Evil Inherent in All and Active in a %

[TimeSeeker]

Your definition of ‘evil’ is lazy, non-empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE! Therefore completely open to (mis)interpretation.

No matter how well you define it, until you actually propose how to measure it - you aren’t really solving the symbol-grounding problem...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your definition of ‘evil’ is lazy, non-empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE! Therefore completely open to (mis)interpretation.

No matter how well you define it, until you actually propose how to measure it - you aren’t really solving the symbol-grounding problem...

Why you are asking the above is because your thinking is not sufficiently deep and wide.

The general rule of Problem Solving is all relevant variables must be identified, quantified and objectified optimally within known constraints. One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and I have tons of approaches to quantify whatever is subjective to produce optimal results.
Note even beauty as in beauty contests [arts, artistic sports, dancing, etc.] can be quantified so there is no issue with the concept of evil subjected to continuous improvement techniques.

[TimeSeeker]

Your definition of ‘evil’ is lazy, non-empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE! Therefore completely open to (mis)interpretation.

No matter how well you define it, until you actually propose how to measure it - you aren’t really solving the symbol-grounding problem...

Why you are asking the above is because your thinking is not sufficiently deep and wide.

The general rule of Problem Solving is all relevant variables must be identified, quantified and objectified optimally within known constraints. One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and I have tons of approaches to quantify whatever is subjective to produce optimal results.
Note even beauty as in beauty contests [arts, artistic sports, dancing, etc.] can be quantified so there is no issue with the concept of evil subjected to continuous improvement techniques.

It sounds like you have acquired this problem-solving “forte” by reading a lot.

You are yet to learn there is no wisdom in books.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your definition of ‘evil’ is lazy, non-empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE! Therefore completely open to (mis)interpretation.

No matter how well you define it, until you actually propose how to measure it - you aren’t really solving the symbol-grounding problem...

Why you are asking the above is because your thinking is not sufficiently deep and wide.

The general rule of Problem Solving is all relevant variables must be identified, quantified and objectified optimally within known constraints. One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and I have tons of approaches to quantify whatever is subjective to produce optimal results.
Note even beauty as in beauty contests [arts, artistic sports, dancing, etc.] can be quantified so there is no issue with the concept of evil subjected to continuous improvement techniques.

It sounds like you have acquired this problem-solving “forte” by reading a lot.

You are yet to learn there is no wisdom in books.

Nope, I was in a job that specifically required extensive problem solving techniques and is still applying them at present.
It is unlikely for one to know about six-sigma, zero defect, continuous improvement [Kaizen], poka yoke, 5-Whys, fishbone, pareto, etc. etc. without getting involved in them and doing the practicals.

[TimeSeeker]

Why you are asking the above is because your thinking is not sufficiently deep and wide.

The general rule of Problem Solving is all relevant variables must be identified, quantified and objectified optimally within known constraints. One of my forte is Problem Solving Techniques and I have tons of approaches to quantify whatever is subjective to produce optimal results.
Note even beauty as in beauty contests [arts, artistic sports, dancing, etc.] can be quantified so there is no issue with the concept of evil subjected to continuous improvement techniques.

It sounds like you have acquired this problem-solving “forte” by reading a lot.

You are yet to learn there is no wisdom in books.

Nope, I was in a job that specifically required extensive problem solving techniques and is still applying them at present.
It is unlikely for one to know about six-sigma, zero defect, continuous improvement [Kaizen], poka yoke, 5-Whys, fishbone, pareto, etc. etc. without getting involved in them and doing the practicals.

And where does economics, decision theory, risk management, game theory and tactical/strategic trade-offs come into play in your experience? The distinction of work-as-planned vs work-as-done? Nth order side effects under complexity and opacity?

What about self-correction? The techniques you constantly refer to have one pre-requisite to work in practice: control over the environment!

Do you have such control or do you assume to have it when you speak of sociology and people?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It sounds like you have acquired this problem-solving “forte” by reading a lot.

You are yet to learn there is no wisdom in books.

Nope, I was in a job that specifically required extensive problem solving techniques and is still applying them at present.
It is unlikely for one to know about six-sigma, zero defect, continuous improvement [Kaizen], poka yoke, 5-Whys, fishbone, pareto, etc. etc. without getting involved in them and doing the practicals.

And where does economics, decision theory, risk management, game theory and tactical/strategic trade-offs come into play in your experience? The distinction of work-as-planned vs work-as-done? Nth order side effects under complexity and opacity?

What about self-correction? The techniques you constantly refer to have one pre-requisite to work in practice: control over the environment!

Do you have such control or do you assume to have it when you speak of sociology and people?

I have covered all of the above and much more.
There is no need for me to get into details on those which are off topic [against the rules of the forum]. I am not interested, more so, it would be a waste of time with you.

[TimeSeeker]

Nope, I was in a job that specifically required extensive problem solving techniques and is still applying them at present.
It is unlikely for one to know about six-sigma, zero defect, continuous improvement [Kaizen], poka yoke, 5-Whys, fishbone, pareto, etc. etc. without getting involved in them and doing the practicals.

And where does economics, decision theory, risk management, game theory and tactical/strategic trade-offs come into play in your experience? The distinction of work-as-planned vs work-as-done? Nth order side effects under complexity and opacity?

What about self-correction? The techniques you constantly refer to have one pre-requisite to work in practice: control over the environment!

Do you have such control or do you assume to have it when you speak of sociology and people?

I have covered all of the above and much more.
There is no need for me to get into details on those which are off topic [against the rules of the forum]. I am not interested, more so, it would be a waste of time with you.

Well - you haven’t!

You have failed to validate your starting assumptions. The assumption that you have the correct root cause. You have made great strides in justifying it and absolutely no effort in proving it wrong.

You know what that is called? Confirmation bias.

I keep telling you: you waste your own time philosophising. Falsification is cheap! Try it.

[henry quirk]

"we must find the ultimate and proximate root cause that triggered the man to commit evil acts."

But you have that 'ultimate and proximate root cause': the man himself.

It's not the gun, it's the shooter.

It's not the booze, it's the drinker.

It's not the religion, it's the religionist.

The evil doesn't reside in the words, but in the man reading the words.

#

"one of the ultimate blame [the proximate root cause] is the evil ideology [from whatever source] that triggered these unfortunate evil prone people to commit the evil acts."

No, the ultimate blame rests solely with the person: he or she 'chooses', he or she acts based on that choice.

#

"(Evil-laden) material should not be openly accessible to those who are naturally vulnerable to be influenced and inspired by such evil materials to commit evil acts."

Do you have a reliable means of pinpointing such folks? I don't. And without a reliable means of identifying the 'naturally vulnerable' you onky have two options: leave any- and every-thing on the table, or, impose restrictions on any- and every-thing (and I mean ANY- and EVERY-thing, cuz you'll never know might be corrosive to some one's thinkin'. As I say, I'm no fan of Marx. I think his work is horribly corrosive, and has directly [and indirectly] resulted in a whole lot of death and misery).

#

"Would you allow your children 3-10 or 15 to be exposed to the most violent, evil and sadistic materials available?"

That's a decision I make for mine; Stan, down the street, might decide differently for his. I may not like how he raises his kid, he may not like how I raise mine. We both need to mind our own businesses (till circumstance requires invoking 'or else').

#

"There is a NATURAL percentile [~20%] of Chimpanzee-Joes within a religion who will obey their master God to do whatever is commanded [including evil commands]. This is very real and glaringly evident, i.e."

Sure, absolutely: so what?

Look at it this way: you want a measure of 'safety'. This is fine. Thing is: the safer a body is, the less free it is. There's no way around that. Every insulating layer between you and 'evil' is not only a restriction on 'it' but on 'you'. Me: I skew the other way. I want to maximize my autonomy. Fundamentally, this means no insulating layers between me and 'evil'.

Now, here's the kicker, Veritas: I'm certain right down to my bones that the protective restrictions you crave are 'evil'. Hobblin' autonomy always is.

[Veritas Aequitas]

"we must find the ultimate and proximate root cause that triggered the man to commit evil acts."

But you have that 'ultimate and proximate root cause': the man himself.

It's not the gun, it's the shooter.

It's not the booze, it's the drinker.

It's not the religion, it's the religionist.

The evil doesn't reside in the words, but in the man reading the words.

You don't seen to get to what is proximate and ultimate root causes.

Example,
in the case of food poisoning, it is not the food, its the cook.
In this common case, the cook is not the proximate nor the ultimate cause.
The ultimate cause is the presence of bacteria.
The cook's negligence, omission or oversight are secondary.

The evil doesn't reside in the words, but in the man reading the words.

Yes, words are words and they are inactive, but,
surely you understand the concept of meme and ideologies that trigger people to commit evil acts.
Note the phrase 'The pen is mightier than the sword'.

The point is both the 'man' and the 'words' [meanings and meme they carry] are critical in contributing to evil acts.

"one of the ultimate blame [the proximate root cause] is the evil ideology [from whatever source] that triggered these unfortunate evil prone people to commit the evil acts."

No, the ultimate blame rests solely with the person: he or she 'chooses', he or she acts based on that choice.

You are short of certain knowledge re human psychology in this case.

Human actions are primarily driven by the sub-conscious mind which has a 90% control over the person's mind.
In many cases a person may be conscious s/he acts on a conscious choice based on freewill but s/he could have been deceived by subliminal stimuli.

Subliminal stimuli (/sʌbˈlɪmɪnəl/) (the prefix sup- literally "below, or less than", while the prefix sub- literally "up to"),[1] contrary to supraliminal stimuli or "above threshold", are any sensory stimuli below an individual's threshold for conscious perception.[2] A recent review of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies shows that subliminal stimuli activate specific regions of the brain despite participants being unaware.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_stimuli

Ideologies can influence people to act. If the ideology is evil, then the person could be driven to commit evil acts.

"(Evil-laden) material should not be openly accessible to those who are naturally vulnerable to be influenced and inspired by such evil materials to commit evil acts."

Do you have a reliable means of pinpointing such folks? I don't. And without a reliable means of identifying the 'naturally vulnerable' you only have two options: leave any- and every-thing on the table, or, impose restrictions on any- and every-thing (and I mean ANY- and EVERY-thing, cuz you'll never know might be corrosive to some one's thinkin'. As I say, I'm no fan of Marx. I think his work is horribly corrosive, and has directly [and indirectly] resulted in a whole lot of death and misery).

I have provided evidence in the OP.
Studies have shown, certain brain pattern and behaviors in people correlate with their potential to commit evil acts.

"Would you allow your children 3-10 or 15 to be exposed to the most violent, evil and sadistic materials available?"

That's a decision I make for mine; Stan, down the street, might decide differently for his. I may not like how he raises his kid, he may not like how I raise mine. We both need to mind our own businesses (till circumstance requires invoking 'or else').

You have not answer the question, do you? Yes or No?

I agree we should mind our own business but that is only confined to certain acts but not when the actions of one's neighbors or others has a significant potential impact on our well being and that of humanity's.
If the neighbors on both side of your terrace house use their garden as their toilet would you let them mind their own businesses? This is an obvious example but you need to understand evil acts that effect society will somehow effect you and everybody as well.

"There is a NATURAL percentile [~20%] of Chimpanzee-Joes within a religion who will obey their master God to do whatever is commanded [including evil commands]. This is very real and glaringly evident, i.e."

Sure, absolutely: so what?

Look at it this way: you want a measure of 'safety'. This is fine. Thing is: the safer a body is, the less free it is. There's no way around that. Every insulating layer between you and 'evil' is not only a restriction on 'it' but on 'you'. Me: I skew the other way. I want to maximize my autonomy. Fundamentally, this means no insulating layers between me and 'evil'.

You may be as selfish as much as possible and couldn't care less with what is going on elsewhere.
But that is a very naive way of thinking.
You can never know, given what had been going on at present, you could be bombed while walking down a street, in a cinema, supermarket, tourist location, etc.

Now, here's the kicker, Veritas: I'm certain right down to my bones that the protective restrictions you crave are 'evil'. Hobblin' autonomy always is.

What protective restrictions?
My objective is to tackle the source of evil [internal and external] at their source.
We should made concerted efforts to suppress evil ideologies [short term] and train people to be mindful of their evil impulses [long term].
This should not be merely talk [like what we are doing here] but should entail extensive research and actions.

[TimeSeeker]

This should not be merely talk [like what we are doing here] but should entail extensive research and actions.

The return on investment of your proposed "solution" is shocking. You only offer to save 10000 lives a year.

You have very low standards. I think we have enough evidence to call you "small minded". Can't wait to hear how much you propose to spend on this exercise... Because (I imagine) all the research/work is going to be paid for with OUR taxes.

[henry quirk]

I wrote a fairly lengthy (for me) response, Veritas, andI just lost the whole damn thing to some fuckin' net blip.

I got no time to reconstruct it now...will do so later today.

[thedoc]

What protective restrictions?
My objective is to tackle the source of evil [internal and external] at their source.
We should made concerted efforts to suppress evil ideologies [short term] and train people to be mindful of their evil impulses [long term].
This should not be merely talk [like what we are doing here] but should entail extensive research and actions.

It's called "mind control" and it involves every kind of restriction and loss of freedom you can think of. The left wing is trying to do it already and most people resist.

[henry quirk]

As I say: I wrote a lengthy response but lost it to some net gremlin.

Sittin' down to reconstruct that post, it occured to me: I don't need to. My lengthy response can be boiled down to what follows...

-----

"We should made concerted efforts to suppress evil ideologies"

No. We, each of us, should lay 'em on the table, examine 'em, assess 'em, and decide what we, as individuals, value. And with those poor hobbled souls who choose to align themselves with corrosive thinkin' (and who are incapable of keepin' it to themselves) we should defend ourselves against 'em.

But: at no point should we, any of us, declare any codified thinkin' 'forbidden'.

#

"train people to be mindful of their evil impulses"

In the old days, we called that 'teaching self-control'.

#

Fundamentally, Veritas, you wanna 'defend' the world; me, I want individuals to defend themselves. Absolutely, there are damaged, hobbled folks in the world. We care for them as we can, reclaim them as we can, defend ourselves against them when we must, but we don't remove, from the public sphere, any codified thinkin', no matter how corrosive it may be.

#

Hey, Doc! How goes it?

[surreptitious57]

Your definition of evil is lazy and non empirical and worst of all UNFALSIFIABLE

You cannot subject evil to a falsification test because it is outside the domain of science

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I say: I wrote a lengthy response but lost it to some net gremlin.

Sittin' down to reconstruct that post, it occured to me: I don't need to. My lengthy response can be boiled down to what follows...

-----

"We should made concerted efforts to suppress evil ideologies"

No. We, each of us, should lay 'em on the table, examine 'em, assess 'em, and decide what we, as individuals, value. And with those poor hobbled souls who choose to align themselves with corrosive thinkin' (and who are incapable of keepin' it to themselves) we should defend ourselves against 'em.

But: at no point should we, any of us, declare any codified thinkin' 'forbidden'.

We do not forbid thinking but we should nevertheless suppress evil thoughts from being converted into actions.

Defend ourselves against them??
That is firefighting which is an ineffective virtue.
Do you appreciate 'Prevention is better than cure' is more wiser?

"train people to be mindful of their evil impulses"

In the old days, we called that 'teaching self-control'.

This is essential but at the same time we need to control the external stimuli that trigger the vulnerable evil prones to commit evil and violent acts.

Fundamentally, Veritas, you wanna 'defend' the world; me, I want individuals to defend themselves. Absolutely, there are damaged, hobbled folks in the world. We care for them as we can, reclaim them as we can, defend ourselves against them when we must, but we don't remove, from the public sphere, any codified thinkin', no matter how corrosive it may be.

I agree ultimately or ASAP we want the majority to be good individual[s] but that is very idealistic and will take a long time.

Meanwhile we have to deal with these facts [..I posted earlier];

Note the following main proximate roots, i.e.

• 1. DNA/RNA wise ALL humans has the potential to commit evil/violent acts and SOME [appx. 20%] are born with an active tendencies to commit evil acts. These are the evil prone people.
  
  2. Those evil prone people [20%] are easily triggered to commit evil acts when triggered by evil laden elements.
  
  3. A very small % [psychopaths,] commit evil acts without any external triggers/stimuli.

The point is, it is difficult to change the inherent DNA/RNA, thus the most effective solution at present is to control the stimuli that trigger the vulnerables to commit evil and violent acts.

..

Note 20% of evil prone people in the world is 1.4 billion of them.

The clearly evident fact is the combination of 1&2 above has produced loads of evil deeds since human emerged. To deal with the people after they have committed evil acts is too inefficient.

This is why preventive actions have been taken by wiser authorities and individuals in censorship of evil and violent laden materials in the media, news, movies, computer games, etc. to avoid influencing vulnerable children and adults.

At present, we cannot stop people from thinking and writing evil but we must make sure such writings are 'defanged' to ensure they do not trigger the vulnerable to commit evil and violent acts.

Your 'fighting the symptoms' approach rather than adopt 'Prevention is Better then Cure' is not a wise move.

When we adopt the preventive strategy, in the future [I am optimistic*] we would be able to inhibit the evil tendencies in the majority of people with foolproof methods.
*Given the current trend of the exponential expansion of knowledge and technology in various fields.