it's really back to the inefficiency argument your posts have, let's say, a lower nora cost (see- word count). this makes it easier for them to be efficient (they're still often not). the other posts (mine oft-times included) have a higher nora cost, making them harder to be efficient (still hit or miss) and, more importantly, making people less willing to get past that initial hurdle to see whether or not the posts *are* efficient. draw pox analogies to everything.
I don't think "optimist" or "pessimist" is "good" or "bad." Pessimism can help prevent tragedies that optimism would foster, and optimism can bring hope where pessimism breeds depression or apathy. Both are necessary and "positive" in how they can be applied, and both can also be applied in a "negative" fashion. My use of "optimism" and "pessimism" in this particular case is a shortcut for lack of better terminology. I believe that a lack of ignorance is generally a good thing, you can call that bias if you wish, but in my view, if you believe that a lack of ignorance is neither good nor bad, than I would consider that in itself to be somewhat "pessimistic." Your words: "the majority cancel each other out" implies that the majority doesn't matter in this context. Or rather, that the majority is unable to come to a meaningful agreement, even just partially. You might view that as "neutral" "basic human nature" or something like that, but it's a fairly sad view of things. It also, as other your posts have done, points to a disbelief that there is no "Truth" rather just "Bias" or if there is "Truth" that it cannot be determined through the "Bias" that exists. Perhaps I've simply been reading too much into what you've written, but even if you argue from a sense of apathy and detachment (I do as well, quite often, though I can't exactly say I know exactly what you mean since I'm not you), but for these reasons and a few others I decided on the label of "pessimist." But in no way do I think a "pessimist" is a bad thing, or a negative. I think it is simply a way of viewing things, and in many cases, it can be far healthier than "optimism." That's not quite it. The "lack of time" limits their options to investigate or even critically think about various claims, so they operate off of the misinformation, taking another persons word for how things actually are because they don't have the time/energy to look into it in greater depth prior to that point of conflicting reports down the road. It's not that they don't care to have a greater understanding, it's that they think they've already gotten it.
Probably yes. My goal isn't to convince people that what I say is right (that'd be a nice bonus?) but to ensure that I'm understood. Couple that with my innate lack of ability in writing, and you get a lack of brevity. At least on my part.
We are having an interesting conversation, and we are both reading each other's posts. I don't see a problem.
Maybe I don't understand the definition of pessimism or the way you are using it, but... "a tendency to see the worst aspect of things or believe that the worst will happen; a lack of hope or confidence in the future" I don't have this tendency in general, nor do I believe that people's tendencies in this case to be "the worst" or could lead to "the worst." I think you view it as "sad" because you think it's not desirable - I disagree with that, I actually think it's a symptom of human psychology that has benefits. Likewise, some people think it's sad I don't believe in God/Soul/After-Life, but I am not sad about it, nor does it degrade my quality of life as I see it. I don't see it as "pessimism" in that case either. In fact, I feel it's quite "optimistic" that I have no fears about death or what happens after I die.
Stefan Molyneux is an atheist too @Sokolov He believes we will all become cosmic stardust. I am traditional/religious, but stardust is a bodacious concept.
Couldn't find the one on imgur, but here is is. Spoiler There is a follow up sentence to this that someone posted on imgur, read below the pic. "And the Cynic, the Backup Chute." Just a different viewpoint on things. Another view @Ohmin
Based on conceptions of the After-Life, if I were to be religious, I'd pick Mormonism. In LDS faith, your destiny is to create planets and play with your own set of humans in the ultimate sandbox/world building game. THAT's an afterlife.
I'm not using it in a standard form. Also, keep in mind that I pessimism can be topical. For example, one can be pessimistic about one thing but optimistic about something else entirely What I think is sad is not the belief in human psychology, but rather the belief that the majority cancels itself out. In essence, that they would be unable to come together on something in a meaningful manner. Or at least that's the implication of the statement. And why would you be? But I think they consider it sad for themselves. I consider it sad that you are as "pessimistic" as you seem to be, but that's my own emotions, it is not necessarily representative of how you do/should feel, or anyone or anything else, God/Soul/After-Life/whatever included. I don't think it's sad that you don't believe in those things. Wrong, yes, but that's just my own belief, and I don't believe I can prove such things to you through my own words/actions. It's something you have to decided for yourself.. I believe in God, and that God gave us all free will. While the consequences of your beliefs, and thus the actions that flow from them, may result in a sad outcome from time to time, that's not much different from those that do believe in God/Soul/After-Life and the outcomes of their beliefs. Existance, in my view. But then I don't believe that "Hell" exists as a place. But that's just my own view again.
For me, it's just math. If we were more in agreement such that people's views don't largely cancel out, it'd mean we were more alike, and that'd be less interesting and I think humanity as a whole ends up suffering. We are all very different people, and that is one of the strengths of the human race. So while mathematically we cancel each other out in some instances, that's not a bad thing - and it's not as though it's the same people cancelling each other out in each instance. It depends on the context. We can't all be superstars, and there's no reason we need to all be. Different people, different roles. People who want to stand out can, others who just want to be part of the gears and work in obscurity can do that too. Maybe it slows down progress in some cases, but when you DO see people come together and overwhelming do something - you know that something remarkable has happened and true progress has been made. I realize I am meandering off to other areas now, but it's all related to how I feel about this stuff.
Isn't that the purpose of countries and culture and religion, so that people who have to work together will be like minded?
