Of course they were but that's not what any of the popular public discourse has been about.
116 karma · joined May 13, 2020
I really don't see much difference in people going after direct Right wing protest to the lockdown itself and people saying the lockdown is somehow superseded by moral virtue: in either case you are saying some higher principle overrides your duty to your fellow human beings (in keeping the curve low...). This "letter of the law over all"/legalism is, in my experience, the basis for modern all American ethical negotiation and it has to be changed.
Just earlier this week the CDC chose not to admonish protesters for the worthiness of their cause: that should be orthogonal to the CDC's duty!
To be fair, my org is shares similar problems to his descriptions. But I couldn't imagine the bru-hah-hah amongst not just managers but line engineers if a new group was created to do all the fun stuff basically. People are aware they're on a treadmill but that don't want shoved in their faces.
- The Pleasure Principle states that the mind's goal to ensure relative homeostasis.
- The mind does this by navigating a specific course of entropy in the face of the external world, this is the Death Drive.
- Selfhood is constituted by the presence of an Other and forces our minds to form an ego as a defensive behavior. Like in Kant and Hume, for Freud, the imaginative capacity of human beings is a very distinct and modular component of human sentience, used by various forces and for various effects, because it basically provides the bare material our minds bricolage into various schemas and apparatuses, such as an ego, phobias, etc. And already we're at the distinction between signifier and signified.
- Time is not a property of the unconscious, its an artifact of negotiating with the outside world. Literally the horizon of sensory organization as we have to sample the world discretely or go insane.
- Traumatic memories tend to be recalled in a 'timeless', 'disjoint', or 'dilated' fashion; trauma is literally the overwhelming and paralyzation of the defensive-sensory layer as a final defense. There is a continuous magnitude stuck in your discrete sampling system.
- The purpose of therapy/psychoanalysis is to, much like its early life, provide it the tools for assimilating this continuous magnitude so that you can begin to act by discovering its contours sorta like how people figure out what Black Holes are: by their effects - the purpose of free association is observe the automatic tendencies of the brain in how it uses sensory bare material to describe its organization, dreams, jokes, etc are places of life where this is easier to come by than when the ego is holding court.
Both in Freud and in OP, Kant holds dominion. It's starting to look like his speculations were pretty damn good. For example, Kant is the first person to say, well before Roger Penrose, that we know there's external matter out there we just have no way of directly attesting to it via sense-experience since that'd be circular as the brain's duty is to generate unified sense-experience.
So there's only subjectivity, you ask? NO! Not at all! Kant's entire point is that precisely because there is a necessary structure to subjective human experience, subjective human experience is objective, meaning there are rules that can be ultimately be derived about its form and operation.
Isn't this because the language we're reading in OP and speak now is the pidgin that developed between Viking settlers and English incumbents? Doesn't that also explain why our pronouns are Scandinavian rather than the ones found in Old English or old Norman?
And taking a step back I think many people in frontend confuse React for a jQuery alternative, the thing you whip up a web project with by default, but it really isn't. That there is a component ecosystem might suggest its a jQuery alternative, but they really are for different scales of application programming.
I think it's this idea most harmful about React adoption and to be fair React marketing hasn't exactly said otherwise. So we get web pages with massive JS deps cause most people are probably using React for a productive developer experience rather than a fitting use case that actually justifies resorting to a virtual DOM model for applying view state, and yet React sold itself on "we probably know better than you about efficient DOM updates". That's true if you have lots of Juniors hanging around.
This I disagree with, particularly since he doesn't have to consciously "know" or acknowledge anything explicitly for him not to understand the basic import of the statement.
I don't think anyone's saying he's capable of giving a brief one paragraph statement for an SAT question concerning Civil Rights activism in mid-20th century Florida, cause biases and prejudices don't need that much formal verification to commerce
Now package writers have a feedback metric for getting as granular as possible with that access their package needs. Even better, anyone could build server infrastructure that does not the client-side validation bit for package consumers with their own attendant CLI tool.
It looks to me Deno opens the possibility of multiple NPMs, which is a good thing over the de facto monopoly NPM exerts today.
Also, I dislike the appeal to "independent intellectuals": so-called intellectuals should be conferring with others more often if they truly trust what's in their head, that's generally what the history of philosophy and science is, people conferring with one another, even across time.
Edit: I would go a step further and wager our brains aren't calibrated for arguing random other human beings in person we don't share assumptions, behaviors, and/or appearances with; I mean people have a hard enough time communicating with the people they've chosen to commit the rest of their life too, it's hard to conceive of being able to master a marriage without being in the marriage.
Her speech is very humanities academic and this being a casual interview she's not in a rush to lay it all out in one paragraph. She's claiming we haven't eliminated a number of possibilities about how brain structure works and how that transmits over generations. Concretely, (a) we don't know just how plastic the brain is and whether the brain someone has today has identical locations for behavioral responses to someone in the past across the board, (b) we don't know if cultural behavioral selection dictates brain structure transmission over generations; and (c) we don't know if behavioral control locations (what she's calling "modules") don't move over generations regardless of the questions about cultural selection:
>We know that ancient humans avoided predation, for instance. What exactly they did is something evolutionary psychologists have to show. Did our ancestors avoid predation because they were good at hiding in bushes or because they were running? Evolutionary psychologists would say that the better explanation is that they were running. But the fact that they ran to avoid predation and the fact that we have the disposition to run when we’re endangered still does not establish that there’s a singular module doing both of those jobs.
These are real questions because we know the brain is plastic and it's not a bone, so unlike paleontology they have no physical evidence to base their speculation on the past on.
This is her secondary critique, her primary critique is that Evo Psycho's pivotal hypothesis has absolutely no warrant.