Unified theory of our social world

The Social Fabric Framework unifies the social world under the social sciences

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: kiore, The_Metatron, Blip

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#61  Postby Social-Spacetime » Apr 27, 2021 11:10 am

This is what you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
No one has contested the existence of the fight/flight response.


You, yourself have just contested the existence of flight-or-fight response when you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
1) Acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety - and this is eminently observable by the fact that all prey animals risk depredation in order to acquire nutrients.


If your claim were true, then "acquisition of nutrition would be a more basal need than safety," as you have just stated.
So lets test your theory:

A walk in the woods:
Image

You and a friend go for a hike in the woods, but for some reason, you both got lost. Months later, you're both on the verge of starvation. Using your last bit of energy, you manage to find food. You both start eating really fast because you're starving, but you manage to get food caught in your throat. So you start choking immediately. Under your claim, "acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety." So instead of your friend giving you the Heimlich manuever, he offers you more food instead. You just stated that:

Spearthrower wrote:
1) Acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety - and this is eminently observable by the fact that all prey animals risk depredation in order to acquire nutrients.


I can't believe I am saying this to you, but I must reiterate the need for SAFETY FIRST (immediate safety to one's survival -- the 1st sub-law):

Image

Lastly, the fact that you're CHOKING because of food caught in your throat is a flight-or-fight response. Your body is protecting it's immediate SAFETY, not it's concern for FOOD (which WAS it's first concern until you started choking).

Maslow puts physiological needs (food) first in his Hierarchy of Needs, and he's wrong. :coffee:
Social-Spacetime
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#62  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2021 3:25 pm

I've already shown you wrong Dan.

Repeating errors doesn't cast the rest of your ideas in a spectacular light.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#63  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2021 3:28 pm

Social-Spacetime wrote:This is what you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
No one has contested the existence of the fight/flight response.


You, yourself have just contested the existence of flight-or-fight response when you said in your last post:

Spearthrower wrote:
1) Acquisition of nutrients is a more basal need than safety - and this is eminently observable by the fact that all prey animals risk depredation in order to acquire nutrients.




Nothing in what I wrote contests the existence of the flight/fight response. Nothing even touches on it.

Rather, what I showed is that the need to acquire resources is more basal that the need for safety. This is a fact that you are attempting to dispute, but not showing any actual comprehension of the topic.

Because I know what I am talking about, I am obviously not going to be distracted by your assertions that I actually mean something other than what I've written.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#64  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2021 3:31 pm

And as you keep ignoring the other point.

Engage your brain for a moment Dan. What came first from an evolutionary perspective: the acquisition of nutrients, or the flight/fight response?

Once you've grasped that, do come back and acknowledge it so that we can then reflect on how your theoretical framework can now simply warp to accommodate this, thereby showing that the model is unfalsifiable exactly as I've contended.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#65  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2021 3:33 pm

Social-Spacetime wrote:
I can't believe I am saying this to you, but I must reiterate the need for SAFETY FIRST (immediate safety to one's survival -- the 1st sub-law):

Image


I love how you keep doing this to yourself apparently without even noticing. That's a rather big blind spot.

Why's the chap in need of the Heimlich Maneuver? Oh right, because he was eating. But why oh why was he eating? Doesn't he realize he's compromising his safety?

If safety were a more basal concern than the acquisition of nutrients, then why is the cartoon man risking his safety by eating?

Let me see if I can predict your reply: you'll ignore this yet again and simply assert that you're right despite the fact that even you keep showing yourself wrong.

Whereas, of course, the answer is that living organisms routinely risk their safety in order to acquire nutrients, because living organisms must acquire nutrients to survive. You *might* die by choking on food, but you will *definitely* die if you don't take that risk. Exactly the same as I already pointed out to you and you ignored: prey animals *might* die from attacks by predators, but they will *definitely* die if their fear of possible predators stopped them from acquiring resources. The only reasonable way to read this is to acknowledge that Maslow's model was superior to yours in this respect: biological needs & drives are a more basal need than the need for safety.

In fact, I can offer many more examples of this, such as horny male spiders risking being eaten by females, but their biological drive to reproduce over-riding their need for personal safety; female octopuses (and all semelparous organisms) placing the need to reproduce above their need for safety, ensuring their young survive by giving up their own lives; zebra, wildebeeste, gazelles etc all trotting down to the water to get a drink or to cross a river in order to migrate to the feeding grounds, despite the fact that giant fuck off reptiles with huge jaws and teeth are lurking waiting to rip them to shreds.

If your argument is contradicted by observation Dan, it's your argument that's wrong - not the observations.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#66  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 27, 2021 3:51 pm

Image

Mr Zebra obviously didn't get the memo of your decrees about reality Dan. If only he'd realized that he's meant to put his safety over and above his need to drink rather than being directed by his basal biological needs. You can see he feels a right plonker now.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#67  Postby Social-Spacetime » Apr 27, 2021 10:35 pm

Spearthrower wrote:Image

If only he'd realized that he's meant to put his safety over and above his need to drink rather than being directed by his basal biological needs. You can see he feels a right plonker now.


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, is wrong because he places physiological needs (such as food, water) at the lowest, most important immediate need.

"An amygdala hijack refers to a personal, emotional response that is immediate, overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat."

See sub-law-1 below:

Image

Under Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, physiological needs are the most important needs such as the need for WATER. Using his model, if a zebra were attacked by a crocodile, the zebra would keep drinking water until its thirst was fully quenched (because physiological needs such as WATER are its most IMPORTANT immediate need) -- THEN the zebra would defend itself from a current crocodile ATTACK. But that's not what we see in nature. When an animal's immediate survival is threatened, it either RUNS or ATTACKS (flight-or-fight) to protect its immediate SAFETY.

Lets see the 1st sub-law of an amygdala hijack in action:

If you jump to the 2:00 mark, you will see all the Zebra's experience a flight-or-fight response because of a crocodile attack, which forced all of the zebra's need for water to become secondary to its immediate survival (the ATTACK).



At first, you can postulate that the zebra's need for water (which is 2nd sub-law) has become so dire, that WATER has become tied to the 1st sub-law (immediate survival, the need for water). However, once there was a crocodile attack, the zebra's system of flight-or-fight, an amygdala hijack, kicked in, helping to PROTECT its immediate survival. An amygdala hijack literally HIJACKS the current stimulus (the need to drink), to protect its most immediate threat to SURVIVAL, the crocodile attack. They all ran away except for the zebra that was attacked, to which the zebra used its flight-or-fight system to eventually escape, which saved its life. And that is why immediate SAFETY is the lowest, most important tier item in the Laws Of Social Fabrics. :coffee:
Social-Spacetime
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#68  Postby Social-Spacetime » Apr 27, 2021 11:07 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
In fact, I can offer many more examples of this, such as horny male spiders risking being eaten by females, but their biological drive to reproduce over-riding their need for personal safety; female octopuses (and all semelparous organisms) placing the need to reproduce above their need for safety, ensuring their young survive by giving up their own lives;


Lets experiment with flight-or-fight again:
Go up to a horny male spider right before it's about to mate and chase after it. In fact, do the same for female octopuses. Are saying they're not going to run or swim away (or attack)!? :lol:
Social-Spacetime
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#69  Postby hackenslash » Apr 27, 2021 11:34 pm

This looks fun, but I just want to clarify something concerning your terms before I dive in.

I see a few references to Einstein and spacetime, but there's something I'm not sure on. It looks like you're saying that social is energy, mass is space and c2 is time. Have I got that right?
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#70  Postby hackenslash » Apr 28, 2021 1:30 am

I'm a bit out of practice at this, so don't be too harsh with me...

Social-Spacetime wrote: The fabric defines the mathematical symmetry of physics, which defines the laws of the universe, giving rise to the complexity of the universe we see today.


Actually, I think you might need to revisit that. A huge portion of the laws of the universe such as those governing, for example, the existence of matter - not sure how important matter is in your schema, but it seems to have some import in the universe - arises not out of a mathematical symmetry of physics, but out of a violation of symmetry.

Of course you, being the expert in both your model and the physics it's modelled on, have no doubt taken that into account. There's no way you could construct a model contingent on symmetry describing something that exists precisely because a symmetry was violated.

I'll also be interested to see how you deal with how complexity can arise out of symmetry, when symmetry is inherently conservative. There's an old saw popular in these parts about a certain German mathematician, wagers and shirts that I think will be rearing its head sometime soon. Oh, sorry. I just realised that I raised its head. Oh, well. I'm sure you've got it all sorted out.

And with that, of further complexity of matter (of constructive interference patterns, of matter that can preserve its energy state over time), giving rise to life itself ... which through the same processes of symmetry, has created the complexity the brain and the social behaviors we see today in society, as a result of this mathematical symmetry of the universe (which represents nesting, hierarchy, fractals, and self-recursion). This is the consilience of unified theory of our entire social world, from physics, to life, to human behavior.


I probably need to see clear definitions of your terms before I can grasp this, because it doesn't gel at all with my intuitions. I'm wondering in particular if we have different understandings of just what symmetry is. Do you think there's anything in the physical world that you can point to that will give me some handle on this? I'd hate to go off half-cocked just because I'm working on one definition and you're working on another. You can be as technical as you like, but try to be clear. What is symmetry, and what does it relate to in the physical world?

Social-spacetime and Einstein's spacetime are interchangeable, as the same fabric, called Social-Spacetime. Notice the 'id' of the human psyche is on the left, in blue. This represents subconsciousness. Everything to the right, in pink, represents consciousness. For example, the "ego" on the right in red, as "space" represents MASS. And the super-ego represents TIME itself as utility or the system of society or social system you may be part of as C², which is a feedback loop that creates culture. The laws of social fabrics (the rules that define human behavior based on survival mechanisms, "social mass", and Einstein's spacetime laws are listed accordingly underneath (see image below).


What is the value of C? Or have I got this wrong? In relativity, c is a constant, and plays the role of a coefficient telling us the relationship between energy and mass, the variables in Einstein's equation. In order to make sense of this, I think I need to see how the math works. If I'm wrong about C, then M must be the coefficient. I assume that can't be right, because that would mean that the math works in a completely different way, because if M is the constant, then the variable is squared, which would entirely cock up the relationships. It can't be a matter of commutation because of the exponent. I admit, I'm not the most competent mathematician in this corner of the web, my skill falling somewhere between somewhat lacking and entirely absent, but if you take it slow and walk me through the equations I can generally brute-force my way to some grasp.

Also it looks like contagion is a gravity well, but that can't be right, can it? gravity wells don't appear in special relativity, because that's exactly what's special about special relativity, namely that, as Potholer54 might say 'Oi, Dan! There's no fucking gravity in it!" If it does have gravity, why didn't you use Einstein's field equations as the basis for your model rather than the stationary version of his the mass-energy relationship. I mean, I know they're much harder to work with than the mass-energy relationship, but still... Or does that well only represent contagion, with gravity not being a feature of your model? That would make some sense, but special relativity can't have wells of any sort because there's no curvature in special relativity, because there's no term for the energy-momentum tensor describing curvature. We seem to be in a bit of a no-mans' land between two relativities (which I suppose is better than being being two warring relatives).

Notice how the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM) by Jeff James and Daniel C. Funk is consilient (unified) with everything in the model below. The Pcm represents how we come to psychologically attach to ideas (as awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance). This all unifies with each law, with the id,ego, and super-ego, with social-spacetime, and E=MC². If you read the PCM, you can visualize the networks they speak of, especially as they "crystallize" into greater connected neural networks in the mind, as we come to realize ideas as intrinsic, and intrinsically consistent. Each sub law on the left get nested into all the other laws, and each law into the rest, called the Nested Laws of Social Fabrics (representing a fractal design) of 1,2,3,5,8, and 13 (a fibonacci sequence). There is 1 mind, 2 parts of the human psyche which are subconsciousness and consciousness, 3 parts to the human psyche (id, ego, super-ego), 5 laws of social fabrics that define everything, 8 sub-laws that defines the id for survival (of simplicity to complexity), and 8 sub-laws + 5 Laws altogether is equal to 13. 1+3 = 4 (three spatial dimensions plus 1 of TIME, which is equal to Einstein's spacetime. "Space" is 3 spatial dimensions, and "Time" is one dimension as well. That makes 4 dimensions altogether. If you add in "Social" or "Energy" (of Einstein's E=MC²), you get the 5th dimension, which is LIFE itself (constructive interference patterns) -- matter that can look at itself in the mirror and preserve its ENERGY over TIME. Energy=Mass*Speed of Light (Time or C²).


OK, clearly I'm not clever enough for this, or I at least need some help understanding it. Most of it must just be too technical for me and I need further explanation. it mostly looks like word salad, but that's often the case with high-level jargon, so maybe that's it. There are a couple of bits I think I understand, but two of them look entirely wrong to my amateur eyes, so perhaps you could explain them for me. Here they are:

OK, first, there's a lot of stuff that's beyond my poor cognitive abilities, but then you go on to something I thought I understood, but the way you've presented it doesn't match what I thought I knew. You talk about space and time as the four dimensions of spacetime, and then you talk about energy as the 5th dimension. That's either simply wrong, or you're working in higher dimensions (or both, to be fair). That must mean you've worked this out in something like stringy terms, meaning you must be at least working in some quantum-compatible framework, since string theory is inherently quantum compatible. So which stringy framework are you working in? Are there any dualities in your model such that coupling constants are intercompatible? Can you present your model in a more mathematical form? I'm guessing that Dirac notation is going to serve us well here, since he's the one who made relativity and quantum theory play nicely, which is one of the reasons physicists use bra-ket notation, I'm told.

The you go on to say that energy is life itself, which is problematic in several ways.

This paragraph has cleared some things up for me (sorry, I'm reading as I go so I can keep it fresh; it can make for some hurdles along the way, but it's the easiest way for me to organise my thoughts, so progress is usually better despite the potential hurdles), namely a) that the constant is indeed C.

There does seem to be a bit of an issue with your text explanation in that last bit. You've given a natural language exposition of Einstein's equation as energy=mass*speed of light and the added terms in brackets (time or C2). That can't be correct, because in Einstein's equation the speed of light was squared. Indeed, that's the first operation to be carried out on the equation by well-understood convention, even to a mathematical dilettante like me. Also, it looks for all the world as if the speed of light and C2 are the same. That's wrong in one or both of two ways:

1. You're missing an exponent on the former.
2. C is the square root of c and the entire mass-energy relationship fails to accord with reality.

I think I'll assume that you missed an exponent on the speed of light in your excitement to get the word out,

I have more, but I think that, for a first proper outing on the forum in a very long time, that's enough for now, at least until you clarify my earlier confusion over your terms. I'll try to catch up on the rest of the thread tomorrow, if I can find the requisite spoons.

(Edited to add link to information about the German mathematician in question, a truly incredible woman who was responsible for one of the greatest insights in modern physics.)
Last edited by hackenslash on Apr 29, 2021 12:20 am, edited 3 times in total.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#71  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 3:49 am

Social-Spacetime wrote:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, is wrong because he places physiological needs (such as food, water) at the lowest, most important immediate need.


No, its you who's wrong Dan.

All your confident assertions amount to nothing when you've been shown wrong.


Also, of course, I note that you've added an extra concept to the above: 'immediate need'. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has no 'immediacy' component; no temporal component at all.

As I mentioned in a previous point of discussion: you really need to know what you're talking about before you start making assertions about it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#72  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 4:05 am

Under Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, physiological needs are the most important needs such as the need for WATER. Using his model, if a zebra were attacked by a crocodile, the zebra would keep drinking water until its thirst was fully quenched (because physiological needs such as WATER are its most IMPORTANT immediate need) -- THEN the zebra would defend itself from a current crocodile ATTACK. But that's not what we see in nature. When an animal's immediate survival is threatened, it either RUNS or ATTACKS (flight-or-fight) to protect its immediate SAFETY.



No Dan, you're engaging wholly with a strawman you've made now, but I'm afraid that's just not going to float.

There's no element of 'immediate needs' in Maslow's Hierarchy - you've misunderstood it (at charitable reading).

As I've explained to you many times - the reason the zebra is risking its life at the water's edge is because the need to drink is more basal than the need for safety. The zebra will keep coming back to risk its life and drink. It could watch all its friends and family die to crocodiles in that river, yet it will still come back each and every day to drink there. Why? Because it has to drink to stay alive - and that's basal.

As I've educated you already several times, but it's something you don't appear capable of processing: there is no certainty that the zebra will die from a crocodile attack even if the zebra drinks from a watering hole it knows is chock full of angry crocs, whereas the zebra absolutely, certainly, definitely, unquestionably will die if it doesn't drink water.

This is what Maslow's Hierarchy is about: the primacy of needs.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#73  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 4:11 am

Social-Spacetime wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
In fact, I can offer many more examples of this, such as horny male spiders risking being eaten by females, but their biological drive to reproduce over-riding their need for personal safety; female octopuses (and all semelparous organisms) placing the need to reproduce above their need for safety, ensuring their young survive by giving up their own lives;


Lets experiment with flight-or-fight again:
Go up to a horny male spider right before it's about to mate and chase after it. In fact, do the same for female octopuses. Are saying they're not going to run or swim away (or attack)!? :lol:



Why?

Why would we need to 'experiment with flight or fight'?

What you've suggested above is not an experiment. Perhaps this is why you became so coy when I asked you before to engage in some testing of your claims - because you realize you don't understand what constitutes experimentation.

But yes, yes, I am telling you that the horny spider and the postpartum octopus are clearly and undeniably abandoning any need for safety in comparison to their need to reproduce. Both risk death for a more basal need.

These are just some of the many real world examples I've produced which show you wrong.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#74  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 4:13 am

At first, you can postulate that the zebra's need for water (which is 2nd sub-law) has become so dire, that WATER has become tied to the 1st sub-law (immediate survival, the need for water). However, once there was a crocodile attack, the zebra's system of flight-or-fight, an amygdala hijack, kicked in, helping to PROTECT its immediate survival. An amygdala hijack literally HIJACKS the current stimulus (the need to drink), to protect its most immediate threat to SURVIVAL, the crocodile attack. They all ran away except for the zebra that was attacked, to which the zebra used its flight-or-fight system to eventually escape, which saved its life. And that is why immediate SAFETY is the lowest, most important tier item in the Laws Of Social Fabrics. :coffee:


This is good!

We've managed to falsify an element of the Social Fabrics claims. Clearly, the model is unable to accommodate direct observations from nature, unfortunately, you seem to think that dogmaticism is going to overcome that.

Perhaps that's why you chose to present your supposedly ground-breaking idea on a non-specialist web-forum, rather than doing what credible people do and submit their arguments to respective journals?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#75  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 4:15 am

hackenslash wrote:
Of course you, being the expert in both your model and the physics it's modelled on, have no doubt taken that into account. There's no way you could construct a model contingent on symmetry describing something that exists precisely because a symmetry was violated.


I hope his understanding of Physics is better than his understanding of Biology.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#76  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 4:21 am

Oh and obviously I wish you all the luck in the world in your soon-to-be-released ground-breaking paper presenting the discovery of an amygdala in arthropods and cephalopods. Shows how wrong I am when I didn't even know they had a cortex. :naughty2:
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#77  Postby hackenslash » Apr 28, 2021 11:18 am

Spearthrower wrote:


Oh, my. This is why you should never meet your heroes .I was all, 'this looks interesting', but now my illusion is shattered.
hackenslash
 
Name: The Other Sweary One
Posts: 22910
Age: 52
Male

Country: Republic of Mancunia
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#78  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 11:56 am

I mean, there's lots of ideas in there which are definitely not wrong and which are definitely grounded in direct observation... but none of those empirically grounded ideas are his.

The bit which actually is his contribution appears to have fallen down a well of numerology. Assigning significance to numerical values is bad enough, but then demanding that facts conform to assertions arising from numerology contentions is far away from any credible approach.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#79  Postby Social-Spacetime » Apr 28, 2021 6:11 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Social-Spacetime wrote:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, is wrong because he places physiological needs (such as food, water) at the lowest, most important immediate need.


Also, of course, I note that you've added an extra concept to the above: 'immediate need'. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has no 'immediacy' component; no temporal component at all.


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a HIERARCHY. The definition of a hierarchy is the following:

"to arrange in ranks or in regular formation."

Maslow is wrong in his Hierarchy of Needs because during flight-or-fight situations such as alligator attacks (or other situations of immediate survival). The need for WATER becomes lesser in RANK than immediate survival. And that is why I have immediate survival (flight-or-fight) as the 1st sub-law of the 1st Law of Social Fabrics. See below:

Image

Once again, take a look at life's ranking system (in a hierarchy) in action:

If you jump to the 2:00 mark, you will see all the Zebra's experience a flight-or-fight response because of a crocodile attack, which forced all of the zebra's need for water to become secondary to its immediate survival (the ATTACK).



So again I say to you about hierarchies (particularly the 1st Law of Social Fabrics):

At first, you can postulate that the zebra's need for water (which is 2nd sub-law) has become so dire, that WATER has become tied to the 1st sub-law (immediate survival, the need for water). HOWEVER, once there was a crocodile attack, the zebra's system of flight-or-fight, an amygdala hijack, kicked in, making immediate survival of the alligator attack the most important thing (or ranking in a hierarchy) to focus on. This helps to PROTECT the animal's immediate survival by reacting to or focusing on what's most important in TIME. The zebra's flight-or-fight system ranked the alligator attack was the most important thing in order for the zebra to survive. An amygdala hijack literally HIJACKS the current stimulus (the need to drink), to protect its most immediate SURVIVAL.

The zebra's that ran away due to flight-or-fight were trying to SAVE their LIVES from that which was ranked most important at the TIME, which was the alligator attack. For the zebra that got attacked by the alligator, with its leg in its jaws -- its the zebra's flight-or-fight system that saved its LIFE because it was FOCUSED on what was most important: the alligator. Under Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the zebra would have FOCUSED on quenching its thirst FIRST, before escaping or fighting the alligator. Had it done so, the zebra would have had LESS of a chance of SURVIVING. And that is why immediate SAFETY (survival) is the lowest, most important tier in the Laws Of Social Fabrics.
Social-Spacetime
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 31

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Unified theory of our social world

#80  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2021 6:44 pm

Social-Spacetime wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Social-Spacetime wrote:
Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, is wrong because he places physiological needs (such as food, water) at the lowest, most important immediate need.


Also, of course, I note that you've added an extra concept to the above: 'immediate need'. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has no 'immediacy' component; no temporal component at all.


Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a HIERARCHY. The definition of a hierarchy is the following:

"to arrange in ranks or in regular formation."


And the definition of the price of fish is?



Social-Spacetime wrote:Maslow is wrong in his Hierarchy of Needs because during flight-or-fight situations such as alligator attacks (or other situations of immediate survival). The need for WATER becomes lesser in RANK than immediate survival. And that is why I have immediate survival (flight-or-fight) as the 1st sub-law of the 1st Law of Social Fabrics. See below:


No, you're completely wrong as I've already shown and you've repeatedly failed to address, let alone challenge.

You clearly don't even know what you're talking about, Dan. So stop pretending, eh?
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 30718
Age: 46
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests