Terror Management Theory

[Veritas Aequitas]

I often refer to existential crisis, existential pains, existential angst as grounds of most of my philosophical stances and issues discussed, e.g. the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism, theism and others where this terror triggers many into their existing 'bad behavior' here.
I did not mention TMT recently because it is quite a taboo subject and not very pleasant but nevertheless very critical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Terror management theory (TMT) is both a social and evolutionary psychology theory originally proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski[1] and codified in their book The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life (2015).
It proposes that a basic psychological conflict results from having a self-preservation instinct while realizing that death is inevitable and to some extent unpredictable.
This conflict produces terror, which is managed through a combination of escapism and cultural beliefs that act to counter biological reality with more significant and enduring forms of meaning and value—basically countering the personal insignificance represented by death with the significance provided by symbolic culture.[1][2]

The most obvious examples of cultural values that assuage death anxiety are those that purport to offer literal immortality (e.g. belief in the afterlife through religion).[3]

However, TMT also argues that other cultural values – including those that are seemingly unrelated to death – offer symbolic immortality. For example, values of national identity,[4] posterity,[5] cultural perspectives on sex,[6] and human superiority over animals[6] have been linked to calming death concerns.
In many cases these values are thought to offer symbolic immortality, by either a) providing the sense that one is part of something greater that will ultimately outlive the individual (e.g. country, lineage, species), or b) making one's symbolic identity superior to biological nature (i.e. one is a personality, which makes one more than a glob of cells).[7] Because cultural values influence what is meaningful, they are foundational for self-esteem.
TMT describes self-esteem as being the personal, subjective measure of how well an individual is living up to their cultural values.[2]

Terror management theory was developed by social psychologists Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski.
However, the idea of TMT originated from anthropologist Ernest Becker's 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction The Denial of Death.
Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death.[8]
The terror of absolute annihilation creates such a profound – albeit subconscious – anxiety in people that they spend their lives attempting to make sense of it.

On large scales, societies build symbols: Laws, religious meanings, cultures, and belief systems to explain the significance of life, define what makes certain characteristics, skills, and talents extraordinary, reward others whom they find to exemplify certain attributes, and punish or kill others who do not adhere to their cultural worldview. Adherence to these created "symbols" aids in relieving stresses associated with the reality of mortality.[9]
On an individual level, self-esteem provides a buffer against death-related anxiety.

Those who are theists, those who claim morality is not objective based on philosophical realism, plus many other human behaviors, can trace their motivation to the above as the ultimate cause.

[Veritas Aequitas]

One point not mentioned is that TMT is inherent and unavoidable.
To avoid being paralyze with the fears of TMT, all humans are also programmed with some sort of inhibitors to suppress it so that it does not become a raw conscious feeling.

Being human these inhibitors do not work 100% thus there are leakages [of varying degrees] which manifest and exudes as existential pains and angsts.

If these inhibitors are badly damage then we have a psychiatric case of Thanatophobia i.e. a very conscious fear of death all the time, which will need psychiatric treatment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_anx ... natophobia

Death anxiety is anxiety caused by thoughts of one's own death, and is also known as thanatophobia (fear of death).[1] Individuals affected by this kind of anxiety experience challenges and adversities in many aspects of their lives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Iwannaplato]

I often refer to existential crisis, existential pains, existential angst as grounds of most of my philosophical stances and issues discussed, e.g. the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism, theism and others where this terror triggers many into their existing 'bad behavior' here.
I did not mention TMT recently because it is quite a taboo subject and not very pleasant but nevertheless very critical.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory

Terror management theory (TMT) is both a social and evolutionary psychology theory originally proposed by Jeff Greenberg, Sheldon Solomon, and Tom Pyszczynski[1] and codified in their book The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life (2015).
It proposes that a basic psychological conflict results from having a self-preservation instinct while realizing that death is inevitable and to some extent unpredictable.
This conflict produces terror, which is managed through a combination of escapism and cultural beliefs that act to counter biological reality with more significant and enduring forms of meaning and value—basically countering the personal insignificance represented by death with the significance provided by symbolic culture.[1][2]

The most obvious examples of cultural values that assuage death anxiety are those that purport to offer literal immortality (e.g. belief in the afterlife through religion).[3]

However, TMT also argues that other cultural values – including those that are seemingly unrelated to death – offer symbolic immortality. For example, values of national identity,[4] posterity,[5] cultural perspectives on sex,[6] and human superiority over animals[6] have been linked to calming death concerns.
In many cases these values are thought to offer symbolic immortality, by either a) providing the sense that one is part of something greater that will ultimately outlive the individual (e.g. country, lineage, species), or b) making one's symbolic identity superior to biological nature (i.e. one is a personality, which makes one more than a glob of cells).[7] Because cultural values influence what is meaningful, they are foundational for self-esteem.
TMT describes self-esteem as being the personal, subjective measure of how well an individual is living up to their cultural values.[2]

Terror management theory was developed by social psychologists Greenberg, Solomon, and Pyszczynski.
However, the idea of TMT originated from anthropologist Ernest Becker's 1973 Pulitzer Prize-winning work of nonfiction The Denial of Death.
Becker argues most human action is taken to ignore or avoid the inevitability of death.[8]
The terror of absolute annihilation creates such a profound – albeit subconscious – anxiety in people that they spend their lives attempting to make sense of it.

On large scales, societies build symbols: Laws, religious meanings, cultures, and belief systems to explain the significance of life, define what makes certain characteristics, skills, and talents extraordinary, reward others whom they find to exemplify certain attributes, and punish or kill others who do not adhere to their cultural worldview. Adherence to these created "symbols" aids in relieving stresses associated with the reality of mortality.[9]
On an individual level, self-esteem provides a buffer against death-related anxiety.

Those who are theists, those who claim morality is not objective based on philosophical realism, plus many other human behaviors, can trace their motivation to the above as the ultimate cause.

As usual VA does not read what he quotes, even when it's a text or article or AI product. Note that included in the list is

human superiority over animals

which, of course, VA has expressed in dozens of posts.

In case VA doesn't understand, this does not mean I am saying he is wrong about humans being superior. The point is he grabbed a tool to aim and his philosophical opponents, but never bothered to see if the tool undermines himself.

[Iwannaplato]

But let's look at the elephant in the roomm, my previous post being a mouse by comparison.

TMT offers a way to look at VAs utter inability to admit more than typo level errors. He never concedes points even when we can point to contradictions between his position and what he quotes from sources. He cannot manage to concede dead end arguments, even when concessions would not entail that his main positions are wrong. Here's how TMT is relevant to the this pattern:

Self-Esteem is used as protection againt fears - According to TMT, people maintain self-esteem to suppress against existential anxiety. For some, acknowledging an error or weakness in their reasoning could threaten their self-esteem, as it may expose them to vulnerability or self-doubt, potentially weakening the psychological shield that protects them from existential fears.

Terror about slipper slope heading toward worldview challenge - for some people, admitting they’re wrong about one small thing feels like pulling a loose thread on a sweater—before you know it, the whole thing unravels. If they concede that X was wrong, then maybe Y is wrong too, and pretty soon, their entire worldview might be on the chopping block. When people’s beliefs get challenged, it can feel like someone’s taking a sledgehammer to the foundation of their reality. One tiny crack can start to look like the beginning of a total collapse.

Then there’s the whole identity and legacy angle. For folks who pour their heart and soul into their ideas, beliefs, or intellect, admitting they were off-track even a little can feel like chipping away at their legacy. Think of it as “symbolic immortality”—they want to be seen as smart, strong, or right all the time. So, a single admission of weakness might feel like they’re giving up a piece of what they’ll be remembered for. They’d rather stick to their guns than risk tarnishing that image. Any looking at the way he posts, with his extra posts for notes and his ambitions for his ideas knows that legacy is involved as a motivation. Threats to this are awakening existential anxiety. A pointless life.

And then there’s this little gem called cognitive dissonance, which is basically that uncomfortable, itchy feeling you get when reality doesn’t line up with what you believe. For some people, that itch digs deep—right down to their existential core—so instead of saying “yeah, maybe I was wrong,” they’ll dig in harder to protect themselves from that discomfort, doubling down even if their argument is on life support.

Finally, we’ve got the group identity piece. Terror Management Theory (yep, that’s a thing) says that when people get reminded of their own mortality, they cling even tighter to their group’s beliefs and culture. So, for someone really rooted in a group, admitting they’re wrong might feel like a betrayal. It’s like, if they give an inch to the “outsiders,” they’re letting down their team, so they’ll stand their ground—even when the evidence isn’t exactly in their favor. Of course for VA he has a reverse identity process, he is not Muslim, not a realist, not a moral relativist and so on. He's in the not group...with Kant and Chatgpt.

The topic VA has here is of course a valid topic, but given the context - he's trying to win a game against realists (that's the metphor he's used in a post to me) - this thread is an ad hom/insult aimed at realists in general, not just people who he's tit for tatting.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As usual VA does not read what he quotes, even when it's a text or article or AI product. Note that included in the list is

human superiority over animals

which, of course, VA has expressed in dozens of posts.

In case VA doesn't understand, this does not mean I am saying he is wrong about humans being superior. The point is he grabbed a tool to aim and his philosophical opponents, but never bothered to see if the tool undermines himself.

Strawman as usual.

I wrote in the OP:
"I often refer to existential crisis, existential pains, existential angst as grounds of most of my philosophical stances and issues discussed, e.g. the dogmatic ideology of philosophical realism, theism and others where this terror triggers many into their existing 'bad behavior' here."

The above are my direct interests in the subject of TMT in relation to the above.

What is your point re

human superiority over animals

I have never claimed the above as absolute, but it obvious humans are superior over animals in many [not every] ways.
I stated, morality should exclude non-human animals for the purpose of efficiency [Occam] to expedite moral progress.

I quoted the whole article from WIKI to support my stated purpose.
If any points is not related to my purposes, they need to be deliberated separately.

I don't see any issue in my presentation, if you insist present it precisely.

However, by the manner you are approaching the various contentious topics, it is likely your TMT neural algorithm is quite active subliminally.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But let's look at the elephant in the roomm, my previous post being a mouse by comparison.

TMT offers a way to look at VAs utter inability to admit more than typo level errors. He never concedes points even when we can point to contradictions between his position and what he quotes from sources. He cannot manage to concede dead end arguments, even when concessions would not entail that his main positions are wrong. Here's how TMT is relevant to the this pattern:

Self-Esteem is used as protection againt fears - According to TMT, people maintain self-esteem to suppress against existential anxiety. For some, acknowledging an error or weakness in their reasoning could threaten their self-esteem, as it may expose them to vulnerability or self-doubt, potentially weakening the psychological shield that protects them from existential fears.

Terror about slipper slope heading toward worldview challenge - for some people, admitting they’re wrong about one small thing feels like pulling a loose thread on a sweater—before you know it, the whole thing unravels. If they concede that X was wrong, then maybe Y is wrong too, and pretty soon, their entire worldview might be on the chopping block. When people’s beliefs get challenged, it can feel like someone’s taking a sledgehammer to the foundation of their reality. One tiny crack can start to look like the beginning of a total collapse.

Then there’s the whole identity and legacy angle. For folks who pour their heart and soul into their ideas, beliefs, or intellect, admitting they were off-track even a little can feel like chipping away at their legacy. Think of it as “symbolic immortality”—they want to be seen as smart, strong, or right all the time. So, a single admission of weakness might feel like they’re giving up a piece of what they’ll be remembered for. They’d rather stick to their guns than risk tarnishing that image. Any looking at the way he posts, with his extra posts for notes and his ambitions for his ideas knows that legacy is involved as a motivation. Threats to this are awakening existential anxiety. A pointless life.

And then there’s this little gem called cognitive dissonance, which is basically that uncomfortable, itchy feeling you get when reality doesn’t line up with what you believe. For some people, that itch digs deep—right down to their existential core—so instead of saying “yeah, maybe I was wrong,” they’ll dig in harder to protect themselves from that discomfort, doubling down even if their argument is on life support.

Finally, we’ve got the group identity piece. Terror Management Theory (yep, that’s a thing) says that when people get reminded of their own mortality, they cling even tighter to their group’s beliefs and culture. So, for someone really rooted in a group, admitting they’re wrong might feel like a betrayal. It’s like, if they give an inch to the “outsiders,” they’re letting down their team, so they’ll stand their ground—even when the evidence isn’t exactly in their favor. Of course for VA he has a reverse identity process, he is not Muslim, not a realist, not a moral relativist and so on. He's in the not group...with Kant and Chatgpt.

The topic VA has here is of course a valid topic, but given the context - he's trying to win a game against realists (that's the metphor he's used in a post to me) - this thread is an ad hom/insult aimed at realists in general, not just people who he's tit for tatting.

TMT exists in all humans in varying degrees of activeness.
There is no doubt I am striving to modulate it effectively.

One strategy is to be well aware of its existence and how it effect us.
I have done tons of research on this subject.

One common way to assuage the death anxiety by most is to resort to delusional thinking, e.g. theism and philosophical realism [yours] where it really works, i.e. as useful illusions.
I did that in the past and because it has its cons I avoided them and chose the more rational and wiser paths to sustain an effective state of self-esteem and well being.
If I had avoided the irrational and believe [as justified] my paths are more rational and wiser, why should I concede anything unless you can show me convincingly I am insisting 1+1=3, =4 or =5.

I have demonstrated your ideology of philosophical realism and the incessant strawman are delusional.
Show me where my views are delusional?

[Atla]

But let's look at the elephant in the roomm, my previous post being a mouse by comparison.

TMT offers a way to look at VAs utter inability to admit more than typo level errors. He never concedes points even when we can point to contradictions between his position and what he quotes from sources.

A contradiction is a logical thing. VA can't process logic so he can't perceive contradictions.

[Iwannaplato]

TMT exists in all humans in varying degrees of activeness.
There is no doubt I am striving to modulate it effectively.

Thank you for confirming that TMT is extremely applicable to you.

By saying “There is no doubt” instead of “I have no doubt,” Va avoids owning the doubtlessness personally, which lends a kind of passive, universal tone to the statement. This choice gives the illusion of objectivity or universal truth, as if this lack of doubt is a given or fact rather than a personal viewpoint. It’s a distancing strategy, sidestepping personal accountability for the certainty they claim. Thus, a method of protecting self-esteem. It's not just his own self-evaluation. He poses his own certainty as if it is a universal/objective opinion. Which is absurd because we know it is not universal - obviously many people doubt he is handling this well - let alone objective.

Further you seem blissfully unaware of the various cognitive biases that play out in self-evaluation. Of course people can manage to minimize the biases, but most people would realize the silliness of presenting your self-evaluation in the way and form you did.

I have demonstrated your ideology of philosophical realism and the incessant strawman are delusional.

I'm not a realist. I mean, have you not noticed that people with a wide variety of positions on the various isms you have agree that there is a problem with how you interact and how you justify?

I suppose it is comforting - TMT again - to assume that your conclusions scare us - A typical Iambiguous assumption also - rather than we are actually noticing seriously problems with your arguments and way of responding to what you quote.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But let's look at the elephant in the roomm, my previous post being a mouse by comparison.

TMT offers a way to look at VAs utter inability to admit more than typo level errors. He never concedes points even when we can point to contradictions between his position and what he quotes from sources.

A contradiction is a logical thing. VA can't process logic so he can't perceive contradictions.

Your desperation with indirect realism is a case of amplified and highly active TMT in you that you blindly insist in chasing an illusion as the real thing.
If you can manage your TMT more effectively you would not be so desperate in reifying an illusion re indirect realism.

[Atla]

But let's look at the elephant in the roomm, my previous post being a mouse by comparison.

TMT offers a way to look at VAs utter inability to admit more than typo level errors. He never concedes points even when we can point to contradictions between his position and what he quotes from sources.

A contradiction is a logical thing. VA can't process logic so he can't perceive contradictions.

Your desperation with indirect realism is a case of amplified and highly active TMT in you that you blindly insist in chasing an illusion as the real thing.
If you can manage your TMT more effectively you would not be so desperate in reifying an illusion re indirect realism.

It's a fact that I'm not chasing an illusion.

[Veritas Aequitas]

TMT exists in all humans in varying degrees of activeness.
There is no doubt I am striving to modulate it effectively.

Thank you for confirming that TMT is extremely applicable to you.

By saying “There is no doubt” instead of “I have no doubt,” Va avoids owning the doubtlessness personally, which lends a kind of passive, universal tone to the statement. This choice gives the illusion of objectivity or universal truth, as if this lack of doubt is a given or fact rather than a personal viewpoint. It’s a distancing strategy, sidestepping personal accountability for the certainty they claim. Thus, a method of protecting self-esteem. It's not just his own self-evaluation. He poses his own certainty as if it is a universal/objective opinion. Which is absurd because we know it is not universal - obviously many people doubt he is handling this well - let alone objective.

Further you seem blissfully unaware of the various cognitive biases that play out in self-evaluation. Of course people can manage to minimize the biases, but most people would realize the silliness of presenting your self-evaluation in the way and form you did.

I have demonstrated your ideology of philosophical realism and the incessant strawman are delusional.

I'm not a realist. I mean, have you not noticed that people with a wide variety of positions on the various isms you have agree that there is a problem with how you interact and how you justify?

I suppose it is comforting - TMT again - to assume that your conclusions scare us - A typical Iambiguous assumption also - rather than we are actually noticing seriously problems with your arguments and way of responding to what you quote.

To be that pedantic with “There is no doubt” instead of “I have no doubt,” is too childish. In a way, the reason is I do not want to be too egoistic.

Stop complaining, if you think I am wrong in anyway, present your case clearly, like,
-the thesis is 1+1=2,
-you [VA] insist it is 1+1=4.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A contradiction is a logical thing. VA can't process logic so he can't perceive contradictions.

Your desperation with indirect realism is a case of amplified and highly active TMT in you that you blindly insist in chasing an illusion as the real thing.
If you can manage your TMT more effectively you would not be so desperate in reifying an illusion re indirect realism.

It's a fact that I'm not chasing an illusion.

Then 'prove' demonstrate or justify what is you claim, i.e. the thing [indirect realized] that is absolutely mind-independent is really real?

There is no way you can demonstrate or justify it, your desperate claim is merely to soothe the existential terrors, pains and angsts driven the the existential crisis and TMT.

[Atla]

Your desperation with indirect realism is a case of amplified and highly active TMT in you that you blindly insist in chasing an illusion as the real thing.
If you can manage your TMT more effectively you would not be so desperate in reifying an illusion re indirect realism.

It's a fact that I'm not chasing an illusion.

Then 'prove' demonstrate or justify what is you claim, i.e. the thing [indirect realized] that is absolutely mind-independent is really real?

There is no way you can demonstrate or justify it, your desperate claim is merely to soothe the existential terrors, pains and angsts driven the the existential crisis and TMT.

You made at least 3 mistakes here again, I won't go over them again, it's pointless. I was talking to IWP.