Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tiruin]

Oh bloody wow. It's been 2 days due to a power outage, and my words are taken and twisted into something that isn't applicable, and ending with a line that comes off to me as malicious humor. "hahaha" -.-

Aha, now I know why Tiruin was so upset on discord when I said "that guy", hahaha.

Me being upset has no connection to what Truean said. Me being 'upset' is you obtusely ignored me saying 'hey she's female' and incessantly continued and feigned ignorance because you 'didn't care'. It was surprising to see such bluntness.

Like bloody goodness why.
It starts with an argumentative statement against Truean, and the tone continued and blew up because there was a lack of tact on your side. That is not what I said when I mentioned how to work with her ideas. This could've all been avoided if a simple moment was taken to just respect the other person and take the less-than-five-seconds to just delete a tiny bit of text in the bbcode that does not inconvenience everyone at all for the entirety of forever as arguing about all this makes a mountain out of molehill.

[NullForceOmega]

Tiruin, the world would be a far better place if everyone tried to respect each other, but the reality is that they don't, and they feel no reason to.

[Tiruin]

Another problem is--what you described is a learned behavior. (That and what was done doesn't even add to the quote at all by giving random numbers and letters that sequentially, doesn't do anything in bbcode -.-)

Umpf, I just feel very bad about all this, perhaps because of other influences like having no power for 2 days and having piled up exams nudging stress. Sorry for the tone in the previous post. It just confuses me in a frustrating way--why complicate things when it can be easily clarified by a more simple, and easier act.

[NullForceOmega]

Another problem is--what you described is a learned behavior.

I'm not trying to start an argument with you here, but I don't agree with you on this point at all.  Empathy is earned, not given by default, and apathy is the most likely response to any given situation until the consequences are understood.

As for why?  If people don't care, they see no need to be kind.

[Tiruin]

Oh yes I agree with your disagreement. It's complex to detail in just one sentence, sorry for that.

Also thanks for the explanation x.x

[wierd]

While this certainly *IS* a learned behavior:

It is in my best interests to not be a douche by default. I prefer to withhold being a douche until after a person crosses my boundaries for safe and proper altruism, and refuses to accept polite correction.

This does not mean I am always successful, or always mindful. I sometimes do act the douche by default. I just try not to be, because doing so causes lasting problems, and when considered on the whole, contributes toward a less desirable social condition for society at large. (EG, asshole drivers, etc.)

[SalmonGod]

Empathy is earned, not given by default, and apathy is the most likely response to any given situation until the consequences are understood.

This is very much not universal, and the most surefire way to lose the empathy I offer by default is to be callous and dismissive towards others without specific cause.

[NullForceOmega]

Your empathy is the learned behavior here, it exists due to your formative processes attaching values to specific actions as you grew up.  The seeds of kindness are in everyone, but they don't always grow, let alone bloom.

[heydude6]

Honestly, you can say that any sort high level human behavior is learned. Take feral children for example, this one girl named genie spent most of her childhood strapped to a bed completely isolated from other people. Because of this, she didn't get any opportunity to learn these so-called "learned behaviours". This had a variety of bad results.

I quoted the bits relevant most to this discussion here:

From the start Genie showed interest in many hospital staff members, often approaching and walking with complete strangers, but Kent said she did not seem to distinguish between people and showed no signs of attachment to anybody, including her mother and brother. At first she would not allow anyone to touch her, quickly shying away from any physical contact, and while she sat on her mother's lap when requested she remained very tense and got up as quickly as possible; hospital staff wrote that her mother seemed entirely oblivious to Genie's emotions and actions. Genie's behavior was typically highly antisocial, and proved extremely difficult for others to control. Regardless of where she was she constantly salivated and spat, and continually sniffed and blew her nose on anything that happened to be nearby. She had no sense of personal property, frequently pointing to or taking something she wanted from someone else, or situational awareness. Doctors wrote that she acted on impulse irrespective of the setting, especially noting that she frequently engaged in open masturbation and would sometimes attempt to involve older men in it.

Surprisingly, I think I'll have to side with Null here.

[SalmonGod]

Sure...... if you want to compare grown people with a capitalistic interpretation of empathy to feral children.

Worth pointing out that cases such as genie don't just suffer from lack of socialization, but also deeper stunting of cognitive development due to general lack of stimulation.  Children who grow feral due to confinement are different from other cases.  There's often a lot of controversy regarding children who grow feral or survive years in the wild, but there are just as many cases of such reported to turn out social as anti-social.  At least as I recall from a period several years ago where I became interested in the topic and read a bunch of stuff.

[Trekkin]

Genie and similar cases are also generally not well cared for, so it can be difficult to determine the effect of isolation itself rather than in the context of prolonged malnutrition and so forth.

Incidentally, if it helps the debate any, there are two generally understood forms of empathy: cognitive empathy is the ability to understand the emotions of another, and emotional empathy is the ability to respond appropriately.

While certainly the behavioral cues associated with emotional states must be learned, it's also rooted in more specific regions of the brain than most purely learned behaviors, suggesting that there's an innate component to the underlying thought processes. All consideration about how selective someone is with their emotional empathy aside, cognitive empathy is at least partly innate.

I bring this up mostly because the cruelty exhibited by children, particularly mean-spirited humor, can also be seen in people with either a lack of cognitive empathy or an intentional or learned lack of emotional empathy. So, to answer Tiruin's confusion: immaturity, frontal lobe trauma, and/or a conscious decision to be an awful person can all look alike on the Internet.

[SalmonGod]

Children can be quite cruel.  There's huge differences there, too, though.  Some will show deep remorse as soon as they gain an understanding that they're being cruel.  Others will double down and rebel against the idea that social concerns should inhibit their impulses.  Still others will practice re-framing (internal and external).  Innate, learned, and choice all interact, and the implications aren't very practical to be concerned with when dealing with grown people who are developed enough to play dwarf fortress and debate on a forum.

[Trekkin]

"Debate" is generous, but I agree with your general point; from a practical perspective, the thing to do with both those who can't and those who won't play nice online is to stop playing with them. Simply as a matter of interest, though, any attempt to understand them is also frustrated by how any disruption in the empathy pipeline generally looks the same to an outside observer. The requisite brain structures might not be there, or they might not be tuned to the correct observations and conclusions, or they might be simply ignored as a learned behavior, none of which necessarily imply anything about an individual's capacity to do other things. It's fruitless to try to figure out which, no matter how much our quite understandable confusion might make us want to.

It's also, as you rightly point out, pointless to care.

[McTraveller]

M: "We want to follow this industry standard specification when developing our products".
E: "Ok, the standard says we need to do X, Y, Z."
M: "Ugh, that's a lot of work.  Can we pick and choose the parts we want?"
E: 

Seriously - why is this a debate? I can see having debates about "do we really want to do it then, given our resources, etc." but saying "We want to say we follow it but we don't want to actually follow it..." ugh.

[wierd]

Dont get me started on that.  I used to be an industrial draftsman. There is a widely published and very useful standard created by the ASME. It clearly specifies how to define datum structures, make dimensional callouts on the sheet, and how to properly project the views, amongst other things. It is very handy, and works great--- when people fucking follow it.

Do you really want to know the number of times I have had conversations with engineering departments about how "just because that surface is really really important, does not mean you can call it a datum, because it is not a plane. If you want to call it a datum anyway, then you cannot claim the engineering conforms to ASME Y14.5, because what you are wanting to do violates the standard."  I would even be polite, and send them an excerpt of the appropriate section of the standards documentation pointing this out.  Most of the time this would be for mating parts that mate against the skin of an aircraft, and thus the 3 dimensional topology of that surface has to be gnat's ass exact, and they want to use that surface definition as one of the primary datums.  BUUUUT, it does not work that way, as the 3 primary datums define the part's ideal coordinate system, and that means they **HAVE** to be planes. Sorry bubs but yeah. It does. I would recommend they make them into auxiliary datum surfaces with true positioned control points on the surface to guarantee surface topology relative to the rest of the part, but it would go round and round more often than you would expect.