i really enjoyed reading this thank you. best article i've read on here so far. fantastic examples and the examples really 'make' it - i shall try not to plaguerise but from now on when arguing about this stuff i will definitely give examples that show the progression.
the big one here in europe at the minute is 'hate speech' - arguments between whether it's an exception that's dangerous and damaging enough to be worth an exception or whether it's a dangerously low point on that slippery slope.
sorry if this is a random thought but i wonder whether this 'fictional bias' has guided the development of technology - as in seeing it in science fiction makes it seem more credible/real/potential/even needed and therefore scientists go out and make the technology to meet the fiction. realise this is not an exact match to the definition but it relates no? so if science fiction had come up with different technology would we have concentrated our efforts elsewhere and not be using mobile phones today for example.
isn't it rather than going to church can extend your life - which can translate to having a social network that is supportive and shares a common ethic can extend your life. not going to church shortening your life is a leap i think.
thanks - can see how this would make an interesting part of the bundle. loved that you tied this in with mindfulness meditation. given some (behaviouralists) would say that motivation comes from avoiding suffering (or gaining reward) mindfulness meditation makes a sharp relief to that due to it's recommendation NOT to avoid or to strive toward. be interested to see how you see that in connection with motivation.
ooh some weird auto editing there, sorry. what i mean is motivation sounds serious and really useful to most of us (so makes the reader interested and invested) but then motivation doesn't really come up. cbt makes the reader think of important, life quality stuff but then it's about nail biting. do you see what i mean? i reckon you have the knowledge and writing skills to cover those things and not leave the reader disappointed because they thought they were getting something that wasn't delivered.
this was really well written i thought - nothing new as such but really well explained for those it would be new to.
couple of points:
put more simply many people have looked at this stuff so very deeply and critically and accumulated so much debate and literature and paradigms - some people will know a fair bit about what philosophers, sociologists of science, anthropologists, psychologists, scientists etc etc have said, written and argued in this area. it's complex stuff. it doesn't lend itself well to a pseudo-intellectual platitude format.
trying to think of nice ways to say what i want to say. for me i'm afraid this is glaringly full of holes - misunderstanding about the nature of the brain, of knowledge and ways of knowing, of the way we organisation information let alone getting into the more anthropological side of what we actually see - literally how our conditioning literally even effects 'what' we see.
it reads like teeny pop psych trying to sound like science or spirituality whilst not having enough knowledge or maturity/experience to do so and whilst massively underestimating one's audience.
IF you are genuinely interested in this stuff i would recommend learning about comparative epistemologies - go through all the phases and ideas about how we 'know', what is truth etc and have a grasp of what eons of very clever people at different points in history have had to say about it. i'd also recommend some anthropology.
this is just really full of holes, sorry.