JimmyBuckets

I agree with some of what you have said. But I feel that you are moving the goalposts slightly. I understood the discussion to be on the origin of morality. Implementing its upkeep is a separate issue.

However, to respond to your point:

I do agree that rules are an important component. But I would argue that rules only work insofar as culture supports them, and indeed may only be a codification of the underlying values already present. t Thus I would argue that the culture in which those rules are embedded is what is of importance. And thus we come back to love.

It seems that you are conflating attachment with love, which is often done, but always wrong. They are absolutely not the same thing and are at odds with one another as often as they align, if not more often - as your examples illustrate.

It is possible to hold love for everyone, in any situation, regardless of the circumstances. Of course no one is perfect and so just because something is possible does not mean it always occurs. But this is not the point.

The point is that the origin of morality is love. In the absence of the experience of love, it is possible to approximate the correct behaviours to imitate it, but it is a pale and brittle imitation of real love-derived action and most often descends into immorality under pressure or nuance.

The modern justice system is a fantastic example of this. It doesn't work in any but the most extreme cases - and even then there is an argument to be made against it. Locking people up like animals doesn't improve society or help the offenders. It provides a temporary relief to victims but even that is hollow. Punishing children has been repeatedly shown to be ineffective for correcting behaviour. Why we think adults are different is a simply a lack of love.

The reviews on reddit are overwhelmingly negative. There's no way their QA/UX team didn't catch this drop in performance. The cost savings must be substantial to push this through in spite of this.

I don't think the invite-only nature of the group is due to privacy but rather moderation. It seems the point of this group is to assuage shame

Related: https://pol.is/home

Pol.is is a tool that uses ML to synthesize these shared views and provide inisght into both areas of consensus and discordance.

I am not sure of the specific relationships but it has been championed by Audrey Tang (Taiwan's minster of digital affairs) and other Pluralist people.

I think this is a worthy tool but slightly narrower than pol.is because it's just as important to understand where there is disagreement.

I'd love to read more about this. Do you have a blog?

Awesome idea! Do you plan to add Portuguese soon? I found it surprising that Dutch is in there before it given there are far fewer speakers. Was this related to the amount of content available?

A recent survey of people in the field shows skepticism for the current approach. I think this is common knowledge but with all the hype it's satisfying to have some sobering data to back up the intuition

This is cool! What types of stats? Can you give more detail on the types of tools?

Why are you so angry? I thought it was a wonderful overview. An even if not, insults are hardly necessary.

He is just a guy, even if he is exceptionally good at business.

Because it's funny, honest, has nice turns of phrase, is well-structured and engaging, and speaks truth about something at the core of modern life. I worked in door-to-door sales for a while and this article really captures something about the experience.

I know this is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek but it doesn't make sense. There absolutely are wages without electricity. There are no wages without sales - either to an investor or a customer. It's the absolute foundation of a business without which there is nothing.

You are deeply wrong here. And this is recklessly dangerous advice to give here with so little information on their situation. You should delete your comment.

I'm sorry you didn't manage to fix your situation but you can't generalize this. BPD is a complex, varied mental illness that does respond well when treatment is pursued (e.g. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6007584/).

Me and my wife were long distance too, through the worst of it, and during covid (Brazil to Europe).

There's certainly advice I can give , or at least experience I can share. It's a pity we can't message on this platform so if you want to send me an email to flatnailedfeatherlessbiped@proton.me, we can chat there

"Codependent no more" - Melanie Beattie. Changed my life.

I see you. My wife has bpd. It's such a hard condition to explain, and most people in my life (even my loved ones) are so far removed from the experience it sometimes feels like I am talking about my experience visiting another planet. And this is from people that love me and are trying to support.

Couple that with the "top 10 tips" as you said and it's just soul-crushing.

Thankfully I have finally found some people who are in similar situations and even the feeling of being seen brings so much relief.

This just isn't proven at all. And likely untrue. There is a reason the dodo bird effect is controversial.

1. Most therapies have not received the number of RCTs as CBT so it's not possible to make statements like the one you made.

2. There is wildly varying quality in therapists and the quality of the therapeutic relationship is widely accepted to be centrally important to treatment outcomes. It is thus much more likely that a good therapist with a shitty tool is better than a bad therapist with a good tool. Averaged out, this would explain the same effect.

I would hesitate to say bullshit. They are all models and very abstract relative to the complexity of the mind. But to extend the blind men and the elephant allegory, there is a practical difference between describing a leg and describing a trunk.

I would tend to agree with you here, with a caveat.

All these theories are describing the same underlying phenomenon so there is a "blind men and the elephant" effect. They also substantially build on one another

The caveat is that what really sets these models apart is how they propose to navigate the mind. This is where I believe IFS stands out. But it would take a much longer comment to explain that. Maybe it's worth writing an article about.

Interestingly this idea of helping people to talk to the voices in their head is not new. The basis for IFS therapy (which emerged in the 80s) actively teaches people to have dialogue with their inner "parts". It is becoming one of the gold-standard therapies for CPTSD, anxiety, and a range of other trauma related conditions.

The core discovery of the therapy is that the human mind has an inherent multiplicity. Once you accept that and go from there, the rest of the technique emerges naturally. It's really quite amazing. I highly recommend the book "No bad parts" by Dr Richard Schwartz, the discoverer of the technique.

What really excites me here is the use of a virtual avatar that personifies the voice. That is really new to me and I can see all sorts of possibilities to link with IFS.

This was a fantastic reply, thank you! I fully agree with you but I wanted to ask for elaboration because your last comment was so eloquent.

I think it should be interesting to you that this article caused you an emotional reaction. Your language is emotionally charged and it's made you miss the point that @cudgy has given you

Can you hash out what you mean by your last paragraph a bit more? What incentive structures in particular?