Resignation Syndrome

#15

Postby Theorease » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:20 pm

Oh my days. I'm not sure I've got time for this...I can't believe you two are serious....TTFN
Theorease
Junior Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:53 pm
Likes Received: 0


#16

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Wed Nov 15, 2017 2:55 pm

You can’t believe we are serious? How is that possible? You can easily, easily understand where we are coming from. In your worldview, our responses were predetermined! You of all people know this.

Anytime I come across a determinist, it is not long before they TTFN. But, I always understand, it is a response that was predetermined billions of years ago.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#17

Postby quietvoice » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:44 pm

Theorease wrote:Oh my days. I'm not sure I've got time for this...I can't believe you two are serious....TTFN

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:Anytime I come across a determinist, it is not long before they TTFN. But, I always understand, it is a response that was predetermined billions of years ago.

That is funny. I can't help being amused. And there's nothing that I can do about that.
User avatar
quietvoice
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm
Likes Received: 184

#18

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:46 pm

quietvoice wrote:That is funny. I can't help being amused. And there's nothing that I can do about that.


Absolutely nothing. You are trapped my friend.

True determinists don’t ever seem to last very long in forums where people are asking for advice. It is like a communist trying to give advice on financial markets, telling people which stock they should buy.

Theorease wrote: I will say however that you seem to think that the witches really were witches; that the faith healers really were faith healers and that voodoo really is effective. I'm a little apprehensive about those statements...


What is interesting in this case is on the one hand to be apprehensive of a belief in witches and voodoo, but at the same time say, “damn straight” when asked about a belief in determinism. As if a belief in a deterministic universe is a truism, while a belief in voodoo is just nonsense.

It reminds me when I once met a communist in Vietnam that when asked about his capitalist tourism business smiled really big and laughed as he said, “This is new age communism”. The determinists I have run into over the last decade use a similar twist in philosophy. They say to the effect, “Well, this is new age determinism, the universe is largely deterministic.” Yet, they can’t possibly admit to any form of free will, so whatever the part of the universe “largely” cannot account for, it must be anything other than free will.

Anyway, my volitional self wishes that a determinist would stick around one day, but my “largely” deterministic other realizes it simply is not meant to be.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#19

Postby quietvoice » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:53 am

From another thread:
Theorease wrote:My brain (formed entirely by forces out of my control) and sensory inputs direct me to behave in that way.

The identification of the locus of control, for you, is that which is outside of you. In other words, as you continue to point out, that which is outside of you controls you.

Who or what is you, or the me in your statement above? Please advise.


From opening post in this thread:
Theorease wrote:Wow...this is completely terrifying...why only Sweden?

Define terrify:
ter·ri·fy
ˈterəˌfī/
verb
cause to feel extreme fear.
"the thought terrifies me"
synonyms: petrify, horrify, frighten, scare, scare stiff, scare/frighten to death, scare/frighten the living daylights out of, scare/frighten the life out of, scare/frighten someone out of their wits, scare witless, strike terror into, put the fear of God into; [More]


Theorease wrote:
Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:IMO it is not terrifying at all, but rather very sad and unfortunate.

Well, I find the suffering and potential suffering of children terrifying; so I think that's a semantic distinction.

Something that is far removed from you, and has no chance to get to you, is cause for you to feel extreme fear. A matter of semantics, this is not.

I'm wondering, since you feel you have no control over any part of your life, if you were regularly subjected to extreme fear when you were a helpless child, and you have sublimated the feelings into a philosophy of determinism, where by implication such a philosophy makes each person a victim of their world.

Any thoughts or feelings on this?
User avatar
quietvoice
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm
Likes Received: 184

#20

Postby quietvoice » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:50 am

*
Vintage Video, Bob Proctor, 23 minutes.
User avatar
quietvoice
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm
Likes Received: 184

#21

Postby HumanB » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:04 am

quietvoice wrote:*
Vintage Video, Bob Proctor, 23 minutes.
The Law of Attraction??.... you gotta be kidding :shock: :roll:
HumanB
Full Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:10 am
Likes Received: 11

#22

Postby quietvoice » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:06 pm

HumanB wrote:
quietvoice wrote:Vintage Video, Bob Proctor, 23 minutes.

The Law of Attraction??.... you gotta be kidding

You obviously did not listen.

Personal development and success principles involve the setting of goals and using your mind to think about the direction of your life and your daily activities, among other things. And looking for answers within yourself as opposed to outside of yourself prevents one from being a "victim of circumstances."

Is this a problem for you?
User avatar
quietvoice
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm
Likes Received: 184

#23

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:04 pm

HumanB wrote: The Law of Attraction??.... you gotta be kidding


I’m not familiar with Bob Proctor. I grant in the video he cites Napoleon Hill’s work as one of his favorites. And I grant the law of attraction is a focus of Napoleon Hill. But, I did not take this video to be focused on or about the law of attraction. Proctor only uses the word attraction once. Over 23 minutes he implies or touches upon the law of attraction briefly, like twice or maybe three times.

To me, at least the way I interpreted what he was saying, he was discussing writing goals down and visualization. He discusses actions that are derived from thoughts, not simply outcomes materializing without action. He isn’t going as far as Napoleon Hill and saying whatever you think just happens.

He is also discussing beliefs and self-image. If you believe you have control, this impacts your chances of success in whatever you are trying to achieve.

Research on writing goals down, visualization, and self-confidence are supported by scientific studies. Edwin Locke and Albert Bandura are two researchers on these subjects.

When it comes to a deterministic world view, studies have shown this can impact self-efficacy. A person who believes they are not in control is more likely to give up on a goal sooner than an individual that believes they have volition, and therefore the capacity to alter the outcome. We even see it with TTFN. Why put forth any effort in life, why engage in a discussion that challenges your beliefs, you can’t control anything, you can’t change anything, so why even try? This leads to the instant TTFN, the instant surrender of the determinist.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#24

Postby HumanB » Sun Nov 19, 2017 3:08 pm

Richard@DecisionSkills wrote:When it comes to a deterministic world view, studies have shown this can impact self-efficacy. A person who believes they are not in control is more likely to give up on a goal sooner than an individual that believes they have volition, and therefore the capacity to alter the outcome. We even see it with TTFN. Why put forth any effort in life, why engage in a discussion that challenges your beliefs, you can’t control anything, you can’t change anything, so why even try? This leads to the instant TTFN, the instant surrender of the determinist.
But I think those [bolded]objections pertain to a description of fatalism, not determinism. They're not the same. I don't know why 'TTFN' left the convo, but could just as easily be that he/she was bored already?.... the time it takes to explain things like that in text can be hellish tedious compared to a to&fro verbal convo. Also, just because a particular belief might give rise to greater tenacity, that isn't evidence of its truth. Delusional beliefs (eg in religions/gods/prophets) can have very motivating and positive psychological effects for some people. Doesnt mean that those beliefs correspond to anything that is true/real.
HumanB
Full Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:10 am
Likes Received: 11

#25

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:06 pm

HumanB wrote: But I think those [bolded]objections pertain to a description of fatalism, not determinism. They're not the same.


I agree that fatalism, determinism, mechanism, whatever -ism you wish to put forth are not the same. But, the question remains, to what degree any particular -ism promotes a belief of volition? It is our beliefs which have been demonstrated empirically to impact self-efficacy.

The fatalist says there is no volition because everything is just random, it is fate. You roll the dice and whatever fate sends your way, that is how the universe operates. The determinist disagrees. They say nothing is random, but still there is no volition. Instead, everything is cause and effect. You are only alive and able to post in this forum, because a butterfly flapped its wings 20 million years ago, setting up a chain of events where the enemy of your great, great, great...great grandfather became distracted and therefore was killed, causing your grandfather to live and you to eventually be born. Your grandfather didn't intentionally kill the other man trying to kill him, but rather it was just a series of cause/effect relationships. No volition exists anywhere in the universe.

This means if I want to control you HumanB, all I need to do is figure out the cause and effect relationship, the behaviorist model, where I use the correct stimulus/response and thereby can turn you into my puppet. After all, you have no volition. Correspondingly, I have no fault in turning you into my puppet, because the only reason I used my knowledge of determinism to set up the cause/effect conditions to rule over you is because of some cause/effect relationship that caused me to turn you into my puppet. No volition equals no responsibility.

I agree with you that a BELIEF in fatalism and determinism are different. Yet, they both result in low degrees of self-efficacy and this has been empirically demonstrated to have a significant impact on how a person interacts with their environment, e.g. TTFN, giving up very easily.

Note: belief in caps and bold, because this is a very important concept. What we believe, how we believe the universe functions has a significant impact on our thoughts and consequently our behaviors.

Also, just because a particular belief might give rise to greater tenacity, that isn't evidence of its truth. Delusional beliefs (eg in religions/gods/prophets) can have very motivating and positive psychological effects for some people. Doesnt mean that those beliefs correspond to anything that is true/real.


So determinism is not a "delusional" belief, but spiritual beliefs are? What about indeterminism, is that also a "delusional" belief?

There is no corresponding truth in determinism, nor is there a corresponding truth in indeterminism. They are opposing philosophical views that are based on assumptions that have no corresponding truths. These philosophical views have been debated for thousands of years and there is no "truth" to which either side can stake a claim. We can observe cause/effect relationships, but we can also observe relationships that defy cause/effect explanations.

And we also are being extremely naive if we believe that the only things that correspond to anything true/real are those things that we can observe. That is being species centric, believing that if our species can't observe something, then it can't be real.

Regardless of the degree to which a belief is "true" how about the degree to which a particular belief is functional? A belief in fatalism/determinism has certain functional qualities and other qualities that are dysfunctional. A pure determinist believes that ultimately they have no control, so they give up on goals easy and there is no need to feel responsible for one's actions. On the other side, they experience less anxiety as there is less pressure to perform. The pure indeterminist believes they have control so they put forth more effort for a greater sustained period, but they experience more anxiety and more pressure to perform.

From a functional perspective, the spectrum of beliefs in determinism <-> indeterminism results in varying degrees of self-efficacy. To what degree is a high degree of self-efficacy functional? If you read the literature on the topic, it is always assumed high self-efficacy is a good thing, that it is functional. But, as noted above, a belief that you can control everything has it's down side as well.

The bottom line, it boils down to beliefs, not what is or is not "True". And just because a belief may not be true, doesn't necessarily make it dysfunctional.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#26

Postby quietvoice » Sun Nov 19, 2017 5:37 pm

HumanB wrote:
Richard@DecisionSkills wrote: Why put forth any effort in life, why engage in a discussion that challenges your beliefs, you can’t control anything, you can’t change anything, so why even try?

But I think those . . . objections pertain to a description of fatalism, not determinism. They're not the same.

deterninism vs fatalism infographic
In the end result, I'm not seeing a difference. If, in determinism, there is cause-effect, and "I" cause something, but that which caused "me" to cause is something over which "I" have no control . . . isn't this effectively saying that I have no control?

(edit: posted before reading R's reply.)
User avatar
quietvoice
Senior Member
 
Posts: 1774
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 8:14 pm
Likes Received: 184

#27

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Nov 19, 2017 6:24 pm

quietvoice wrote:In the end result, I'm not seeing a difference.


The infograph is an example of new age determinism.

I think the infograph supports HumanB's point that they are not the same thing. The author/creator of the infographic is trying to paint a picture that a fatalist has a sense of futility or defeatism, where the determinist does not have this same sense of futility/defeatism, that the determinist believes they can "cause" or participate in the cause/effect cycle.

The author/creator of the infograph is trying to support determinism, i.e. trying to "break the free-will illusion".

The problem, is the author/creator is using myside bias, hindsight bias, and the fundamental attribution error in trying to eliminate the concept of free will or volition. The author selectively uses the doctor example, biasing the interpretation of cause/effect. Why not use the example, "I killed the other person because they caused me to pull the trigger."? It is just a causal chain of events. What if the patient died? Then the determinist has a different attribution of cause. My calling the doctor was not the cause of the patients death, it was XYZ that was causal. Or, had I not called the doctor the patient would have died anyway. Really? You don't know that. The determinist attributes causality based on convenience, using both temporal and spatial distancing to choose the "cause" that fits their belief system.

The problem with this view of determinism, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy, a tautology. The only reason a determinist calls a doctor, or does not call, is because of some previous cause/effect relationship that has caused them to believe in determinism, which has caused them to believe in no free will, which has caused them to call the doctor or not, which causes the patient to die...oops, doctors aren't always the solution.

Ultimately, where I agree with you quietvoice is there is no difference in the end result as it relates to being able to deny that one has control over anything. The fatalist denies outright, while the determinist denies when it is convenient. And again, research supports this claim.

Where I do agree with HumanB and the author/creator of the info graph, is that a fatalist is most likely to have lower self-efficacy than your new age determinist. If a new age determinist believes they can control cause/effect, then that shows a belief in some kind of control. And a belief in control promotes higher self-efficacy. This still will be lower self-efficacy than a person who believes in free will.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#28

Postby Richard@DecisionSkills » Sun Nov 19, 2017 7:03 pm

One other point which I enjoy.

The only thing that creates a determinist is what? Fate.

The determinist is one of the lucky ones. The determinist was fortunate enough to have prior cause/effect conditions that allowed them to be one of the enlightened few to recognize that determinism is how the universe functions. Had they not been so lucky, had they been unlucky, had fate intervened, they would have ended up believing in free will. But, the universe worked its cause/effect magic and they became enlightened to the “truth” that the universe is all about cause/effect, nothing else.
User avatar
Richard@DecisionSkills
MVP
MVP
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2012 2:25 am
Likes Received: 915

#29

Postby HumanB » Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:59 pm

Here is a hard determinist explaining what he believes. Tell me if you think he is defeatist, fatalistic, without a basis for morality, or any of these other things you wish to pin on determinism. He is 'fairly' successful at what he has chosen to do for a career - isn't a slacker, or someone who TTFN's a debate

https://youtu.be/pCofmZlC72g?t=2m8s
HumanB
Full Member
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 10:10 am
Likes Received: 11


PreviousNext

  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to Psychology