See, this is the thing I don't necessarily understand about individuals that lean heavily into biology as a means to speak on issues that are both axiological and ethical in nature (in addition to other disciplines, but those are two of the larger ones), much of it comes off more as a smear than an earnest attempt to fixate on the points from a perspective that fleshes out both of those disciplines in a manner that is consonant (meaning, people are discussing the subject in equal topical terms). As one example is concerned and one you use here, let's say that "woke-ism" was even more predictive for mental illness than it is as you show (to steel man your point further), what does this mean for the truth value of their points (if we want to assume truth aptness for even a moment)? Even putting forth all the lack of context that exists within mental illness, why it's formed, and its ethical/axiological implications considering its genesis (which, again, I am going out on a limb to hand this to you), what if these individuals have proper viewpoints and are also concomitantly true about what they are saying? Wouldn't it be more pathetic for those without those mental illnesses to be that wrong according to that conditional? Many people who utilize mental illness as some sort of means to discourage some form of belief will rely on unexplained premises that stem from associations between mental illness and a lack of diligence to discern truth (the binary opposition being the narrative of the mentally-lucid intellectual (or something of higher intelligence)), things we might have been socialized to posit in to some degree through society, but either way, I feel this deserves more discussion. Maybe that explains you, maybe it doesn't, I cannot say for certain, but the point there is to acknowledge the possibility of unexplained premises wherever they *might* exist.
Perhaps I am missing the boat here, maybe you have more articles diving into the disciplines I mentioned above, and if so, I'd love to read them (you write a lot, so it's easy for something to pass through the sieve so to say). However, it does make me question on why a litany of posts you spend your time speaking on are directed towards an evolutionary perspective if that were the case, surely we would want to fixate on the thing that is more damning due to its topical consonance, right?
See, this is the thing I don't necessarily understand about individuals that lean heavily into biology as a means to speak on issues that are both axiological and ethical in nature (in addition to other disciplines, but those are two of the larger ones), much of it comes off more as a smear than an earnest attempt to fixate on the points from a perspective that fleshes out both of those disciplines in a manner that is consonant (meaning, people are discussing the subject in equal topical terms). As one example is concerned and one you use here, let's say that "woke-ism" was even more predictive for mental illness than it is as you show (to steel man your point further), what does this mean for the truth value of their points (if we want to assume truth aptness for even a moment)? Even putting forth all the lack of context that exists within mental illness, why it's formed, and its ethical/axiological implications considering its genesis (which, again, I am going out on a limb to hand this to you), what if these individuals have proper viewpoints and are also concomitantly true about what they are saying? Wouldn't it be more pathetic for those without those mental illnesses to be that wrong according to that conditional? Many people who utilize mental illness as some sort of means to discourage some form of belief will rely on unexplained premises that stem from associations between mental illness and a lack of diligence to discern truth (the binary opposition being the narrative of the mentally-lucid intellectual (or something of higher intelligence)), things we might have been socialized to posit in to some degree through society, but either way, I feel this deserves more discussion. Maybe that explains you, maybe it doesn't, I cannot say for certain, but the point there is to acknowledge the possibility of unexplained premises wherever they *might* exist.
Perhaps I am missing the boat here, maybe you have more articles diving into the disciplines I mentioned above, and if so, I'd love to read them (you write a lot, so it's easy for something to pass through the sieve so to say). However, it does make me question on why a litany of posts you spend your time speaking on are directed towards an evolutionary perspective if that were the case, surely we would want to fixate on the thing that is more damning due to its topical consonance, right?
Hmm that's interesting
Great article and math. What white country has the highest asabiyyah? Hungary, Russia, Poland?