sense to someone else with a better background in these areas. My attempt in taking the time to flesh out certain concepts was precisely aimed at an audience that may not have that level of background, which includes you. I spent a lot of years in academia with professors who said next to nothing with the assumption that students were just supposed to "get it". Most of that comes from spending years in research discussing concepts that only a handful of people understand. This is not to say I didn't have excellent professors. Teaching is a skill and is certainly not for everyone. I certainly don't claim to be a teacher and was never interested in explaining things to people all day for a living. But if I see someone taking an interest in something in my field - whether it be critical or out of genuine curiosity - sometimes I feel like offering my two cents. After all, I earned it.
There are plenty of people WAY smarter than me - I work with some of them. But I didn't get there without any skills. So as much as forums rail on forever about opinions (which can be fun sometimes), real life doesn't quite work that way - especially in my line of work. Contributing to humanity through research is humbling, very difficult - which is why most people aren't scientists - but it's also quite rewarding. Typing in a forum thread, not so much. No grants for groundbreaking research to be found in a music forum within a thread about banning people for not liking Dr. Dre that turned into at science debate... That is a pretty epic transition though 8)
Not that I place any value on your judgements, but if putting me on the "opposite spectrum" of a delusional holocaust-denying bigot is the best you can do, I'll take it. ;)
Thanks everyone - it's been fun. Back to work!
-
There is no way for me to know what your level of competency is on anything related to neurobiology (or anything else for that matter). But from the brief interchange on the topic, it's clear this is very far from your area of expertise. So what may not make initial sense to you, may make perfect sense to someone else with a better background in these areas. My attempt in taking the time to flesh out certain concepts was precisely aimed at an audience that may not have that level of background, which includes you. I spent a lot of years in academia with professors who said next to nothing with the assumption that students were just supposed to "get it". Most of that comes from spending years in research discussing concepts that only a handful of people understand. This is not to say I didn't have excellent professors. Teaching is a skill and is certainly not for everyone. I certainly don't claim to be a teacher and was never interested in explaining things to people all day for a living. But if I see someone taking an interest in something in my field - whether it be critical or out of genuine curiosity - sometimes I feel like offering my two cents. After all, I earned it.
There are plenty of people WAY smarter than me - I work with some of them. But I didn't get there without any skills. So as much as forums rail on forever about opinions (which can be fun sometimes), real life doesn't quite work that way - especially in my line of work. Contributing to humanity through research is humbling, very difficult - which is why most people aren't scientists - but it's also quite rewarding. Typing in a forum thread, not so much. No grants for groundbreaking research to be found in a music forum within a thread about banning people for not liking Dr. Dre that turned into at science debate... That is a pretty epic transition though 8)
Not that I place any value on your judgements, but if putting me on the "opposite spectrum" of a delusional holocaust-denying bigot is the best you can do, I'll take it. ;)
Thanks everyone - it's been fun. Back to work!
:trollin:
-
you’re missing the point..
once you’ve already learned that 3 strikes is an out, it THEN becomes dumb to question it
as someone learning the sport, yes, you ask questions and learn accordingly
but for a 40 year old who’s watched baseball his entire life to say, “hey i’m not really sure if 3 strikes is an out!”, he’d have to be pretty moronic
Okay so a kid can question if 3 strikes is an out but an adult can not.. what about if the official WW2 narrative is correct or not, can an adult question that??
In fact if I had done a better job “questioning” when I was a kid I would’ve ended up buying Efil4zaggin instead of being stuck with Concrete Roots (though “Bridgette” was dope)
-
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
The concept of the Dunning-Kruger effect is based on a 1999 paper by Cornell University psychologists David Dunning and Justin Kruger [1]. The pair tested participants on their logic, grammar, and sense of humor, and found that those who performed in the bottom quartile rated their skills far above average. For example, those in the 12th percentile self-rated their expertise to be, on average, in the 62nd percentile.
The researchers attributed the trend to a problem of metacognition—the ability to analyze one’s own thoughts or performance. “Those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it,” they wrote.
Confidence is so highly prized that many people would rather pretend to be smart or skilled than risk looking inadequate and losing face. Even smart people can be affected by the Dunning-Kruger effect because having intelligence isn’t the same thing as learning and developing a specific skill. Many individuals mistakenly believe that their experience and skills in one particular area are transferable to another.
Many people would describe themselves as above average in intelligence, humor, and a variety of skills. They can’t accurately judge their own competence, because they lack metacognition, or the ability to step back and examine oneself objectively. In fact, those who are the least skilled are also the most likely to overestimate their abilities.
Incompetent people, the researchers found, are not only poor performers, they are also unable to accurately assess and recognize the quality of their own work. This is the reason why students who earn failing scores on exams sometimes feel that they deserved a much higher score. They overestimate their own knowledge and ability and are incapable of seeing the poorness of their performance. Low performers are unable to recognize the skill and competence levels of other people, which is part of the reason why they consistently view themselves as better, more capable, and more knowledgeable than others.
Dunning and his colleagues have also performed experiments in which they ask respondents if they are familiar with a variety of terms related to subjects including politics, biology, physics, and geography. Along with genuine subject-relevant concepts, they interjected completely made-up terms. In one such study, approximately 90 percent of respondents claimed that they had at least some knowledge of the made-up terms. Consistent with other findings related to the Dunning-Kruger effect, the more familiar participants claimed that they were with a topic, the more likely they were to also claim they were familiar with the meaningless terms. As Dunning has suggested, the very trouble with ignorance is that it can feel just like expertise [2].
This tendency may occur because gaining a small amount of knowledge in an area about which one was previously ignorant can make people feel as though they’re suddenly virtual experts. Only after continuing to explore a topic do they realize how extensive it is and how much they still have to master.
The Dunning-Kruger effect has been found in domains ranging from logical reasoning to emotional intelligence, financial knowledge, and firearm safety. And the effect isn't spotted only among incompetent individuals; most people have weak points where the bias can take hold. It also applies to people with a seemingly solid knowledge base.
So what explains this psychological effect? Are some people simply too dense, to be blunt, to know how dim-witted they are? Dunning and Kruger suggest that this phenomenon stems from what they refer to as a "dual burden." People are not only incompetent; their incompetence robs them of the mental ability to realize just how inept they are.
Dunning has pointed out that the very knowledge and skills necessary to be good at a task are the exact same qualities that a person needs to recognize that they are not good at that task. So if a person lacks those abilities, they remain not only bad at that task but ignorant to their own inability. Dunning suggests that deficits in skill and expertise create a two-pronged problem. First, these deficits cause people to perform poorly in the domain in which they are incompetent. Secondly, their erroneous and deficient knowledge makes them unable to recognize their mistakes [3].
The Dunning-Kruger effect is also related to difficulties with metacognition, or the ability to step back and look at one's own behavior and abilities from outside of oneself. People are often only able to evaluate themselves from their own limited and highly subjective point of view. From this limited perspective, they seem highly skilled, knowledgeable, and superior to others. Because of this, people sometimes struggle to have a more realistic view of their own abilities [4].
Another contributing factor is that sometimes a tiny bit of knowledge on a subject can lead people to mistakenly believe that they know all there is to know about it. As the old saying goes, a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. A person might have the slimmest bit of awareness about a subject, yet thanks to the Dunning-Kruger effect, believe that he or she is an expert. Other factors that can contribute to the effect include our use of heuristics, or mental shortcuts that allow us to make decisions quickly, and our tendency to seek out patterns even where none exist. Our minds are primed to try to make sense of the disparate array of information we deal with on a daily basis. As we try to cut through the confusion and interpret our own abilities and performance within our individual worlds, it is perhaps not surprising that we sometimes fail so completely to accurately judge how well we do [5].
So is there anything that can minimize this phenomenon? Is there a point at which the incompetent actually recognize their own ineptitude? "We are all engines of misbelief," Dunning has suggested. While we are all prone to experiencing the Dunning-Kruger effect, learning more about how the mind works and the mistakes we are all susceptible to might be one step toward correcting such patterns. I study the brain and how the mind works for a living.
Source [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10626367/
Source [2]: https://ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/handle/1813/59805/Atir_cornellgrad_0058F_11018.pdf?sequence=1
Source [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780123855220000056?via%3Dihub
Source [4]: https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000579
Source [5]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-017-1242-7
Lol.. somebody knows how to use Google, congrats 👏
-
but yet you bash daz n snoop?
lmfao weird...