Deliberation Makes People Consistently Selfish

[jaguar43]

Its funny how we have libertarians following ray peat without really knowing his position in politics. I am pretty sure this clears it up.

In politics and common culture, discussing the existence of a ruling class had been unacceptable until recent years,but recently several politicians have denounced labor union activism as incitement of "class warfare," acknowledging the existence of classes. The taft-hartley Act, automation, and offshoring were clearly processes in a class war, but it was impolite to describe them as such. Rhetoric, silence, and censorship keep dissent nearly invisible.

Ray Peat Newsletter epigenetics, sickness-aging and changing science.

What J describes in page one is exactly what Dr. Peat is referring to in this newsletter.

 

[j.]

Its funny how we have libertarians following ray peat without really knowing his position in politics

I just want to note that libertarians might like Ray Peat because he makes some points that seemingly only libertarians pay attention to, among them:

- The unfairness, oppressiveness, and bad effects of licensing laws and regulations. Peat criticizes the whole structure of the medical profession, and considers the licensing processes and courts decisions important parts of it, in ways many libertarians do.
- He often criticizes the rise of "corporate-state" influence. Note that he isn't criticizing only corporations there, but also the state. "Corporate state" is what libertarians call fascism. Libertarians are in favor of businesses, but not those who rise with special favors from the state.
- He mentions the merger of industries and the agency that regulates them, and gives as examples how high level employees of some industries, such as vegetable oils, have a tendency to also at some point be high level employees of the FDA, the agency that regulates them. Again, this is fascism, or in nicer words, corporatism.
- He routinely trashes the FDA, which the libertarians would like to abolish.
- He points to bad consequences of patent laws, such as trying to sell a new medicine, maybe worse than your old product, just because the patent expired. I don't know if Ray Peat would sympathize with the solution of libertarians, which would be to abolish patents, at least some group of libertarians advocate that. Nevertheless, libertarians at least tend to agree with Ray Peat's critique.

Of course, they don't agree on everything, as Ray Peat seemed to have good regard for the communist revolution in Cuba; when he talks about "rich people" it seems like he regards them as weird out-of-this-planet beings with three eyes; places a seemingly disproportionate emphasis on issues of class and class fights, as opposed to fights of the state against the individual. And lastly, he is seemingly blind to the awful and deadly influence of Marx and like minded people, as he mentions some (purportedly) good things about them without qualification or acknowledging the atrocities they provoked.

 

[jaguar43]

Of course, they don't agree on everything, as Ray Peat seemed to have good regard for the communist revolution in Cuba; when he talks about "rich people" it seems like he regards them as weird out-of-this-planet beings with three eyes; places a seemingly disproportionate emphasis on issues of class and class fights, as opposed to fights of the state against the individual. And lastly, he is seemingly blind to the awful and deadly influence of Marx and like minded people, as he mentions some (purportedly) good things about them without qualification or acknowledging the atrocities they provoked.

So you think he is wrong politically but you agree with his nutritional, hormonal, recommendations ? Even though he said that his political ideas influenced his scientific ideas.

While I was still in Valle de Bravo I had decided to find ways to work on the substance, rather than the form of the various issues, thinking about the basic issues in science the way I had about politics and education.

http://www.visionandacceptance.com/orga ... -ray-peat/

Ray Peat pretty much dismisses libertarians politicians as being part of the problem. Do you disagree with his quote in my previous post ?Maybe you can send him an email about it.

 

[j.]

Of course, they don't agree on everything, as Ray Peat seemed to have good regard for the communist revolution in Cuba; when he talks about "rich people" it seems like he regards them as weird out-of-this-planet beings with three eyes; places a seemingly disproportionate emphasis on issues of class and class fights, as opposed to fights of the state against the individual. And lastly, he is seemingly blind to the awful and deadly influence of Marx and like minded people, as he mentions some (purportedly) good things about them without qualification or acknowledging the atrocities they provoked.

So you think he is wrong politically but you agree with his nutritional, hormonal, recommendations ? Even though he said that his political ideas influenced his scientific ideas.

While I was still in Valle de Bravo I had decided to find ways to work on the substance, rather than the form of the various issues, thinking about the basic issues in science the way I had about politics and education.

http://www.visionandacceptance.com/orga ... -ray-peat/

If I think he is right on some things but not 100%, the conclusion is that I think he is wrong?

I don't know what his exact political prescriptions are. He says things are wrong but doesn't say what should replace them. He doesn't say private property should be abolished and things should be done this and that way. I seem to agree with him in a lot of his critiques, which makes me think I'll agree with at least some of his political prescriptions.

Regarding the relationship between his political views and his nutritional views, there are many ways to arrive at the truth. Whether low B6 produces hyperventilation doesn't imply that capitalism or communism is the way to go, you seem to say that it does imply something like that.

Szent-Györgyi has a lot of the same views as Peat, yet he was a much more libertarian, even writing for the Journal of Individualist Thought. How can you agree with Szent-Györgyi views on metabolism while not agreeing with his capitalist views? Some of the same thought processes might have led to both of these conclusions.

If Szent-Györgyi lived longer, should he have changed his views to become more of a communist after realizing that Ray Peat's biological views were similar to his, and since Ray Peat likes Marx, Szent-Györgyi should've liked him too because the two things are related?

What I'm really trying to say, in a few words, is that it's idiotic to think that if one agrees with Ray Peat views on nutrition, that implies that one should logically agree with him on his political views. That is really, really idiotic.

 

[j.]

Ray Peat pretty much dismisses libertarians politicians as being part of the problem. Do you disagree with his quote in my previous post ?Maybe you can send him an email about it.

What...?

To not be unexplicit, seems like a very bad reason to pester him.

 

[jaguar43]

Of course, they don't agree on everything, as Ray Peat seemed to have good regard for the communist revolution in Cuba; when he talks about "rich people" it seems like he regards them as weird out-of-this-planet beings with three eyes; places a seemingly disproportionate emphasis on issues of class and class fights, as opposed to fights of the state against the individual. And lastly, he is seemingly blind to the awful and deadly influence of Marx and like minded people, as he mentions some (purportedly) good things about them without qualification or acknowledging the atrocities they provoked.

So you think he is wrong politically but you agree with his nutritional, hormonal, recommendations ? Even though he said that his political ideas influenced his scientific ideas.

While I was still in Valle de Bravo I had decided to find ways to work on the substance, rather than the form of the various issues, thinking about the basic issues in science the way I had about politics and education.

http://www.visionandacceptance.com/orga ... -ray-peat/

If I think he is right on some things but not 100%, the conclusion is that I think he is wrong?

I don't know what his exact political prescriptions are. He says things are wrong but doesn't say what should replace them. He doesn't say private property should be abolished and things should be done this and that way. I seem to agree with him in a lot of his critiques, which makes me think I'll agree with at least some of his political prescriptions.

Regarding the relationship between his political views and his nutritional views, there are many ways to arrive at the truth. Whether low B6 produces hyperventilation doesn't imply that capitalism or communism is the way to go, you seem to say that it does imply something like that.

Szent-Györgyi has a lot of the same views as Peat, yet he was a much more libertarian, even writing for the Journal of Individualist Thought. How can you agree with Szent-Györgyi views on metabolism while not agreeing with his capitalist views? Some of the same thought processes might have led to both of these conclusions.

If Szent-Györgyi lived longer, should he have changed his views to become more of a communist after realizing that Ray Peat's biological views were similar to his, and since Ray Peat likes Marx, Szent-Györgyi should've liked him too because the two things are related?

What I'm really trying to say, in a few words, is that it's idiotic to think that if one agrees with Ray Peat views on nutrition, that implies that one should logically agree with him on his political views. That is really, really idiotic.

Szent-Györgyi grew up in the ruling elite in Hungary,( there is correlation between longevity and class ) plus his work in his cancer research was highly motivated by his wife dying from cancer. He believed in mainstream science like the genetic theory which is considered highly dogmatic by Dr. Peat.

Its not idiotic, because he directly stated that the science he promotes was influence by his own political ideas. Thats called hypocrisy on your part. If he didn't have those political beliefs then he would probably be promoting the same information as the corporations.

 

[jaguar43]

Ray Peat pretty much dismisses libertarians politicians as being part of the problem. Do you disagree with his quote in my previous post ?Maybe you can send him an email about it.

What...?

To not be unexplicit, seems like a very bad reason to pester him.

I don't think he would mind. See what he thinks about your position.

 

[Ben]

It isn't clear to me that the selfishness evidenced above is a bad thing. Giving people money for no reason (as in, according to intuition) does not help them. It subsidises whichever circumstances led them to needing to ask you for money. Giving people money under certain conditions is a completely different story and the fact that the study participants were simply handed out money to begin with is a complicating factor (they would behave as per the direct recipients of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing measures, rather than the common man who receives his income via voluntary cooperation).

I think time-preference is a more useful concept: the discount of future consumption as compared with present consumption. The more stressed you are, the more YOU need nutrients now. You don't have the energy and structural substrates to wait around for longer, more efficient modes of production (i.e. lending someone money, in anticipation of a greater return for both parties). Nor do you have the energy to consider the longer term consequences of your behaviour (and Peat has argued that future-orientedness is a sign of a high rate of metabolism). Thus, people with a high time preference will tend to squander resources (both productive capital and consumer goods such as food), just as a stressed hypothyroid organism will tend to squander nutrients.

Where did you read this? From my knowledge, unhealthy people tend to either worry about the future or get excited that it will be better, both of which cause unnecessary emotional turmoil and worse health in the long run.

 

[arien]

Of course, they don't agree on everything, as Ray Peat seemed to have good regard for the communist revolution in Cuba; when he talks about "rich people" it seems like he regards them as weird out-of-this-planet beings with three eyes; places a seemingly disproportionate emphasis on issues of class and class fights, as opposed to fights of the state against the individual. And lastly, he is seemingly blind to the awful and deadly influence of Marx and like minded people, as he mentions some (purportedly) good things about them without qualification or acknowledging the atrocities they provoked.

So you think he is wrong politically but you agree with his nutritional, hormonal, recommendations ? Even though he said that his political ideas influenced his scientific ideas.

While I was still in Valle de Bravo I had decided to find ways to work on the substance, rather than the form of the various issues, thinking about the basic issues in science the way I had about politics and education.

http://www.visionandacceptance.com/orga ... -ray-peat/

If I think he is right on some things but not 100%, the conclusion is that I think he is wrong?

I don't know what his exact political prescriptions are. He says things are wrong but doesn't say what should replace them. He doesn't say private property should be abolished and things should be done this and that way. I seem to agree with him in a lot of his critiques, which makes me think I'll agree with at least some of his political prescriptions.

Regarding the relationship between his political views and his nutritional views, there are many ways to arrive at the truth. Whether low B6 produces hyperventilation doesn't imply that capitalism or communism is the way to go, you seem to say that it does imply something like that.

Szent-Györgyi has a lot of the same views as Peat, yet he was a much more libertarian, even writing for the Journal of Individualist Thought. How can you agree with Szent-Györgyi views on metabolism while not agreeing with his capitalist views? Some of the same thought processes might have led to both of these conclusions.

If Szent-Györgyi lived longer, should he have changed his views to become more of a communist after realizing that Ray Peat's biological views were similar to his, and since Ray Peat likes Marx, Szent-Györgyi should've liked him too because the two things are related?

What I'm really trying to say, in a few words, is that it's idiotic to think that if one agrees with Ray Peat views on nutrition, that implies that one should logically agree with him on his political views. That is really, really idiotic.

Szent-Györgyi grew up in the ruling elite in Hungary,( there is correlation between longevity and class ) plus his work in his cancer research was highly motivated by his wife dying from cancer. He believed in mainstream science like the genetic theory which is considered highly dogmatic by Dr. Peat.

Its not idiotic, because he directly stated that the science he promotes was influence by his own political ideas. Thats called hypocrisy on your part. If he didn't have those political beliefs then he would probably be promoting the same information as the corporations.

Thus, ought Peat not to discard the work of Szent-Györgyi, if it is simply a product of his bourgeois logic? Polylogism is not a useful concept in argumentation. If classes, races or whatever other arbitrary categories of people to which we choose to refer are forever opposed due to innate or circumstance induced differences in the logical structure of the human mind, then argumentation cannot occur, for any disagreement must simply be a result of this necessary difference. Or, if some differences are a result of polylogism, but others aren't, how would you know? If you could know, this would imply a common epistemological ground and therefore the refutation of polylogism. Thus, there is no use in engaging in propositional exchanges, the necessary basis for peaceful cooperation; instead, we may as well get on with violent revolution, the war of all against all. I hope the relation between polylogism and the central dogma of molecular genetics is clear.

Additionally, as far as I know, Peat hopes to achieve his ends via argumentation; he is not involved in violent revolution. It seems to me that he is consequently committed to the ability of people to understand him and one another; a commitment to peaceful interpersonal relations. Now, because polylogism is not true and therefore libertarians and Peat have some common epistemological ground, libertarians can reconstruct Peat's work in their own terms, just as Peat reconstructs the conclusions of mainstream scientific studies in his own.

It isn't clear to me that the selfishness evidenced above is a bad thing. Giving people money for no reason (as in, according to intuition) does not help them. It subsidises whichever circumstances led them to needing to ask you for money. Giving people money under certain conditions is a completely different story and the fact that the study participants were simply handed out money to begin with is a complicating factor (they would behave as per the direct recipients of the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing measures, rather than the common man who receives his income via voluntary cooperation).

I think time-preference is a more useful concept: the discount of future consumption as compared with present consumption. The more stressed you are, the more YOU need nutrients now. You don't have the energy and structural substrates to wait around for longer, more efficient modes of production (i.e. lending someone money, in anticipation of a greater return for both parties). Nor do you have the energy to consider the longer term consequences of your behaviour (and Peat has argued that future-orientedness is a sign of a high rate of metabolism). Thus, people with a high time preference will tend to squander resources (both productive capital and consumer goods such as food), just as a stressed hypothyroid organism will tend to squander nutrients.

Where did you read this? From my knowledge, unhealthy people tend to either worry about the future or get excited that it will be better, both of which cause unnecessary emotional turmoil and worse health in the long run.

e.g.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/wi ... lake.shtml
"Perception, combined with the discovery and invention of new patterns in the world, will be actively oriented toward the future, while the deductive, merely analytical, manner of thought will be tied to the past."

 

[Ben]

That makes sense. What he's recommending seems to have to do a lot with openness. "Conservative" people rely on past rituals, while "liberal" people are open to trying new things. In this case, the liberal person is obviously the one with lower serotonin and better mental health. A way to promote openness is to stop pretending you already know everything from the past and can predict the future using the past. Rely on your intuition and don't plan too much. You don't know what will happen, especially when it comes to people. People are extremely complex.

 

[j.]

See what he thinks about your position.

Why? Should I ask every person who did valuable work what his positions are? Maybe you don't think he would mind, but you don't get bombarded with emails every day.

 

[jaguar43]

Thus, ought Peat not to discard the work of Szent-Györgyi, if it is simply a product of his bourgeois logic? Polylogism is not a useful concept in argumentation. If classes, races or whatever other arbitrary categories of people to which we choose to refer are forever opposed due to innate or circumstance induced differences in the logical structure of the human mind, then argumentation cannot occur, for any disagreement must simply be a result of this necessary difference. Or, if some differences are a result of polylogism, but others aren't, how would you know? If you could know, this would imply a common epistemological ground and therefore the refutation of polylogism. Thus, there is no use in engaging in propositional exchanges, the necessary basis for peaceful cooperation; instead, we may as well get on with violent revolution, the war of all against all. I hope the relation between polylogism and the central dogma of molecular genetics is clear.

Additionally, as far as I know, Peat hopes to achieve his ends via argumentation; he is not involved in violent revolution. It seems to me that he is consequently committed to the ability of people to understand him and one another; a commitment to peaceful interpersonal relations. Now, because polylogism is not true and therefore libertarians and Peat have some common epistemological ground, libertarians can reconstruct Peat's work in their own terms, just as Peat reconstructs the conclusions of mainstream scientific studies in his own.

Never said that we should disregard Szent-Györgyi work in science. I wasn't clear, I was referring to J's comment on why Szent-Györgyi wrote in libertarian journals. Most likely because he grew up in the ruling elite in Hungary, and moved when the communist won the election in Hungary. Not trying to say that rich people can't become leftist or poor people never lean right politically. Just stating the fact that your economic upbringing can shape the way you view the world.

I think your mistaking Polylogism with intentions. For example I know that most doctors and pharmaceutical companies are motivated through profit not through helping people. Its not because there is some innate defect with doctors. Its because the social and culture experiences of people can effect their decision making. Which is pretty much what the article in the OP is saying.

I am not sure what you meant in the last sentence of the first paragraph. But racialist polylogism was associated with Nazi Germany. Ray Peat has specifically said that the genetic theory that was used in the U.S during early 1900's was used by the Nazi's to justify their extermination of the jews.

*Note: Although Konrad Lorenz (who later received the Nobel Prize) was the architect of the Nazi's policy of "racial hygiene" (extermination of those with unwanted physical, cultural, or political traits which were supposedly determined by "genes") he took his ideas from the leading U.S. geneticists, whose works were published in the main genetics journals. Following the Nazis' defeat, some of these journals were renamed, and the materials on eugenics were often removed from libraries, so that a new historical resume could be presented by the profession.

http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/eclampsia.shtml

 

[arien]

Never said that we should disregard Szent-Györgyi work in science. I wasn't clear, I was referring to J's comment on why Szent-Györgyi wrote in libertarian journals. Most likely because he grew up in the ruling elite in Hungary, and moved when the communist won the election in Hungary. Not trying to say that rich people can't become leftist or poor people never lean right politically. Just stating the fact that your economic upbringing can shape the way you view the world.

So if it is perfectly legitimate for Ray to use and endorse the work of others who have different politics, why should there be any contention about libertarians endorsing Ray's work? While environment will affect orientation, this has no bearing on whether the ideas to which orientation lead are correct. To determine that, you need to refute or support the ideas themselves. This is why you need concepts such as reasoning and its implications: logic, truth and falsity; that is to say, this is why you need rationalism. Additionally, this is why I brought up polylogism; the idea that people have the ideas they do simply because they are proletarian or bourgeois (either due to environment or genetics) is Marxian polylogism. Clearly, it is insufficient to cite someone's background to discount their ideas. However, upon having rationally refuted or affirmed an idea, you can then use someone's background to explain why they might entertain that idea.

I think your mistaking Polylogism with intentions. For example I know that most doctors and pharmaceutical companies are motivated through profit not through helping people. Its not because there is some innate defect with doctors. Its because the social and culture experiences of people can effect their decision making. Which is pretty much what the article in the OP is saying.

People implement means to achieve those ends they value most highly. Whenever the perceived cost of action falls below the perceived benefit, there is profit, whether you, a doctor or I act. That is to say, any successful action involves profit, otherwise it involves loss. Consequently, it cannot be that doctors are guided by the profit motive that explains the fact that the means they implement seem inappropriate from the perspective of a consumer who has given the scientific literature a critical reading. Instead, there must be something about their environment that ensures that they profit from implementing inappropriate means. This is the fact that they are shielded from competition by the state enforcing their monopoly privilege to practise medicine. If you think you are better at practising medicine than anyone who currently does, the state has ensured that it is illegal for you to compete with the doctors it has sanctioned. Thus, doctors have no real incentive to be good at what they do, apart from legislation which requires that other members of the profession who possess the same monopoly privilege declare them competent. There is no risk that someone who is better will steal their customers, thus, they have no monetary incentive to be good at what they do. Of course, some people do not value money as highly as other ends, but then, why would they charge for their service to begin with? On the other hand, doctors have very real incentives to be bad at what they do. In some countries they are direct employees of the state and in others they are benefited by the state enforcement of their monopoly privilege. Therefore, they have an interest in the state's existence and actions. Therefore, they want you to be hypothyroid, submissive and scared, so that you will not think independently, will capitulate to its demands and be dependent on its favors. This is why doctors have advocated estrogen, radiation, polyunsaturated fats, for example, and cautioned against progesterone, sugar, saturated fat, retinol, etc. The above arguments apply equally to pharmaceutical companies as beneficiaries of monopoly privilege (patents) and scientists who receive state funding.

Finally, the factor of time preference upon which I have already elaborated is systematically increased by the actions of the state. This means that people care less about the longer term consequences of their actions and therefore will tend to prescribe and request treatment which fails to take this into consideration, doctor and patient alike.

I am not sure what you meant in the last sentence of the first paragraph. But racialist polylogism was associated with Nazi Germany. Ray Peat has specifically said that the genetic theory that was used in the U.S during early 1900's was used by the Nazi's to justify their extermination of the jews.

*Note: Although Konrad Lorenz (who later received the Nobel Prize) was the architect of the Nazi's policy of "racial hygiene" (extermination of those with unwanted physical, cultural, or political traits which were supposedly determined by "genes") he took his ideas from the leading U.S. geneticists, whose works were published in the main genetics journals. Following the Nazis' defeat, some of these journals were renamed, and the materials on eugenics were often removed from libraries, so that a new historical resume could be presented by the profession.

http://raypeat.com/articles/aging/eclampsia.shtml

As I understood that you were employing Marxian polylogist arguments (now I am not sure what exactly you were saying) and concomitantly rejecting mainstream genetics, I felt I ought to point out the tension between these ideas. Environmental polylogism implies genetic polylogism, as otherwise the different classes/races/whatever could change their environments and therefore change their logic; they could acquire a common epistemological ground with one another. Polylogism would no longer hold.

That makes sense. What he's recommending seems to have to do a lot with openness. "Conservative" people rely on past rituals, while "liberal" people are open to trying new things. In this case, the liberal person is obviously the one with lower serotonin and better mental health. A way to promote openness is to stop pretending you already know everything from the past and can predict the future using the past. Rely on your intuition and don't plan too much. You don't know what will happen, especially when it comes to people. People are extremely complex.

Conservative and liberal political parties proclaim commitment to different values, but are ultimately unanimous in the means they propose to achieve these ends. Same means implies same ends ultimately realised. These means involve using the state apparatus of coercion to further these values. Coercion is aggression; Ray has written a whole article on the relationship between serotonin and aggression.

Also, human culture is complex, but Ray seems to argue for the optimal function of the organism depending upon a few basic, consistent themes, particularly the interdependence of structure and function. Some of his work builds upon Selye's General Adaptation Syndrome.

FInally, conservatism in its useful sense implies the conserving and dissemination of good ideas that have already been arrived at, so that culture doesn't have to keep reinventing the wheel. In the context of Ray's disparagement of scientists' rejection of old knowledge about the capacity for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and the way in which terms such as teleogony (edit: telegony) and hysteresis (edit: heterosis) left the scientific lexicon, we might call him a conservative.

 

[jaguar43]

So if it is perfectly legitimate for Ray to use and endorse the work of others who have different politics, why should there be any contention about libertarians endorsing Ray's work? While environment will affect orientation, this has no bearing on whether the ideas to which orientation lead are correct. To determine that, you need to refute or support the ideas themselves. This is why you need concepts such as reasoning and its implications: logic, truth and falsity; that is to say, this is why you need rationalism. Additionally, this is why I brought up polylogism; the idea that people have the ideas they do simply because they are proletarian or bourgeois (either due to environment or genetics) is Marxian polylogism. Clearly, it is insufficient to cite someone's background to discount their ideas. However, upon having rationally refuted or affirmed an idea, you can then use someone's background to explain why they might entertain that idea.

I don't think I ever said Libertarians cannot endorse Ray's work. All I said was I think its funny how libertarians are following his recommendations nutritionally, hormonally, and physiologically. Which I consider to be one of the most important environmental factors for humans which gives Dr. Peat a lot of credit and trust. And yet antagonize his politically view 100% even though he clearly stated it influenced his scientific findings. I don't consider my statements about szent gyorgyi as polylogism because I do believe people can change perceptions(logic). Szent Gyorgyi probably never change his political views.

People implement means to achieve those ends they value most highly. Whenever the perceived cost of action falls below the perceived benefit, there is profit, whether you, a doctor or I act. That is to say, any successful action involves profit, otherwise it involves loss. Consequently, it cannot be that doctors are guided by the profit motive that explains the fact that the means they implement seem inappropriate from the perspective of a consumer who has given the scientific literature a critical reading. Instead, there must be something about their environment that ensures that they profit from implementing inappropriate means. This is the fact that they are shielded from competition by the state enforcing their monopoly privilege to practise medicine. If you think you are better at practising medicine than anyone who currently does, the state has ensured that it is illegal for you to compete with the doctors it has sanctioned. Thus, doctors have no real incentive to be good at what they do, apart from legislation which requires that other members of the profession who possess the same monopoly privilege declare them competent. There is no risk that someone who is better will steal their customers, thus, they have no monetary incentive to be good at what they do. Of course, some people do not value money as highly as other ends, but then, why would they charge for their service to begin with? On the other hand, doctors have very real incentives to be bad at what they do. In some countries they are direct employees of the state and in others they are benefited by the state enforcement of their monopoly privilege. Therefore, they have an interest in the state's existence and actions. Therefore, they want you to be hypothyroid, submissive and scared, so that you will not think independently, will capitulate to its demands and be dependent on its favors. This is why doctors have advocated estrogen, radiation, polyunsaturated fats, for example, and cautioned against progesterone, sugar, saturated fat, retinol, etc. The above arguments apply equally to pharmaceutical companies as beneficiaries of monopoly privilege (patents) and scientists who receive state funding.

The idea that a "free market" will lead the proper remedies and therapies into the market by increasing competition and therefore allowing the market to "take its place" is wrong in my opinion. Because the very nature of business is competition. In mind and tissue, Ray Peat wrote this about competition

Wild animals have larger brains than caged ones, which implies that life and freedom are brain stimulants. Problems are opportunities. People can be the richest kind of opportunity, the most stimulating kind of problem. To do this they have to arouse tension. (Blake said opposition is true friendship). This is not to advocate competition. Competition tries to eliminate the problem by defeating an opponent, and can exist only in the armored character, and which can’t tolerate tension.

Page 80 mind and tissue

So whether or not the government is present is not the problem, but the competition between businesses that will disallow progress in science and health due to the effort of elimination of each other. One cannot ensure that the right remedies and/or therapies will always triumph in a laissez faire economy. If profits were based on the best products available then marketing, propaganda, educational institutions, advertising would be useless. And these tools are not useless because they influence profits.

Finally, the factor of time preference upon which I have already elaborated is systematically increased by the actions of the state. This means that people care less about the longer term consequences of their actions and therefore will tend to prescribe and request treatment which fails to take this into consideration, doctor and patient alike.

With a goal orientated society, problems become solutions. In my opinion the state can amplify or retard stimulation.

As I understood that you were employing Marxian polylogist arguments (now I am not sure what exactly you were saying) and concomitantly rejecting mainstream genetics, I felt I ought to point out the tension between these ideas. Environmental polylogism implies genetic polylogism, as otherwise the different classes/races/whatever could change their environments and therefore change their logic; they could acquire a common epistemological ground with one another. Polylogism would no longer hold.

Like I said above I don't think I was implying polylogism because I believe people can change their logic.I don't believe in genetic determinism. You can label me as a lamarckian.

FInally, conservatism in its useful sense implies the conserving and dissemination of good ideas that have already been arrived at, so that culture doesn't have to keep reinventing the wheel. In the context of Ray's disparagement of scientists' rejection of old knowledge about the capacity for the inheritance of acquired characteristics and the way in which terms such as teleogony (edit: telegony) and hysteresis (edit: heterosis) left the scientific lexicon, we might call him a conservative.

Ray Peat has wrote negative things about deductive reasoning.

When you believe that you have adequate, expert knowledge, a passive, logical, deductive form of mental activity seems appropriate. Deduction always goes from a higher level of generality to a lower level of generality. Mental passivity therefore is likely to be associated with the belief that we have the decisive knowledge already stored in memory. If we believe that we create higher degrees of generality, as appropriate solutions to novel problems, then we are committed to an active mental life. Perception, combined with the discovery and invention of new patterns in the world, will be actively oriented toward the future, while the deductive, merely analytical, manner of thought will be tied to the past.

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/wi ... lake.shtml

 

[j.]

If you say polyunsaturated fats are harmful, therefore almonds have some bad effects, that's deductive reasoning.

jag is putting words together but he completely lacks the capacity to connect sentences in a way the makes sense. It's like he is trying to write the most nonsensical paragraphs he is capable of writing. I'm shocked at what I'm reading, they are some of the most disastrous paragraphs I have ever come across.

I won't try to refute him anymore, as one has to already be stupid to not see the non-sequiturs.

 

[jaguar43]

If you say polyunsaturated fats are harmful, therefore almonds have some bad effects, that's deductive reasoning.

jag is putting words together but he completely lacks the capacity to connect sentences in a way the makes sense. It's like he is trying to write the most nonsensical paragraphs he is capable of writing. I'm shocked at what I'm reading, they are some of the most disastrous paragraphs I have ever come across.

I won't try to refute him anymore, as one has to already be stupid to not see the non-sequiturs.

Actually I believe that example is inductive reasoning. Since your using bottom-top logic. If you grew almonds in the tropics then the fats would be saturated, therefore safe. I think thats Dr. Peats point in the quote I posted.

I wouldn't mind elaborating and going into further detail if you cannot understand what I wrote.

 

[Yves]

That makes sense. What he's recommending seems to have to do a lot with openness. "Conservative" people rely on past rituals, while "liberal" people are open to trying new things. In this case, the liberal person is obviously the one with lower serotonin and better mental health. A way to promote openness is to stop pretending you already know everything from the past and can predict the future using the past. Rely on your intuition and don't plan too much. You don't know what will happen, especially when it comes to people. People are extremely complex.

I dunno, this seems dubious. The very liberal people I know tend to be unstable mentally. Maybe it has to do with taking all those anti-depressants/anti-psychotics. The people on those drugs can be shockingly bitter and resentful and have distorted thinking. I think you're reaching more for "dogma" which anyone can fall victim to, non-religious dogma can be just as bad, just read some of the diet websites like 30bad haha.

Percent treated for mental illness (in U.S.)

Liberal 19.7%
Moderate 11.8%
Conservative 9.7%

Source

 

[Ben]

That makes sense. What he's recommending seems to have to do a lot with openness. "Conservative" people rely on past rituals, while "liberal" people are open to trying new things. In this case, the liberal person is obviously the one with lower serotonin and better mental health. A way to promote openness is to stop pretending you already know everything from the past and can predict the future using the past. Rely on your intuition and don't plan too much. You don't know what will happen, especially when it comes to people. People are extremely complex.

I dunno, this seems dubious. The very liberal people I know tend to be unstable mentally. Maybe it has to do with taking all those anti-depressants/anti-psychotics. The people on those drugs can be shockingly bitter and resentful and have distorted thinking. I think you're reaching more for "dogma" which anyone can fall victim to, non-religious dogma can be just as bad, just read some of the diet websites like 30bad haha.

Percent treated for mental illness (in U.S.)

Liberal 19.7%
Moderate 11.8%
Conservative 9.7%

Source

Just because they were labeled by psychiatrists as being mentally ill doesn't mean they indeed have inferior mental health. Someone who follows their culture closely is much more likely to appear "normal" than someone who is open-minded to many different ideas. In fact, the more conservative a person is, the more simple they are and the less "symptoms" they would appear to have. It reminds me of RP saying that within dogmatic social structures, a person that's consistently happy can be perceived as insane.

I see cynicism and close-mindedness as mental illnesses. They both feature low energy consumption in certain regions of the brain, just like with many if not all mental illnesses. Cynicism contains close-mindedness as a requisite, but it also seems to have a compensatory adaption for the lack of energy. That is, overactivity in the emotional centers. Cynics are chronic anger addicts. Exhaustion can make a person start relying on anger for energy, while the stress breaks down their life into their perceived drama and renders them close-minded.

 

[blob]

Mental illness DOES NOT equal stupidity. Many comments in this thread, on the other hand, do.

Higher intelligence is associated with liberal political ideology...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 132655.htm

By 2012, as many as 30 scientific studies had been completed that uncovered links between creativity and mental illness, particularly disorders that affected mood [source: Hsu].

Researchers conducting one such study of Swedish teenagers discovered straight-A students were four times more likely to develop bipolar disorder, a mental illness marked by alternating moods of elation and depression, illustrating a correlation between intelligence and higher instances of mental illness.

The study was expanded in 2012 to include more than 1 million participants, and researchers reported a link between artists, authors and scientists and the propensity to develop mental illness. Not only bipolar disorder, but a whole suite of mental illnesses, from drug abuse to anorexia nervosa and depression.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/i ... lness1.htm

 

[Yves]

That makes sense. What he's recommending seems to have to do a lot with openness. "Conservative" people rely on past rituals, while "liberal" people are open to trying new things. In this case, the liberal person is obviously the one with lower serotonin and better mental health. A way to promote openness is to stop pretending you already know everything from the past and can predict the future using the past. Rely on your intuition and don't plan too much. You don't know what will happen, especially when it comes to people. People are extremely complex.

I dunno, this seems dubious. The very liberal people I know tend to be unstable mentally. Maybe it has to do with taking all those anti-depressants/anti-psychotics. The people on those drugs can be shockingly bitter and resentful and have distorted thinking. I think you're reaching more for "dogma" which anyone can fall victim to, non-religious dogma can be just as bad, just read some of the diet websites like 30bad haha.

Percent treated for mental illness (in U.S.)

Liberal 19.7%
Moderate 11.8%
Conservative 9.7%

Source

Just because they were labeled by psychiatrists as being mentally ill doesn't mean they indeed have inferior mental health. Someone who follows their culture closely is much more likely to appear "normal" than someone who is open-minded to many different ideas. In fact, the more conservative a person is, the more simple they are and the less "symptoms" they would appear to have. It reminds me of RP saying that within dogmatic social structures, a person that's consistently happy can be perceived as insane.

I see cynicism and close-mindedness as mental illnesses. They both feature low energy consumption in certain regions of the brain, just like with many if not all mental illnesses. Cynicism contains close-mindedness as a requisite, but it also seems to have a compensatory adaption for the lack of energy. That is, overactivity in the emotional centers. Cynics are chronic anger addicts. Exhaustion can make a person start relying on anger for energy, while the stress breaks down their life into their perceived drama and renders them close-minded.

Do you have any evidence for these statements? We may also have a confusion of terms. Cynicism is not antithetical to open-mindedness. One can be open to novel experiences while still recognizing that people are motivated by their own happiness, and that true selflessness is basically impossible (and where it exists probably very unhealthy). People born without religion often cling with religious ferocity to their beliefs. There are plenty of angry and bitter Atheists who are convinced they hold the truth.

From my personal experience, I become much more spiritual when my health is better, and much more atheistic when in poor health. Also, having grown up in very liberal environments, it was easier to conform to liberal dogmas than to resist with more conservative viewpoints. I think we need to step back and redefine terms as being conforming to dogma (which can be liberal or conservative) and questioning said dogma. Given the current cultural Marxist environment (especially in universities and politics), it actually takes more creativity and open-mindedness to challenge this "liberal" egalitarian philosophy than it does to accept it. We are told this philosophy is more "open-minded" when in reality it is the opposite and very hostile to criticism (in my opinion because it has bogus intellectual foundations and thus insecure). The process defines open-mindedness; not the end belief. One can be open-minded and convert to a traditional religion, or open minded and become a hippie, or open minded and become a fascist. The idea that open-mindedness will lead to some universal philosophy is fantasy