Anyone who continuously disses Dre should be banned

[abusive]

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.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

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

[Sccit]

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

[Safe+Sound]

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

[abusive]

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.

[Sccit]

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.

[Safe+Sound]

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.

[Sccit]

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.

[TraceOneInfinite Flat Earther 96']

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)

[Sccit]

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

[Safe+Sound]

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.

[jman91331]

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

[Sccit]

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?

[Sccit]

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.

[Safe+Sound]

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.