Cornelius267

I do not understand what you would expect from research work. Do you expect that research work in mathematics be written in such a way that any lay person could understand it? Or computer science? Physics? Biology? I would assume that the answer is no. Why then do you place this expectation on research in the humanities?

I am now going to speculate, though if this isn't your reason, I apologize. Perhaps it is because you, or others, think that the humanities are not complex enough to require such rigor, and that the presence of jargon is a mark of fake rigor, not real rigor. Is that correct?

You also say: "It also tends to deal with subjects that are not of interest to 90%+ of the public." Is any research? In any field? Looking at the remaining unsolved Millennium Problems in mathematics, do you think that the general public has any interest in the "Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture?" Whatever that is? I don't. I don't know what that means. I'm sure it's quite interesting if you do.

I do not believe that your point is correct.

I think that you actually understood the point perfectly! I'm a native english speaker, and to me, it looks like he is trying to raise the exact ambiguities that you are asking about.

I don't think that his statement is meant to be an answer, rather, I think it's meant to be a statement to jump off of. It's bringing up how definitions matter, and that in different contexts the answer to the same questions could be yes or no.

It's also just cruel. Twitter employees must be feeling immense whiplash. First they were being bought out, then they weren't, then they were again, then a huge change in work culture literally overnight, now mass layoffs.

Elon Musk, it seems, does not think about the humans affected by his decisions. Regardless of anyone's opinions on whether the culture was good or bad, this sort of sudden mass loss of employment will cause pain. Pain that didn't need to happen.

> If you're arguing the government should be able to break up any company it likes, for any reason it decides

That's great, because I'm not arguing that. My post does not imply as such either. You are creating a fake argument that is easier for you to argue against.

"Ought to" is the basis of rule of law. By what measure do you decide that a "monopoly" is bad? It has certain outcomes, some positive, some negative, but on balance government in previous generations decided that they are negative.

But once you know that the outcome is negative, what do you do about it? You only take another step and break it apart if you decide that you "ought to" do so. Because you place value in a healthy society, or you place value in non-monopolistic market competition, or you place value in something else. But whatever you choose, in order to justify actually action you inevitably rely on an "ought to."

If the reason for breaking up monopolies is to improve society, in some broad sense, then you could use a similar reason to break up companies that are harmful to society. We do sanction companies that damage the environment, or lie to consumers with false claims, etc.

There is always an "ought to."

I don't think that your assertion makes sense in its own context. What you are saying is that "SPD" exists, and "ADHD" is just a modern rebranding of it. But why do you decide that "SPD" is the spot at which scientists got it right? Were they free from the corruption that you imply?

I agree with a general skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry. I disagree that all of neurology and pharmacology have been completely subsumed by that industry. It is not entirely free of it either, but there is more nuance here than you seem to be allowing.

This is true, as a broad statement at least. I can claim no expertise in the area, so I can't comment on the potential to reverse any such changes.

It is also possible that they are not caused by negative life experiences, and are somehow inherent in the organization of a particular person's brain.

Why does a company need to be a monopoly in order to break them up? In an "ought to" sense, that is.

Facebook has facilitated/amplified quite a bit of awful things that have lead to real world violence, most particularly outside of the United States. Which is saying something, considering their contribution to political polarization in the US.

Whether or not they are a monopoly is orthogonal to the question put forward in this case.

What is wrong with you?

> That's how society works. People have adjusted their self to fit in, they expect the same from everybody else.

This makes it seem like a personal failing of the person who is experiencing this disconnect, like the author. Neuroscience shows that this is not the case, and that those with schizoid personality disorders have true physiological and neurological differences.

I hope that you didn't intend to make this into some sort of judgment on the person for failing to "adjust themselves to fit in," because that is a huge part of the judgment that this author is feeling and trying to describe.

These are different things. They may share some overlapping symptoms, perhaps even some similar brain changes, but the internal phenomenology of them are quite different. They are not exclusive, but nor are they the same thing.

Many human cultures have existed and thrived without the basis that "producing significantly more power" is the reason to do things.

Our archaeology and history have had trouble grasping this, since the idea that power is its own end is so deeply ingrained in our (western) civilization. But it has not always been the case. David Graeber and David Wengrow's "The Dawn of Everything" illustrates this with evidence.

"The limitations are of the author's rational reasoning, not of rational reasoning itself. You can reason about what brings you pleasure, and make rational decisions to pursue it."

This is just kicking the can down the road. Why would you want to make a decision to pursue this thing that you decided brings you pleasure? Is pleasure in and of itself reason enough?

We know that all logical systems contain true statements that cannot be proven. This is a fundamental feature of all logical systems, so why should we expect that this restriction does not apply to our own internal logical systems?

I have recently had a similar realization as the author, and so this resonates with me. No matter what, you are engaging in some sort of ontology, some sort of idea that decides what is and is not, and what defines value. You can either engage with this ontology and critically reflect upon it, or you can pretend that you don't have one and therefore miss things that may otherwise have been evident to you.

The Venn diagram of C-levels who are willing to work at a company with an inherently predatory business model, and those who will lay people off and screw them over is basically a circle.

It is impossible for someone who leads a company like that to be a good person. Why would anyone be surprised at them being heartless to their employees?