Instalar o Steam
Iniciar sessão
|
Idioma
简体中文 (Chinês Simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês Tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol de Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol da América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Brasil)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar problema de tradução
Regras e Orientações das Discussões
Denunciar este post
That's what I do. Internet is tame if you navigate it safely
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3421062958685216494/?ctp=2#c3421062958690650423
Perhaps instead you are taking issue with my claim that maximizing numbers is a flawed measurement of growth & achievement that is comparable to assuming that population size correlates with the health of people in a society.
So... what's wrong with maximizing numbers? Well... this :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IV3dnLzthDA
"accidentally"
More sales is better, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcdVC4e6EV4
Is more better?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRStCaAXvzY
Smaller social groups are healthier, right?
I didn't give any reasons because I can't even fathom why, out of the thousands and thousands of successful small social groups, you would choose the one that went badly wrong and give it as some sort of proof that all small groups fail. Apart from anything else Salem was not a small community in 1690's, it had 600 people living there. I mean you do know that mankind spent most of it's development is small social gatherings right? Even at the time of cities, most people lived in very small gatherings. That's not to say that their economy was small or they were interbred, I mean seriously.
I'd be interested in knowing just how small you think peoples' social groups need to be in order to supposedly be healthy then.
Maybe a community of 60 with arranged marriages? ...or maybe 12 people on an island, competing for resources. ...or maybe just 1 man and 1 woman in a garden. ...oh, maybe you think that we'd be healthiest if our communities consisted of 0 people. xD
Anyways... that example of mine, with Salem...
It's a counter-example not "proof that small groups fail".
THIS (quoted below) is the actual point that I was making :
ie. the quantity of people in social groups is mostly irrelevant to whether those people or their interactions are healthy.
Why do you start bringing in other factors like arranged marriages? Competing for resources? You just seem to be massively jumping to conclusions here.
During human development we spent our lives living in relatively small groups and villages. A farm with maybe 10-20 people. A small village with 50-100. Small. Not big. I would have thought that hundreds of thousands of years of successful human development is testament to the fact that small works. That doesn't mean to say that there is no swapping of people with nearby farms and villages for marriage. Doesn't mean marriages are arranged. Doesn't mean they are competing. My example is the way we lived for many thousands of years. Maybe that is better than the vast social gatherings we live in today. Personally, I think it probably was better when we lived like that. You may think differently. I disagree with you. Why make it more than that?
Why would we want to fight against having a good time?
"Sin, Corruption, and Debauchery" should be an adult convenience store.
Because this was your claim / theory :
...and those other factors do sometimes occur in both large social groups and small social groups, thus making the examples of them occuring in small social groups, a counter example of your claim (unless that's your idea of healthy).
I suggest you look up what a counter example is because it's basic-logic for demonstrating that an idea or theory is incorrect :
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+counter+example
One could say the same thing about the fact that large social groups exist & have existed for a while now and yet humanity is still successfully here, & still developing.
(Albeit with some rather questionable obstacles looming over us, but those haven't stopped human development yet!)
Both small and large communities can be either healthy or unhealthy & there are examples demonstrating both but because the examples of one act as a counter-example to the other, the logical conclusion is that size is not a significantly relevant factor as to whether a person, or social interaction, or community / society is healthy or unhealthy.
Because at least part of your original claim is demonstrably inaccurate.
...and as a public forum, I have just as much freedom & invitation to put forth my perspective as you do.
It's fine to think that smaller social groups are better, but that's not actually what I'm refuting.
What I'm refuting is specifically the claim, as if a rule, that people were (without noted exception) healthier in smaller communities.
Because it has counter-examples which contradict it, I do not believe that this belief leads one to having an accurate model of reality & therefore it is not a belief that will serve you well when trying to achieve any goals which it might impact (in this case, living as a healthy person in a healthy society).
I find this to be an intriguing & thoughtful thing to discuss in a conversation & more-importantly, recognizing that a specific variable is not useful for making an accurate determination / conclusion allows someone to find a different variable that will be more useful in making accurate assessments - or more clearly worded :
... more importantly, dismissal of that demonstrably inaccurate belief can help -you- become more healthy by preventing you from drawing a false-sense of security based on that belief.
More-over, even if we never meet, & even if only a very very small improvement,
even then, a world where you (& others) are living healthier, actually is a better world for myself.
...so that's "why" make it more than that.
Here's another reason for why :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YJSDJGyIaU
...keep in mind, I could have been doing literally anything else right now (and before) (of the options that I currently have not been restricted from doing), however, I thought that discussing this was the most interesting thing to be doing. I may be refuting a claim that you made, however, it's a claim that is interesting to think about why it's not useful.
Oh, and also, writing exercises and academic discussion is something that I both enjoy and find useful to my own mental health (and learning), and a public forum is, unfortunately, the only significant way that I can partake in it anymore.
(The key-word being : significant.)
In my opinion...
In the absence of widely culturally reinforced social standards, people that associate themselves with isolated communities and intentionally remove themselves from "normies" tend to invent their own... We call these "fringe groups" when they're present "in real life." (And, now, when they're identified online, too.)
On teh interwebz, a very large number of these are occupied by people who have very little experience in "Real Life" culture, where behaviors and social interactions have direct and real consequences. As a result, they generally disdain or have little access to such things, else they'd interact more in "Real Life" rather than their netizen persona. They usually have little understanding of how such a real, physical, world "works" in terms of standards of behavior and social interactions. They follow their isolated group's emerging dynamics and interpret what is appropriate behavior by that which gets the most support from their peers.
In some cases, they're desperately seeking interaction, identity, excitement... stimuli. Most often they're younger people, because young people are overwhelmed with the need to engage with many different aspect of the new world of social interactions they're experiencing. They're hardwired to do that. (I was once a young-person, too!)
It's worth noting that most are just engaging in a natural human behavior. It's a deeply ingrained social behavior that comes naturally to us. We seek out or create social groups and look to tie ourselves to them or use them to define ourselves, at least for a time. When this behavior is not naturally evidet, those humans are generally regarded as suffering from a mental, social, or behavioral condition.
Normal humans would do the exact same thing in "the real world" as in the "online world," with the exception that some cultural traditions passed down, generation to generation, that result in stability and positive growth of society is not a mechanic that is as far-reaching on the 'net. (The internet can be "turned off"... "reality" can not.)
Cringe, shock-posts, "degeneracy," - anything that ramps up the engagement and richness of the reward of association of members in the group is largely met with positive approval. It's stimulus. It's endorphin-candy. And, to get more of what these users are seeking from it, they must eventually delve deeper or they will cease to obtain value from what is now... mundane cringe, mundane shock, mundane "degeneracy." :)
The stimuli they seek and social groups they use for that purpose must be obtained from ever-increasing obscure, shocking, presentations... no different than someone who is addicted to drugs or porn.
This doesn't mean the entirety of the 'net is like this. Not at all. It's the isolated communities given free reign to create their own culture, usually without consequence, where only the most stimulating content gets the most approval. (If such a community was focused on dog pics... hi-def puppy pics would get upvoted and a cat pic would not be as likely to be upvoted. It's not that much difference than a hidden /chan/ where everyone clutches their pearls at the most outrageous post, but still clicks on it...'cause they can not look away.)
Personal justifications for people's behavior, and even the law itself, can become perverted in either direction (on the one hand there's murder, disease, torture, and sex-offenders, on the other hand there's puritanical authoritarianism, loss of freedoms, loss of rights, and wrongful executions, with a lot of uncomfortable things that are "probably harmless" in-between the two).
Oh, and for an added kick, a hypocrite can be engaging in both of these extreme behaviors at the same time, and there are many instances throughout history where the people baselessly crying foul about others being "impure" were engaging, in secret, in the same behavior that they would condemn.
General-level intelligence frequently demonstrates that it will take things to their logical extremes if given the opportunity, whether that intelligence is artificial or not.
Humans are general-level intelligence.
(Technically so are some animals, such as bears and dolphins... which is also interesting.)
Welcome to the Internet, have a look around. Anything that brain of yours can think of can be found. We've got mountains of content, some better, some worse; if none of it's to interest to you you'd be the first.
https://youtu.be/k1BneeJTDcU
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3426689579759504506/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/3426690213914455437/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/4932019136250605819/
https://steamcommunity.com/discussions/forum/12/4932019356818235717/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6zXDo4dL7SU
...but even as diverse & powerful as the internet is, it's not going to put an end to what life is best at providing an abundance of : disappointment.