I read The Gift by Marcel Mauss in high school and it literally ruined gift exchange for me forever (in an interesting way, at least).

Interesting. Why though?

As someone who is trying to do this right now and with talk therapy. Trying to figure out what going on in this brain noodle of mine is so hard. Like how am I supposed to relate to other people if I can’t even relate to me lmao.

Lovely comment! Thx for posting. Related to it alot. Been going thru similar things in recent years

I appreciate this post, though what I'd like to say is that low-self esteem is a multi-faceted problem that starts with our core beliefs about ourselves and includes both conscious and unconscious biases.

But I will just mention here how I overcame my own self-esteem issues - I addressed two problems within my core beliefs about self-worth. The first belief I addressed was how self-worth related to my failures - to solve this I tied my failures to self-growth and the idea of being a better person, in other words, recognizing my failures would inevitably help me grow as a person since I could resolve those failures and learn from them.

The second thing I did was develop my concept of self-compassion. Many people have negative self-talk which tends to cause a low-self esteem, so I changed my self-talk to be more encouraging and I also recognized that there's an emotional investment tied to self-talk, and that emotional investment can be helpful or harmful depending on the words I use, so I use encouraging words instead of detrimental ones.

Finally, I realized the inherent humanness of having flaws, the unique perspectives they bring, and the fact that perfection is impossible, these thoughts allowed me to see everyone as equal and unique. Everyone is growing at their own unique pace and everyone only needs encouragement to be better or do better, since seeking approval is fairly normal for people to do.

Though that is what helped me, I could elaborate more if need be, but there is no end to how we can improve our beliefs. I've written quite a lot about it on my profile if you're interested in learning more.

Yes. Expertise is not a synonym for "is accurate about topic", it's (ideally) better knowledge, better practices, experience, familiarity with arguments. Better epistemic practices are also alleged, but I think you should generally doubt that. That all indirectly leads to accuracy, but if they have an opinion, you can still ask them "why do you think so?", and they should be able to answer. A plumber may be able to give me more informed reasons about whether I should go for copper or plastic pipes (or something), and may favor an option. However:

If you have good reason to believe you know what exact process someone is using to answer your questions, that "screens off" expertise. If you know someone is just regurgiating the standard textbook advice, well, now you know he's exactly as good as the standard textbook advice, and your potential to do better increases. If you know an electrician is not considering pros and cons you yourself have considered, but going with the cheapest option, his expertise doesn't matter for that particular decision. And so on. Don't get too cocky, though.

Wow, so you can choose to be poor even though you can’t realistically compete with the superior pseudo intelligence, that however in the field of philosophy can only parrot wikipedia articles - or the things you have said - combining them into a coherent or incoherent whole. Gee, we are really on the verge of something - namely this shitty hype being exposed.

The whole field of yoga baised on this philosophy. Physical aspects of yoga are not the main objective. It's just considered necessary to have healthy body for healthy mind. The second stage of having clear understanding of your mind ( mostly emotional aspects) takes decade of practice. Only after that you reach the state where you can begin to have control over your emotions and instead of being slave to your environment you can make choose how you want to feel ( example being burning monk) . Some people claim (no empirical evidence) that fully trained yogi can put themselves into deep sleep ( hibernation) for multiple years.

>Just a reminder reddit; Technocracy is explicitly anti-democratic

Well yeah, that's the entire point of it. This can be seen as far back as Plato's Republic, where the idea of the Philosopher-King can be seen as a proto-technocratic idea of having leadership come not from military might or plebiscite, but from wisdom, knowledge, and intelligence.

Of course nowadays with the increased complexity of possible decisions, this idea would be replaced by having multiple experts from different fields making decisions about things that their field gives them the competency to decide on. Say, a military strategist or a veteran general would do defence decisions or an economist would do economics decisions for example. I'd even argue that this would increase epistemic humility and reduce the chances of epistemic trespassing, because unlike in a democracy where a voter needs to be knowledgeable in most things to be able to make a good decision, in this model the expert really needs to only know about their own field, and would refer to their peers from other fields.

[deleted]

He's at least going to get on the phone with the actual expert and get the pointers.

In my classes, I’ve called it “Peterson Syndrome.” I would never go to a political scientist for therapy, so why the fuck would I go to a clinical therapist for political wisdom?

I remember back in the 1980s similar headlines.

[removed]

[removed]

whats so wrong about activism?

Does that mean that without language there would be no mindreading?

...like?

It came to me one day and I haven’t been able to find a theory that makes more sense. After looking into it it is a shared belief among many groups throughout history

You mean like in the short story The Egg? What makes you think that?

If there are only machines on the planet, then who cares about climate?

Yeah, that's probably one of the things I'm wrong about.

Then you don’t know current conversations in philosophy.

Just to point out something…

Metacognition doesn’t necessarily lead to awareness or admittance of deficit or wrongness as that requires some judgment compared to some standard.

Also, metacognition can be cognitively taxing and inefficient in some tasks.

Epistemic trespassing is necessary for interdisciplinary work or the creation of new fields. But it is only beneficial if the expert is purposeful in establishing expertise in the interdisciplinary space or the new field. Epistemic trespassing can create significant problems for fields that have been undergoing significant change or have been perennially perceived as loosely defined by non-experts such as race relations.