What could make morality objective?

[Sculptor]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it.

Usually, in this place, folks who believe consciousness is physical never admit they can't prove it. They dissemble and obfuscate.

Good on you, guy...

Gosh.

[Sculptor]

Anything physical can either be directly perceived or detected and examined by some physical means (e.g. microscopes, telescopes, electronic instruments, etc.) When you can detect my consciousness (not brain activity, which is definitely physical) my actual seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, and tasting, my consciousness of internal states like pain, vertigo, or nausea, and my conscious thoughts or imagination, let me know. Unless you believe in mind-reading, there is no way for anyone to perceive or detect another organism's consciousness.

Now I cannot say you consciously see, hear, and perceive things, or feel pain, or have conscious thoughts or imagination, because no one can know anyone else's conscious experience, or if they even have any except by the other's testimony. You might just be a machine programmed to say and write what you do. An unconscious machine can certainly be programmed to say what you said. I can only speak for myself and those others who assure me they are also conscious.

I'm not arguing with you, just making the point for other conscious individuals who read this and wonder what you are going on about.

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it. My point was to say that knowing that consciousness in NOT physical is bollocks.
Clearly there is the world of ideas and the world of matter. Matter and energy are the best notions we have to describe the world, and physical describes both things in interaction. Like a book is physical, but contains ideas, the ideas could die without the continued existence of the book or a copy of it. I think the same works for the brain. Ideas are the unique arrangement of matter and energy in neural matter. When the brain dies so too does the unique ideas that have not been "copied" to another person. All this is evident.
Saying that consciousness is NOT physical is an empty statement with no basis in evidence.
Obviously the brain is more than a passive book, but whatever it might be able to achieve it has to do so physically.

Sculptor, I understand, and actually have a great deal of sympathy with your view. I would not even try to change it. As far as I can see it certainly does me no harm that we do not agree on it. I personally think it is mistaken (as you do mine). I can even hope you are right, but until it can be demonstrated, I just cannot agree with it. But I still love you!

Thanks for loving me. But you haven't got a leg to stand on and have nothing to support your alternative view.
Whereas I can prove to you at least the dependency of physicality by removing your consciousness one spoonful at a time - with a little Chiant!!! ffffum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIahXVJrvT0

[henry quirk]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it.

Usually, in this place, folks who believe consciousness is physical never admit they can't prove it. They dissemble and obfuscate.

Good on you, guy...

I agree. I should have made that point as well. You are a star today, Henry.

[henry quirk]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it.

Usually, in this place, folks who believe consciousness is physical never admit they can't prove it. They dissemble and obfuscate.

Good on you, guy...

Gosh.

credit where it's due

[RCSaunders]

My point was not to state that consciousness is physical. I believe that, but cannot prove it. My point was to say that knowing that consciousness in NOT physical is bollocks.
Clearly there is the world of ideas and the world of matter. Matter and energy are the best notions we have to describe the world, and physical describes both things in interaction. Like a book is physical, but contains ideas, the ideas could die without the continued existence of the book or a copy of it. I think the same works for the brain. Ideas are the unique arrangement of matter and energy in neural matter. When the brain dies so too does the unique ideas that have not been "copied" to another person. All this is evident.
Saying that consciousness is NOT physical is an empty statement with no basis in evidence.
Obviously the brain is more than a passive book, but whatever it might be able to achieve it has to do so physically.

Sculptor, I understand, and actually have a great deal of sympathy with your view. I would not even try to change it. As far as I can see it certainly does me no harm that we do not agree on it. I personally think it is mistaken (as you do mine). I can even hope you are right, but until it can be demonstrated, I just cannot agree with it. But I still love you!

Thanks for loving me. But you haven't got a leg to stand on and have nothing to support your alternative view.
Whereas I can prove to you at least the dependency of physicality by removing your consciousness one spoonful at a time - with a little Chiant!!! ffffum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIahXVJrvT0

I'm not promoting any view and not interested in changing anyone else's. Just explaining mine for anyone interested, such as those who refuse to deny their own conscious experience which no science can neither detect or describe. It may describe yours, it does not describe mine.

[RCSaunders]

Sculptor, I understand, and actually have a great deal of sympathy with your view. I would not even try to change it. As far as I can see it certainly does me no harm that we do not agree on it. I personally think it is mistaken (as you do mine). I can even hope you are right, but until it can be demonstrated, I just cannot agree with it. But I still love you!

Thanks for loving me. But you haven't got a leg to stand on and have nothing to support your alternative view.
Whereas I can prove to you at least the dependency of physicality by removing your consciousness one spoonful at a time - with a little Chiant!!! ffffum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIahXVJrvT0

I'm not promoting any view and not interested in changing anyone else's. Just explaining mine for anyone interested, such as those who refuse to deny their own conscious experience which no science can either detect or describe. It may describe yours, it does not describe mine.

Does this mean our romance is over? (After martini's and straight bourbon, I love Chianti.)

[Advocate]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals except ensuring elimination of personal suffering.
Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

Beyond that things get messy.

All moral truths can be phrased as an IF/THEN statement. IF you value truth THEN you must dismiss woo by default.

[Sculptor]

Moral truths are so to the extent we share priorities.

Survival is a prerequisite for all meaningful goals except ensuring elimination of personal suffering.

Truth is a prerequisite for all non-arbitrary goals.
Sustainability is a prerequisite for all non-temporary goals.

Beyond that things get messy.

All moral truths can be phrased as an IF/THEN statement. IF you value truth THEN you must dismiss woo by default.

"if" is the nemesis of objective, and the friend of the subject.

[Belinda]

You are right, RCSaunders, to shoulder the responsibility for your own decisions. Your ability to take this responsibility is closely linked to your freedom to chose from an array of options. Some people have limited options, such people as infants, mentally handicapped, victims of torture, slaves, people engaged in dying, very ill people, people with mental illnesses.

Where an individual is on the continuum between a large spread of options and no options at all, is matter of what hand life has dealt them, a free hand at one pole, or no cards to play at the other pole. At any event the ideal to aim at for oneself and for others whom we aim to help, is both to increase the scope of options and encourage to take responsibility for what they decide .

Thanks Belinda. There is no principle or law of reality that says everyone can, or is even supposed to be happy and successful. If history is any guide, most people will never be successful or happy in this world. With few exceptions, most people could be successful if they were willing to do what is required to achieve it, bit there are no guarantees, it is very difficult, and the evidence shows, most won't.

Of course there are people with limited options, including some you described such as the mentally deficient, the physically handicapped, the very ill, or those born in impossible conditions beyond their control. There is almost no handicap or limitation, however, ever used by anyone as an excuse for their failure that some individual I know with that same handicap or limitation has not lived a very full and successful life.

One of my boyhood friends, from a very poor broken home, when eight years old, was sitting on a curb when a trolley car went by dragging him off the curb, cutting off one of his legs and one of his arms. If anyone had an excuse for failure, he did, but he did just the opposite. He rode a bike, played baseball, excelled in school, worked his way through college and became a very successful business man. Except during his medical convalescence he never received any special help (and I'm sure would have refused it if offered).

Everyone born, however, is not going to succeed. Many will not even live beyond a few days, and nothing in this world will, "increase the scope of options," available to those born with Severe microcephaly, Anencephaly, or Trisomy 18.

The failure of most people, however, is not because of any handicap or something beyond their control (everyone has handicaps and difficulties to overcome), but simply their own failure to use the abilities and resources they do have to be and achieve all they can, because they are not willing to do the very hard work necessary to succeed, especially when surrounded by a society promising unearned rights, safety, and security. It's easier to complain about a world that is, "unfair," that does not automatically provide what one wants and blame everything except one's own choices and actions for their failure.

As much as you and I deplore the unhappiness of others and wish for everyone to be a success, it is a mistake to squander any wealth or effort attempting to provide additional, "scope and options," on those who refuse to use the opportunities and abilities they already have. With the exception of the infinitesimal minority of individuals with impossible conditions, the failure of all other individuals is their own fault.

I too know of individuals who have been dealt a bad hand who have made good. I imagine you yourself even if you had turned out to be a loser, would have blamed yourself for any of your own bad choices.

There is a natural imbalance between praise and blame. While it's good to praise individuals fo***r their good choices, it's bad to blame individuals for their bad choices. there is another natural imbalance: while it's good to hold myself responsible for my own bad choices, it's good to remember that you can't walk in another's shoes. However you can praise what they do well because honest praise helps everyone concerned including the one doing the praising.

An employer or teacher has a real problem with employees or students who refuse to be responsible for their own decisions.

***
Bad to blame individuals for their bad choices
I mean by "bad" that it's ineffectual. The employer or teacher would be better occupied telling the employee or student the correct way to do it. At the very least the employee or student who refuses to take responsibility annoys others. What is worse is that learning can only happen when the individual is honest with himself as the agent of his own understanding of the training or the education. Learning is a two-way responsibility.

[RCSaunders]

You are right, RCSaunders, to shoulder the responsibility for your own decisions. Your ability to take this responsibility is closely linked to your freedom to chose from an array of options. Some people have limited options, such people as infants, mentally handicapped, victims of torture, slaves, people engaged in dying, very ill people, people with mental illnesses.

Where an individual is on the continuum between a large spread of options and no options at all, is matter of what hand life has dealt them, a free hand at one pole, or no cards to play at the other pole. At any event the ideal to aim at for oneself and for others whom we aim to help, is both to increase the scope of options and encourage to take responsibility for what they decide .

Thanks Belinda. There is no principle or law of reality that says everyone can, or is even supposed to be happy and successful. If history is any guide, most people will never be successful or happy in this world. With few exceptions, most people could be successful if they were willing to do what is required to achieve it, bit there are no guarantees, it is very difficult, and the evidence shows, most won't.

Of course there are people with limited options, including some you described such as the mentally deficient, the physically handicapped, the very ill, or those born in impossible conditions beyond their control. There is almost no handicap or limitation, however, ever used by anyone as an excuse for their failure that some individual I know with that same handicap or limitation has not lived a very full and successful life.

One of my boyhood friends, from a very poor broken home, when eight years old, was sitting on a curb when a trolley car went by dragging him off the curb, cutting off one of his legs and one of his arms. If anyone had an excuse for failure, he did, but he did just the opposite. He rode a bike, played baseball, excelled in school, worked his way through college and became a very successful business man. Except during his medical convalescence he never received any special help (and I'm sure would have refused it if offered).

Everyone born, however, is not going to succeed. Many will not even live beyond a few days, and nothing in this world will, "increase the scope of options," available to those born with Severe microcephaly, Anencephaly, or Trisomy 18.

The failure of most people, however, is not because of any handicap or something beyond their control (everyone has handicaps and difficulties to overcome), but simply their own failure to use the abilities and resources they do have to be and achieve all they can, because they are not willing to do the very hard work necessary to succeed, especially when surrounded by a society promising unearned rights, safety, and security. It's easier to complain about a world that is, "unfair," that does not automatically provide what one wants and blame everything except one's own choices and actions for their failure.

As much as you and I deplore the unhappiness of others and wish for everyone to be a success, it is a mistake to squander any wealth or effort attempting to provide additional, "scope and options," on those who refuse to use the opportunities and abilities they already have. With the exception of the infinitesimal minority of individuals with impossible conditions, the failure of all other individuals is their own fault.

I too know of individuals who have been dealt a bad hand who have made good. I imagine you yourself even if you had turned out to be a loser, would have blamed yourself for any of your own bad choices.

There is a natural imbalance between praise and blame. While it's good to praise individuals fo***r their good choices, it's bad to blame individuals for their bad choices. there is another natural imbalance: while it's good to hold myself responsible for my own bad choices, it's good to remember that you can't walk in another's shoes. However you can praise what they do well because honest praise helps everyone concerned including the one doing the praising.

An employer or teacher has a real problem with employees or students who refuse to be responsible for their own decisions.

***
Bad to blame individuals for their bad choices
I mean by "bad" that it's ineffectual. The employer or teacher would be better occupied telling the employee or student the correct way to do it. At the very least the employee or student who refuses to take responsibility annoys others. What is worse is that learning can only happen when the individual is honest with himself as the agent of his own understanding of the training or the education. Learning is a two-way responsibility.

When you see something wrong, since when is it wrong to identify it. Is one supposed to close their eyes to what is the obvious cause of a problem because someone's feelings might be hurt. The problem with blaming one's problems on others' views, blame, or criticism, is also one's own mistake. The opinions, words, and criticisms of others cannot possibly do me any harm, even if they are false, if I've learned it is not what anyone else thinks or says about me that matters but what I know I am. The tender sensitivities of the easily offended is the result of the view that what others think of you matters and that one's own value is determined by what others think of them.

If you truly want to help those you think are in some limited or harmed because of other's blame or opinions, teach them the truth, that what other think or say does not matter, or, as my mother taught me as a little boy, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." If I experience any, "hurt," because of what someone else says, it's my fault for taking worrying about what others say about me.

But I'm not, "blaming," anyone, only describing a principle. I very seldom judge anyone just because I know everyone is different and how others choose to live their lives is none of my business anyway. But, I'm not going to help anyone by telling them they are just wonderful, if they aren't. When I managed large departments in industry I occasionally had to address cases of work that was not the best. It was only necessary to point out what was being done incorrectly or poorly. It never mattered to me why an individual was not performing a particular job well. In every case, once the difficulty was explained and pointed out, the employee corrected it on their own, if they could. I did not care why they failed or how they corrected it. Their psychology was none of my business.

[Belinda]

Thanks Belinda. There is no principle or law of reality that says everyone can, or is even supposed to be happy and successful. If history is any guide, most people will never be successful or happy in this world. With few exceptions, most people could be successful if they were willing to do what is required to achieve it, bit there are no guarantees, it is very difficult, and the evidence shows, most won't.

Of course there are people with limited options, including some you described such as the mentally deficient, the physically handicapped, the very ill, or those born in impossible conditions beyond their control. There is almost no handicap or limitation, however, ever used by anyone as an excuse for their failure that some individual I know with that same handicap or limitation has not lived a very full and successful life.

One of my boyhood friends, from a very poor broken home, when eight years old, was sitting on a curb when a trolley car went by dragging him off the curb, cutting off one of his legs and one of his arms. If anyone had an excuse for failure, he did, but he did just the opposite. He rode a bike, played baseball, excelled in school, worked his way through college and became a very successful business man. Except during his medical convalescence he never received any special help (and I'm sure would have refused it if offered).

Everyone born, however, is not going to succeed. Many will not even live beyond a few days, and nothing in this world will, "increase the scope of options," available to those born with Severe microcephaly, Anencephaly, or Trisomy 18.

The failure of most people, however, is not because of any handicap or something beyond their control (everyone has handicaps and difficulties to overcome), but simply their own failure to use the abilities and resources they do have to be and achieve all they can, because they are not willing to do the very hard work necessary to succeed, especially when surrounded by a society promising unearned rights, safety, and security. It's easier to complain about a world that is, "unfair," that does not automatically provide what one wants and blame everything except one's own choices and actions for their failure.

As much as you and I deplore the unhappiness of others and wish for everyone to be a success, it is a mistake to squander any wealth or effort attempting to provide additional, "scope and options," on those who refuse to use the opportunities and abilities they already have. With the exception of the infinitesimal minority of individuals with impossible conditions, the failure of all other individuals is their own fault.

I too know of individuals who have been dealt a bad hand who have made good. I imagine you yourself even if you had turned out to be a loser, would have blamed yourself for any of your own bad choices.

There is a natural imbalance between praise and blame. While it's good to praise individuals fo***r their good choices, it's bad to blame individuals for their bad choices. there is another natural imbalance: while it's good to hold myself responsible for my own bad choices, it's good to remember that you can't walk in another's shoes. However you can praise what they do well because honest praise helps everyone concerned including the one doing the praising.

An employer or teacher has a real problem with employees or students who refuse to be responsible for their own decisions.

***
Bad to blame individuals for their bad choices
I mean by "bad" that it's ineffectual. The employer or teacher would be better occupied telling the employee or student the correct way to do it. At the very least the employee or student who refuses to take responsibility annoys others. What is worse is that learning can only happen when the individual is honest with himself as the agent of his own understanding of the training or the education. Learning is a two-way responsibility.

When you see something wrong, since when is it wrong to identify it. Is one supposed to close their eyes to what is the obvious cause of a problem because someone's feelings might be hurt. The problem with blaming one's problems on others' views, blame, or criticism, is also one's own mistake. The opinions, words, and criticisms of others cannot possibly do me any harm, even if they are false, if I've learned it is not what anyone else thinks or says about me that matters but what I know I am. The tender sensitivities of the easily offended is the result of the view that what others think of you matters and that one's own value is determined by what others think of them.

If you truly want to help those you think are in some limited or harmed because of other's blame or opinions, teach them the truth, that what other think or say does not matter, or, as my mother taught me as a little boy, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." If I experience any, "hurt," because of what someone else says, it's my fault for taking worrying about what others say about me.

But I'm not, "blaming," anyone, only describing a principle. I very seldom judge anyone just because I know everyone is different and how others choose to live their lives is none of my business anyway. But, I'm not going to help anyone by telling them they are just wonderful, if they aren't. When I managed large departments in industry I occasionally had to address cases of work that was not the best. It was only necessary to point out what was being done incorrectly or poorly. It never mattered to me why an individual was not performing a particular job well. In every case, once the difficulty was explained and pointed out, the employee corrected it on their own, if they could. I did not care why they failed or how they corrected it. Their psychology was none of my business.

How others live their lives is your business if you are their parent, friend, employer, or teacher. It's poisonous to withhold information when you see your friend, student,
or employee making a mistake. Their psychology is your business if you can inform them how to sort out some attitude problem.

You have already complained about the attitude problem of people who will not take responsibility for their own choices. You should help them with this attitude problem if you can, as ,if you don't do so, you may lose an otherwise good student or employee

[RCSaunders]

I too know of individuals who have been dealt a bad hand who have made good. I imagine you yourself even if you had turned out to be a loser, would have blamed yourself for any of your own bad choices.

There is a natural imbalance between praise and blame. While it's good to praise individuals fo***r their good choices, it's bad to blame individuals for their bad choices. there is another natural imbalance: while it's good to hold myself responsible for my own bad choices, it's good to remember that you can't walk in another's shoes. However you can praise what they do well because honest praise helps everyone concerned including the one doing the praising.

An employer or teacher has a real problem with employees or students who refuse to be responsible for their own decisions.

***
Bad to blame individuals for their bad choices
I mean by "bad" that it's ineffectual. The employer or teacher would be better occupied telling the employee or student the correct way to do it. At the very least the employee or student who refuses to take responsibility annoys others. What is worse is that learning can only happen when the individual is honest with himself as the agent of his own understanding of the training or the education. Learning is a two-way responsibility.

When you see something wrong, since when is it wrong to identify it. Is one supposed to close their eyes to what is the obvious cause of a problem because someone's feelings might be hurt. The problem with blaming one's problems on others' views, blame, or criticism, is also one's own mistake. The opinions, words, and criticisms of others cannot possibly do me any harm, even if they are false, if I've learned it is not what anyone else thinks or says about me that matters but what I know I am. The tender sensitivities of the easily offended is the result of the view that what others think of you matters and that one's own value is determined by what others think of them.

If you truly want to help those you think are in some limited or harmed because of other's blame or opinions, teach them the truth, that what other think or say does not matter, or, as my mother taught me as a little boy, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." If I experience any, "hurt," because of what someone else says, it's my fault for taking worrying about what others say about me.

But I'm not, "blaming," anyone, only describing a principle. I very seldom judge anyone just because I know everyone is different and how others choose to live their lives is none of my business anyway. But, I'm not going to help anyone by telling them they are just wonderful, if they aren't. When I managed large departments in industry I occasionally had to address cases of work that was not the best. It was only necessary to point out what was being done incorrectly or poorly. It never mattered to me why an individual was not performing a particular job well. In every case, once the difficulty was explained and pointed out, the employee corrected it on their own, if they could. I did not care why they failed or how they corrected it. Their psychology was none of my business.

How others live their lives is your business if you are their parent, friend, employer, or teacher. It's poisonous to withhold information when you see your friend, student,
or employee making a mistake. Their psychology is your business if you can inform them how to sort out some attitude problem.

You have already complained about the attitude problem of people who will not take responsibility for their own choices. You should help them with this attitude problem if you can, as ,if you don't do so, you may lose an otherwise good student or employee

Nothing in anyone else's life is your business except by their invitation. Anything else is uninvited intrusion and meddling, and is just none of your business. The only right relationship with any other individual is entirely voluntary. Anything else is a kind of assault or oppression no matter how well intentioned.

I have helped literally hundreds of students and workers by being available to help them if they chose it and wished to share their minds or problems, but that is far different from psychologizing and unasked for interference in others lives you are suggesting.

There is a bit of hubris in your view, that somehow there are people out there who are just not going to successfully make it without your or my help and instruction. Of course we want to offer help when we can, but the whole world and everyone in it will get along just fine without us.

[Peter Holmes]

Just a few thoughts on this discussion, which seems to me to be, in part, about social policy: what, if any, role we should collectively have with regard to any individual. And I think it's easy to forget some facts.

Like other mammals, we're social animals. All of our progress - from producing and improving food, clothes and shelter, to providing healthcare and education, and all other 'goods' - has come from inter-dependence and co-operation. The rugged individualism of the supposedly 'self-made' noble savage (entrepreneur) is, and has always been, a myth.

A chain is as strong as its weakest link. So if every link is as strong as the strongest, the chain is as strong as it can be. For that reason, economic inequality (especially in its extreme form) - quite apart from its immorality - weakens all of us - whatever its cause.

As it happens, the lie that the poor deserve to be poor - so, of course, the rich deserve to be rich - the lie that we all get what we deserve in life - is obviously self-serving for the rich, which is why it's foundational in capitalist ideology. The aim is to divide and rule - ruling class playbook, page 1.

Another ideological con is the equal opportunity/unequal outcome myth. Wealth in all its forms means opportunity, for ourselves and our children. So equal opportunity is impossible if outcomes are unequal, especially if the inequality is extreme. A social system that creates and relies on economic inequality is economically inefficient.

And - back to morality - the idea that, for me to have what I need and want, others must be poorer than me and have less of what they need and want - that moral obscenity festers, unacknowledged - because decent people can't be allowed to recognise it - in our unequal societies.

In my view, when we overcome economic inequality, we'll be nearer to moral maturity as a species, and closer to the greatest well-being for each of us individually. But that's just my moral opinion, of course. There are no moral facts.

[Belinda]

When you see something wrong, since when is it wrong to identify it. Is one supposed to close their eyes to what is the obvious cause of a problem because someone's feelings might be hurt. The problem with blaming one's problems on others' views, blame, or criticism, is also one's own mistake. The opinions, words, and criticisms of others cannot possibly do me any harm, even if they are false, if I've learned it is not what anyone else thinks or says about me that matters but what I know I am. The tender sensitivities of the easily offended is the result of the view that what others think of you matters and that one's own value is determined by what others think of them.

If you truly want to help those you think are in some limited or harmed because of other's blame or opinions, teach them the truth, that what other think or say does not matter, or, as my mother taught me as a little boy, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." If I experience any, "hurt," because of what someone else says, it's my fault for taking worrying about what others say about me.

But I'm not, "blaming," anyone, only describing a principle. I very seldom judge anyone just because I know everyone is different and how others choose to live their lives is none of my business anyway. But, I'm not going to help anyone by telling them they are just wonderful, if they aren't. When I managed large departments in industry I occasionally had to address cases of work that was not the best. It was only necessary to point out what was being done incorrectly or poorly. It never mattered to me why an individual was not performing a particular job well. In every case, once the difficulty was explained and pointed out, the employee corrected it on their own, if they could. I did not care why they failed or how they corrected it. Their psychology was none of my business.

How others live their lives is your business if you are their parent, friend, employer, or teacher. It's poisonous to withhold information when you see your friend, student,
or employee making a mistake. Their psychology is your business if you can inform them how to sort out some attitude problem.

You have already complained about the attitude problem of people who will not take responsibility for their own choices. You should help them with this attitude problem if you can, as ,if you don't do so, you may lose an otherwise good student or employee

Nothing in anyone else's life is your business except by their invitation. Anything else is uninvited intrusion and meddling, and is just none of your business. The only right relationship with any other individual is entirely voluntary. Anything else is a kind of assault or oppression no matter how well intentioned.

I have helped literally hundreds of students and workers by being available to help them if they chose it and wished to share their minds or problems, but that is far different from psychologizing and unasked for interference in others lives you are suggesting.

There is a bit of hubris in your view, that somehow there are people out there who are just not going to successfully make it without your or my help and instruction. Of course we want to offer help when we can, but the whole world and everyone in it will get along just fine without us.

Sure, you are right about this, but I thought we were referring to particular cases of employers, parents, and teachers. It's part of the normal remit of all of these to guide and mentor to the best of their ability.

I am afraid you will disagree with me , but what you disparagingly call "psychologising" as it affects students and employees is actually a branch of social psychology or social anthropology, carefully studied insight into particular cases of attitudes of employers, teachers, students, and employees . Implicit beliefs and habits of thought do have large effects on learning and training.

[RCSaunders]

Sure, you are right about this, but I thought we were referring to particular cases of employers, parents, and teachers. It's part of the normal remit of all of these to guide and mentor to the best of their ability.

I am afraid you will disagree with me , but what you disparagingly call "psychologising" as it affects students and employees is actually a branch of social psychology or social anthropology, carefully studied insight into particular cases of attitudes of employers, teachers, students, and employees . Implicit beliefs and habits of thought do have large effects on learning and training.

What I agree with (or not) does not matter. Before I settled into technology and science, I considered majors in both psychology and anthropology and did a great deal of research in both areas. They are both based on very flawed premises. I am convinced there is nothing of value in either, and some very dangerous ideas propagated by them both. But that is my opinion and why I have it, it's not meant to convince anyone else.

How familiar are you with histories of those two disciplines and those who make up most of the authorities? (The question is rhetorical. You don't have to explain yourself to me.) If you trust them, then you do. I don't. I think they will get you into trouble if you use them as a guide in dealing with others, but I hope not.