JohannKasperSchmidt

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote (edited )

You have it all wrong. Evolutionary psychology and determinism isn't at all antithetical to LGBTQ. I also argue that neuroplasticity is actually harmful to LGBTQ people. Stirner was also arguably an advocate for determinism:

Indeed, “if human beings were as they should be, could be, if all human beings were rational, if all loved each other as brothers,” then it would be an Edenic life.[413] —Well, human beings are as they should be, as they can be. What should they be? Surely not more than they can be! And what can they be? Again, not more than they—can, than they have the capacity, the strength, to be. But this they actually are, because what they are not, they are not able to be; because to be able means—to actually be. One is capable of nothing that one actually is not; one is capable of doing nothing that one does not actually do. Could someone blinded by a cataract see? Oh yes, if he had the cataract successfully cut out. But now he can’t see, because he doesn’t see. Possibility and actuality always coincide. One can do nothing that one does not do, as one does nothing that one cannot do.

Stirner believed that we are all unique. We are all determined by our unique properties. Most people are men and women, but some people aren't, and even the people who are men or women aren't the same; they just share the same property.

That paragraph that you just pasted fucking disgusts me as the exact opposite is true. Neuroplasticity is an extremely totalitarian position. Think back to the Soviet Union. They used propaganda to attempt to control the population, and turn them into identical worker units that serve society without questioning it. If people's brains were plastic, then this would have worked. But it didn't, thankfully, and it isn't in modern society clearly because we are on this forum and have rebelled against today's predominant ideologies. It is only because of our inherent rebellious nature that we are able to do this. Humans are a difficult species to control. Only by changing human nature away from what it naturally is can you achieve the goals that feminists and progressives want.

If people's brains were really plastic, then authority would have no problem controlling us. It is because of our wild, primitive nature that we cannot be controlled.

Progressives and feminists want to use socialization to make men nonviolent, and to make women "independent." Some feminists want to annihilate masculinity altogether. Just take a look at this article: https://www.publicbooks.org/big-picture-confronting-manhood-trump/

Obviously it won't work, except eventually, maybe it will. I have yet to read the book about xeno feminism, but from what I understand about it already they basically want to use technology to make men and women equal. By doing this, they would only be proving that men and women are not the same, and that only by using technology is it possible to create "equality" and "progress." Elon Musk already wants to put chips in people's brains (the neura link). The use cases for it that I remember are for disabled people, and people with anxiety and depression. It isn't hard to imagine that this sort of thing might eventually be used to change people away from how they naturally are. If this does end up happening, it will be justified by liberals based on "morality" and "justice."

Also, if people's brains were really plastic, then LGBTQ people wouldn't exist for really obvious reasons. It's because LGBTQ people are inherently like that that they are able to exist. If society really desperately wants everyone to be straight, then you'd think our "plastic brains" would all become straight, right? But obviously, that's not how it works.

Because we are all different, it is hard if not impossible to argue for a universal human nature. Neither of us think that we're all the same. I rest my case.

edit: said independent instead of equal edit2: forgot to say brains

1

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

But how CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) has "solved" this, seems, suspiciously doubtful and authoritarian to boot.

Evolutionary psychology isn't inherently authoritarian or anti-authoritarian. It could definitely be used to justify anarchy since only in anarchy would we be able to use our evolutionary traits. Right now, it's only being used by therapists to help their patients, as well as Nazis which I mentioned in a different comment on here. I might end up using it in my manifesto, but I'm not quite sure yet. I'd want to use it to make an effective argument, while Nazis use it only to appear logical and scientific.

CBT sounds pretty psuedoscientific itself, a little like Marx that way.

This is actually a really interesting comparison. Marxism is sort of an ideology about "treating" the world in the sense that the world is broken and needs to be fixed. The only thing is, Marxism already failed, while CBT has been used to treat patients for a long time now. CBT has been "lowering in effectiveness" over the years. I argue this is because the people that invented and developed it are the only ones that actually know how to use it in practice, and similarly Freud was the only person that knew how to practice psycho analysis.

−1

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

Liberals itself benefit from science a lot right now, especially still in psychology where once(?) social darwinism was acceptable, benefiting the rich.

This comparison is laughably ridiculous. Social darwinism isn't incorrect because it was used by the people who invented it to benefit themselves; it's incorrect because the people that benefited from it lost. Clearly, it's not always the "fittest" that survive.

I started reading that critique of science, and so far I agree that science is ultimately a tool used to reach certain ends. At the same time, science clearly works. This is definitely true for evolutionary psychology. Explaining to patients that their mental problems are actually traits that would have helped them in hunter gatherer societies helps because it takes away the stigma from the patient. In this situation, there is no reason to bend the truth "towards liberalism."

Any piece of science can be used by anyone to attempt to prove anything. Obviously, as with the social Darwinism example, this attempt isn't always successful. I read this one article about how Nazis are using evolutionary psychology. Their reasoning is that "disgust" increased our survival back when we were living in tribes. Even if this is true, it doesn't prove anything. A lot of things most likely increased our survival. It can't possibly be that all tribes were completely disgusted by each other. At some point, tolerance is required to create peace when there is no need for war, like if both tribes have enough food for themselves to survive. Nazis gain no survival advantage by hating Jews.

That truth is a tool that can be used for foolish purposes is no argument against truth. There are a lot of toxic assholes on the internet; does that make the internet "bad?" Without the internet, we wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. Just like the internet, truth is a tool that can be used for many different purposes.

0

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

It's also unclear what you mean by morality and amorality, which are distinct from ethics or value judgements or perception generally

I argue that the difference between morality and ethics is at most semantic. People use them interchangeably all the time.

Psychologists are not a good source of information generally

If your whole source of information is just reading anarchist theory, then I can see why you might believe this. In order to be well informed, you have to read other stuff at some point. In order for anarchism to be taken seriously, it has to be based in science.

the field is liberal

Evolutionary psychology is thoroughly illiberal. Liberals love the idea that how we are parented influences how we end up being, and evolutionary psychology does a lot of work to prove this idea wrong. The post contains the quote that essentially says morality is largely socially constructed. Liberals love morality. With all that said, I believe that most of the field is liberal. Evolutionary psychology is also a pretty recent thing. The New CBT was only published last year.

and their claims about human nature remain quite varied

Which is also true of anarchists??? Different people have different opinions. This isn't something specific or exclusive to the field of psychology.

I'm definitely sensing that this website is an echo chamber. You guys need to widen your worldviews.

1

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

Sounds like a strange way of victim blaming instead of system critique.

Nope. I should have pasted this quote as well:

"To deny that people have innate inclinations that can be undesirable or dysfunctional is equivalent to blaming the victim for their suffering.”

3

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

Hmmmmm you are right. There might be a limit to how much I can use egoism to not just end up fall into the right-wing rabbit hole. I'm trying to find a line beyond progressivism and conservatism. I have considered going down the route of complete determinism so that my theories are completely descriptive so that I don't really take a stance on anything.

2

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote (edited )

I was writing a really long reply to you but then it said my IP got banned in 2019 for some reason.

edit: In a nutshell I was explaining my theory of progress and how the fight against racism and sexism isn't really coming from egoism but is instead only happening because it is now socially acceptable. I was also arguing that in order for women and black people to get freedom, they can't rely on progress or on morality, but will instead have to individually create their own critiques of society.

2

JohannKasperSchmidt OP wrote

"ideology has a negative connotation for some people"

There are a lot of authors who think they are objective and not ideological, but it's complete bullshit. There's nothing wrong with ideology.

Anyways, when I say I don't have too much to say right now, it's not because I don't have opinions or some kind of passion; it's just that my ideas are very much in their infancy. Exploring more ideas and reading more books, including those by people I already know I'll disagree with, will most likely help me come up with more of my own ideas and will also change the ideas I already have right now to be more correct.

4