Self-fullfilling Prophecy

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by okinrus, Apr 25, 2004.

  1. okinrus Registered Senior Member

    How potent do you think this is in our society? In Social Sciences Sorcery, Stanislav Andreski writes "Even such perely academic theories as the interpretations of human nature have profound practical consequences if diseminated widely enough. If we impress upon people that science has discovered that human beings are motivated only by the desire for material advantage, they will tend to live up to this expectation, and we shall have undermined their readiness to be moved by impersonal ideals. By propagating the opposite view we might succede in producing a large number of idealists, but might also help cynical exploiters to find easy victims. This specific issue, incidentally, is of immense actual importance, because it seems that the moral disorientation and fanatical nihilism which afflicts modern youth has been stimulated by the popular brands of sociology and psychology with their bias for overlooking the more inspiring achievements and focusing on the dismal average or even the subnormal. When, fraudulently basking in the glory of exact sciences, the psychologists refuse to study anything but the most mechanical forms of human behavior--often so mechanical that even rats have no chance to show their higher faculties--and then present their mostly trivial findings as the true picture of the human mind, they prompt people to regard themselves and others as automata, devoid of responsibility or worth, which can hardly remain without effect upon the tenor of social life."

    How far are we to be manipulated by some forms of modern science, which suggests that we are only material? Is this no different than prophets of old? Are the majority of people just as duly influenced by what their scientist say as the prophet? Yet at least the prophet was governed by something that appears rational, organized, even if it was only their false projection of God. Instead the scientist is influenced by his or her results, save no other, which are increasingly having a negative effect upon society's values.
    rakovsky likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. moementum7 ~^~You First~^~ Registered Senior Member

    I am not specifically clear on what your exact question is, but I beleive it has something to do with whether or not we are capable of independent thought and free will, or act like automatons as you say, dictated entirely by environment.
    Each of us has the capacity to think independantly, whether each of us exercises this fact is another issue. So onwards, what is independence?

    Independence, or self reliance is the virtue by which you are self-supporting in the sense that you consume nothing that you haven't earned. In a market economy, everyone lives by trade. This does not make independence impracticable. The virtue of independence is to provide one's own means of subsistence. This means either producing it directly, or indirectly by creating something that someone else wants. Dependence, in this case, would mean relying on charity or favors from friends or family. Or worse, theft in the form of direct stealing from others, or indirect theft through benefits by government.

    Independence is not only applicable to production, though. In fact, production isn't even the most important place where this virtue should be practiced. The most important is the independence of one's mind. Life requires man to act in order to achieve his values. This requires the proper use of judgment to not only pick the right values, but to understand the best way of achieving them. To substitute another's thoughts for yours makes it impossible to judge the accuracy of them. It makes it impossible to build off of them to achieve better understanding. This is the area where independence is most critical. To default on one's responsibilities is to default on one's life. The degree to which one abandons his intellectual independence is the degree to which he is helpless to act. The degree to which he cannot pursue his own life and values.

    Another area where independence is useful is in social interaction. When dealing with friends or strangers, one needs to earn the benefit of the interaction. To default on this is to accept a reward without cause. Nothing is ever free, though. By accepting the unearned, a man loses his grasp of what it means to earn something. He loses his assurance of his own self-efficacy. Every independent act is a reaffirmation of one's ability to deal with reality. Every unearned gift is a blow to one's confidence.

    So are the majority of humans practicing independence? Far from it.
    Or how about free will?

    Within the context of your mind, your consciousness is not a bunch of atoms held together in a particular way, but a perceptual and rational faculty that processes percepts into concepts from the lowest to the highest. This includes the creative process and problem solving. There is never something created from nothing -- there is no such thing as a divine inspiration; it is all a rearrangement of what was previously there.

    Both within the context of consciousness and the context of interpersonal relations, people do have free will. This means that they do make choices, they act on those choices, and they are responsible for those choices.
    Thanks for your time.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SpyMoose Secret double agent deer Registered Senior Member

    Oki, nothing more than self serving pap to serve the religious agenda of attempting to tear down science, which dares to at once claim that it is an authority on the workings of the world, and cannot confirm the existence of god. Mechanical functions are so widely studied by psychology because (and get ready for this) they are the easiest to test! Tell me, how would you construct an empirical test for free will? The focus on mechanical processes in the brain is a frequently examined limitation in the world of psychology, don't think you are the first one to notice. There are constant attempts at theories of how to expand more into the area of abstract thought and will, but such things are difficult to do, and they want to be careful to not take psychology down a road of pseudo science. If what you are really looking for is for scientists to throw up their hands and say "Everything we cant explain is because of god almighty and the divine human soul hallelujah" then you are not going to get it, because that is not how science operates. What is unknown is unknown until it can be tested. Every dark void is not filled with a beneficent sky father.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. rakovsky Registered Member

    I think you are making a good point. It has to do with the value of human life. What kind of ideology you accept will affect that. Joseph Stalin once said that a million deaths is a statistic. If you think that human beings are practically soulless rocks, I think it can unfortunately lead in a direction that doesn't care much about the value of human life.
    I think some people are nihilists and that this has an affect on their ethics and treatment of others.

    I am very skeptical of your claim when you speak of the prophets' "false projection of God", as if God is purely imaginary.
    The thing is, there is a chain of thought that results in negative consequences, it seems. IE:
    God is imaginary
    The soul is imaginary
    Humans are basically mud with electroids
    Hence: basic morality is meaningless, or ultimately just a means to one's personal ends.
    The ultimate result can be immorality.
  8. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    This thread was dead for 13 years. Why revive it, rakovsky?
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    Yes nailed it

    Yes 2 4 2

    3 4 3

    You missed out male only have 23 ribs

    3½ out of 4 you lost ½ point as basic is a starting point

    It needs to be made stronger to use for personal ends

    Can be? May be

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. origin In a democracy you deserve the leaders you elect. Valued Senior Member

    Since there is no evidence of a soul I would have to say that humans are souless mammals - not rocks.
    Based on the evidence this seems reasonable.
    Based on the evidence this seems correct.
    I do not know who thinks that... What is an electroid - some sort of energetic hemroid?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Morality is based on the values of the society. Always has been and always will be.
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    It seems most likely that we have all been programed.
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Science based on statistics is often be made misleading, to the masses. The reason is the conclusion often involves emotions, which cloud the mind away from objectivity.

    For example, statistical studies have shown that cigarette smoking leads to cancer and other forms of disease. However, if you look at the raw data, there are about 36 million smokers in the USA, and about 480,000 of these will get smoker related disease. The hard data actually has more people, who can smoke, and not get a disease, yet the accepted correlation sounds like it is the other way around.

    I am not saying smoking is good for you. But f you put away fear, the hard data rationally says that getting a disease from smoking does not apply to everyone, even though many will interpret it that way. The reason this is so, is there is an element of fear, which causes the mind to not look at the data in a rational way. In the ideal world, we should be able to separate these two groups; vulnerable and not vulnerable, and then apply the disease correlation, to those with a rational connection to disease, instead of one size fits all which does not apply to all. But statistics is based on the working assumptions of randomness and averages, which is how the conclusion is interpreted, as though the god or goddess of chaos and statistics can attach a disease to anyone on a whim.

    Another class of examples is connected to risk. Risk induces the emotion of fear. There is a risk for almost anything. Some risks can be very low, yet because risk involves fear, many people will interpret that as meaning the god of fear of floating around randomly causing problems, which nobody can escape, if your number if up. The god of fear may only zap 1 in million each day, but it could be anyone. The underlying assumptions of statistics are black boxes and random events, instead of opened eyed reason, allowing fear to assume it applies to all.

    The problem this can create are political leaders can use statistical studies to manipulate the masses using emotions. The scientists who do these studies, may know the difference, but they rarely speak up to clarify the political manipulation. For example, in NYC big gulp drinks are illegal; These are extra large soda drinks. A statistical correlation says these can cause obesity due to the large sugar content. Although this may be true for some people, it is not true for all. Big gulp drinks are not magic vessels, which can cause obesity in anyone who goes near it. Yet they are outlawed based on a false statistical narrative, using the emotions of fear. Fear is not the only emotion one can use. Gambling addictions is based on the emotion of desire to win the jackpot.

    Statistics uses a black box approach, thereby creating a gap in knowledge and reason. This gap can be filled with emotions and speculations, which then derail reason based on sound known premises. Politicians cannot play the same game with rational science.

    Statistical science is not new. It was the form of science used in the ancient times; whims of the gods. Interestingly, dice, cards and coin flipping are all man made games and not found in nature. These games are the underlying basis for statistical assumptions and are often used for teaching purposes. These games have been around since ancient times and have been reversed engineered to treat nature as a casino, as though nature is manmade and built in the image of a card game. The result is the assumption of jackpots in the house of disease and risk, which always wins etc..

    Evolution also uses statistics which leads to the conclusion this is also an emotional science theory that can work the masses. For example, if I took someone to the woods and asked them to show me evolution in action, they may not find anything to show. Or if they find one thing they will assume that one data is all the theory needs. It is not based on the preponderance of the data but in their mind emotions can make it seem like one size fits all.
  13. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Yeah. Damn' commie pinko liberals, trying to discredit the American way of life [pace "Used Cars"].

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  14. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Statistical science is the easiest form of science to misrepresent, since it is based on random, therefore anything can go. This allows one to capitalize on hopes and fears. Again, the experts could set the record straight, but they will rarely challenge a political scam, since they are often beholden to the same people for resources. In fact, by staying quiet, they can benefit by more resources. If you speak out you will be black balled.

    If you look at weather men and weather women, this is one of the few professions where you can get away with being wrong, often. If you went to a mechanic or doctor and they diagnosed major cancer or a bad transmission and this was not the case, you would find a new person But with weather people we tend to cut slack. The difference has to do with doctors and mechanics assumed to be based on education and reasoning, while weather is more whims of the gods; more slack.

    In terms of self for filling prophesy, statistical studies can be used to create their own reality. Big gulp drinks can become magic and therefore need to banned. Within the realm of random and chaos, big gulp drinks show no favorite but average their impact.
  15. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member

    You must be aware that statistics give, in this type of senerio, a group result

    While indications show X numbers of smokers will die earlier than the mean from a smoking disease it does not pick out a individuals personal risk

    I find this statement of the stats to be extremely suspect

    While the death rate from smoking causing a shortened life span is one consideration a far bigger problem are those who became sick with smoking related diseases and require care while they cope with a diminished lifestyle

    Around ⅔ of hospital patients are there because of smoking or alcohol

    And if you have seen a patient who has had most of his throat removed because of cancer caused by smoking and breathes through a hole in his neck AND CONTINUES TO SMOKE PUTTING THE CIGARETTE IN THE HOLE you would loose all doubts as to whether smoke was additive

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. wellwisher Banned Banned

    I agree with your emotional sentiment in terms of the worse case scenarios, but the fear causes one to look at the data through the prism of fear. The data says more people will see little ill affect. Like you said, this is a group result, as though one size fits all. Yet the data, person to person, does not say this, since there are also people who show little ill affect. The black box of statistics lumps all together and averages across the group, which is not the same as a rational interpretation of the data.

    I am not pro smoking, but use this example, because of the strong fear, so emotional science is easy to see. Another good example, might be terrorism. This can be scary, but if you look at the death total, automobiles cause more death. However, the emotions are not in proportion to the data. Emotions are not a rational barometer, due to staying in proportion to the data, but can can make more appear less and less appear more.

    I have been saying this for years. Again, the experts can clarify this, but they rarely will take the heat, because they often benefit by the scams being run. The result is an alternate reality based on emotional science made possible by statistics. This can lead to jobs and businesses.
  17. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 69 years old Valued Senior Member


    As a group one group size does fit all


    The data does not pick out individuals

    Does not can not

    You should have strong fear from smoking the more the better

    Again I am not thinking about those who die early

    Those who linger are to me more of a concern

    emotional science
    <<<< no such animal

    I think the emotions run more of ' not being in control of a situation '

    On the road I feel more in control riding my motorbike dispite idiot car drivers

    I know they are out there and I hope I am smarter than them by being aware of them

    When I fly through I have no control of the situation

    So dispite the stats saying flying is safer than being on the road I cannot help but think if I have a road accident I might be able to walk away

    If my plane suffers a problem I cannot fly away

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  18. timojin Valued Senior Member

    It is interesting to observe how righteous the non believers are within their own group .
    The believers are also right within their own group.
    Should believers , who have their experiences discard their experiences and embrace the nonbelievers view ?
    It is like I like my coffee sweet and a nonbeliever likes it non sweet :because carbohydrates are no good for health.
  19. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    They shouldn't just assume that their experiences confirm their beliefs.
  20. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Thank you , I stay with my belief
  21. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Maybe they should question whether their experiences represent anything real and couldn't have occurred in a secular context.
  22. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I have had many "visions" that came to pass so I must be a prophet.
  23. timojin Valued Senior Member

    What is the objective of your prophecy ? Is it related to others or to your own self ? If it is related to others humans that may be prophecy. Beside it depends on your relation with God then he may illuminate you , otherwise you are your own god.

Share This Page