#objectivity

[ethicaltreatmentofcowplants]

The "not getting pregnant" issue was pinpointed to me setting npc pregnancy chances to zero in Whims. Which I'm keeping that way because I'm sick enough of those townies in their apartments adopting horses 😅 They need to prove to me that they can be trusted with the responsibility of poop making objects, and so far I'm unconvinced.

So meet our first baby daddy - gallery save Ethren Reyes! Please give us a spellcaster firstborn to help out with our eventual six other children, Ethren.

And because I don't have certain gameplay mods installed, every baby daddy is a happy baby daddy 😉

[suliqyre]

You obscure your “I” by speaking in a voice that pretends to come from nowhere. “The sky is blue,” you say. There is no “I” here. Your sentence claims to report an observation about the world with no reference to an observer. Does that make it objective?

Read more...

[philosophybits]

Truth is not objective, ordinary reality, reflected in the knower and entering into him from outside, but rather the enlightenment, the transfiguration of reality: it is the introduction into the world's data of a quality, which was not there before truth was revealed and known.

Nikolai Berdyaev, Truth and Revelation

[spookygibberish]

Made a faintly insane list of of every animated movie I have good enough memories of to feel confident ranking, although some of them I would probably move around if I saw them more recently....

[thepersonalwords]

ANYAELE SAM CHIYSON’S LAW OF OBJECTIVITY : You must be aware of who you are, use your ability to do all things right, and have all things turn out well for you without hindrance through personal feelings, prejudice, impedance or encumbrance to make your mark impeccably and in a way that is free from any subjective preference and full of excellence.

Anyaele Sam Chiyson

[wayti-blog]

Look at other people and ask yourself if you are really seeing them or just your thoughts about them.... Without knowing it, we are coloring everything, putting our spin on it all.

― Jon Kabat-Zinn

[destinygoldenstar]

Difference Between Objective & Subjective

Objective = “It’s Good”

Subjective = “I Like It”

Objective is when you judge media based off of quality. Art direction. Storytelling. Writing. Visuals. Wordplay. Does it work and does it do what it sets out to do, which is mostly ‘be good’. (I mean, if you’re TRYING to make it bad, idk what you want me to say) It’s taking the objective standpoint on what works and what does not work based of the study of art and judging it solely on that.

Subjective is when you judge media based off of how YOU like it. We all have our own preferences and opinions and what we like and don’t like. So if it does something we like, then more times than not we will like it. Regardless of what the objective standpoint is. You’re judging the media by what your preferences are and how they make you feel. Your feelings are driving the viewing much more than if you’re looking at it from an objective lens.

For Example:

“The cake is very well made and very well decorated and it is well balanced in its texture and sweetness.” (Objective)

VS

“I find this cake really tasty and I love the flavor.” (Subjective)

Objective and Subjective opinions are NOT the same. And sometimes they are different.

It IS possible to dislike something because they do not meet your taste buds, but still admit how it is well made and well put together.

For Example:

“I do not like this song. At all. I can’t stand to listen to it.” (Subjective)

VS

“This song is very well put together. The instrumentals are consistent and benefit the lyrics, and said lyrics are structured beautifully.” (Objective)

It is ALSO possible to like something because it’s your cup of tea, but still admit it’s bad on an objective standpoint.

For Example:

“I like this character. This character is fun and enjoyable and I can relate to them.” (Subjective)

VS

“This character is badly written. Their storyline is inconsistent and unsatisfying and the overall direction of their personality and actions are not well thought out and it’s noticeable.” (Objective)

These are the terms used when people discuss their opinions. This way, you can understand better where they are coming from. Whether it is an objective or a subjective point of view.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Robert Maranto

Published: Feb 6, 2025

In its first days, the Trump administration issued executive orders to end taxpayer funding of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion practices. I support that goal. But how leaders make policies determines whether those policies endure.

Ending DEI requires something more democratic than executive orders the next president can undo with the stroke of a pen. Instead, congress and the president should do something novel—hold hearings, have debates, and pass a law.

One need not be a Trump supporter to agree that the president is right to criticize most DEI practices. As Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay detail in “Cynical Theories: How Activist Scholarship Made Everything About Race, Gender, and Identity,” critical race theory, postcolonial theory (which calls for destroying Israel), gender studies, and related academic fields provide intellectual support for DEI to define people as victims or oppressors based on their identity, while rejecting objectivity, individual rights, merit systems, and chromosome-based (binary) definitions of sex. 

DEI is an upper-class mass movement using social media mobs and nontransparent bureaucracies to impose racial and demographic essentialism, including quota-based hiring and admissions systems.

Like most Americans, I dissent. With Craig Frisby, I co-edited “Social Justice Versus Social Science,” showing that common DEI practices like diversity training typically do more harm than good. Empirical social science likewise fails to support concepts like microaggressions, white fragility, and implicit biases.

Elite colleges, as Richard Sander points out, use racial quotas in admissions, setting up underprepared minorities for academic failure while admitting wealthy whites over less privileged but better-prepared Asians, just as 20th-century antisemites kept out Jews. As Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.” It is also central to most of DEI. 

Professors leveling these critiques risk isolation and even termination at the hands of activists and bureaucrats, as Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression data show. Often, critics are never hired in the first place, screened out by required DEI statements or ideological hiring committees. As Robert George and Anna Krylov detail in “The Ruthless Politicization of Science Funding,” even in the previously apolitical hard sciences, the Biden administration used executive orders to replace scientific merit with ideology or identity in assigning tens of billions of dollars in grants, changing the culture of research.

In short, the Trump administration is right to oppose DEI’s massive resistance (to use a 1950s term) to colorblind merit systems. Yet executive orders are the wrong means to deconstruct DEI. To see why, consider Title IX. As political scientist Shep Melnick detailed in “The Evolution of Title IX,” the Obama administration used executive orders and nontransparent regulatory guidance (“dear colleague letters” to campuses) to erase the biological (binary) definition of sex and empower massive censorship bureaucracies to enforce “equity.” 

The first Trump administration revoked these policies, which were later reimposed by President Biden. That executive seesaw degrades both effective administration and democratic legitimacy.

Instead, we should copy the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which helped defeat an earlier version of racial essentialism. Media accounts and congressional hearings established the need for the law. As Phillip Wallach details in “Why Congress,” debates over the CRA stretched through the spring of 1964, including an amending process and a senate filibuster by southern Democrats. After three months of this, the CRA passed with a strong, bipartisan majority. That sent a message.

Segregationists lost decisively, but a democratic process giving the losers their say legitimized the CRA. That fair and open process enabled southern Democrats to tell their white constituents, as Senator Richard Russell (D-Ga.) said after CRA’s passage, “all good citizens will learn to live with the statute and abide by its final adjudication.” Massive resistance suffered a mortal wound. 

Apply this to today’s versions of racial essentialism. Congress should hold lengthy hearings investigating DEI’s politicization of science, personnel systems, and college admissions, like the hearings Congresswoman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) held in the last Congress uncovering campus antisemitism, itself fostered by DEI. Congressional leaders should then craft bills outlawing DEI practices that undermine the colorblind merit systems most Americans of all races support.

Good people often have bad ideas. Like 1960s southern Democrats, today’s progressive Democrats believe in racial essentialism and will filibuster to defend it. That’s fine. If progressives want to brand themselves as supporters of censorship, racial quotas, and antisemitism, they have every right to do so. Racial and demographic essentialism will be defeated through open debate and legislation, just as in 1964. The resulting bipartisan legislation will have the legitimacy and legality to last across presidential administrations.

That’s democracy. Our elected leaders should give it a try.  

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century chair in Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, and a founding member of the Society for Open Inquiry in Behavioral Science. These opinions may not reflect those of his employer. 

[sunder-the-gold]

Why games can't have real moral choices anymore: Game of Thrones-ification, and other solipsistic nonsense

I kind of went off the rails with a previous ask, and I want to put this out there on its own.

This is the same mentality that demanded the removal of morality paths from video games, that would insist playing a Renegade in Mass Effect should get you the same results as playing a Paragon, and that cheerfully ignored previous canon about how Thedas' Crows worked so that they could be presented as heroes in Veilguard now that the writers made them protagonists.

The mindset that players aren't allowed to choose "mean" morality paths anymore, because a protagonist can never be "evil".

This mindset that "protagonism = heroism" and "antagonism = villainy".

This mindset would insist that inFamous' Cole McGrath's two different morality paths have equal weight, because no matter what he does he is still the protagonist.

Because everyone is the protagonist of their own story, and the writers are solipsists who insist that they can never be evil, only their own personal antagonists in real life can be evil.

"As long as you are the protagonist, as long as you are 'the lesser evil', you can use 'evil' tactics as much as you want and still be a virtuous person! If you can only find an Acceptable Target, no amount of cruelty and sadism against them can be considered Evil!"

"If I frame this person as an antagonist, it doesn't matter how fair, even-handed, reasonable, compassionate, or merciful they are... because they stand in the protagonist's way and won't let them do everything they want, they are evil villains and nothing you do to them is 'crossing a line'."

In a word: Dustborn.

From what little I've seen of Dustborn from the few people who bothered to play and review it. The people who were absolutely disgusted with the villainy of the protagonists and who laughed that the writers tried to strawman the belief in objective truth as being the same thing as believing that personal opinions were the same thing as facts.

A confused delusion that could only occur to people who don't believe in objective truth. People who think they can dictate reality to nature as long as they manufacture the appearance of majority consensus. By attacking anyone who voices a dissenting opinion.

[pratchettquotes]

Not for the first time, Moist deplored his own tendency to see the angles in whatever happened, good or bad.

Terry Pratchett, Raising Steam

[thirdity]

If we are always arriving and departing, it is also true that we are eternally anchored. One's destination is never a place, but rather a new way of looking at things.

Henry Miller, Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch

[occknow]

It is always wise to look ahead, but difficult to look further than you can see.— From Sense and Nonsense in Psychology by H. J. Eysenck

[philosophybits]

There is no objective reality... there is only an illusion of consciousness, there is only an objectification of reality, which was created by the spirit. The origin of life is creativity, freedom; and the personality, subject, and spirit are the representatives of that origin, but not the nature, not the object.

Nikolai Berdyaev, Dream and Reality

[30ahchaleh]

Subjectivity & Objectivity

ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ.ـ

در روایتی آمده ، وقتی کمال‌الملک را در اتاقی زندانی کردن روی دیوار حفره‌ای به ��یرون و به سوی آزادی نقاشی کرد چنان واقعگرایانه که وقتی پادشاه آنرا دید حکم به آزادی او داد

تا مادامی که "حس" فرمانروایی میکند

بشر چه بیهوده دعوا ها میکند ، که در هرچیزی آن چیز ، عینیت است یا ذهنیت

.

اگر این فرمانروا اهل بود هرچیزی ممکن و سهل بود اما مهمتر آنست که این اهلی بودن در کدام جهت و سو خواهدبود

افسار حس من ، دست عین است یا ذهن

گاه زندان و زندان بان و زندانی در ذهن است ، گاه در عین

.

نه میتوان عینیت را انکار کرد یا بیشتر بها داد نه ذهنیت را

میدانم در سرزمین تعادل این بحث ها حرف مفت است اما رسیدن به آن آبادی خود گذر از هفت خان رستم است

وگرنه این همه مشتری نداشت بازار می و قرص و افیون فروشان

پس قبل آنکه راه‌مان به این مدل بازار برسد

تا کی؟ میتوان با ذهن ، عین را گول زد و بلعکس مثل آن روایت گفته شده در مقدمه چیزی صرفا مُسکن قبل از رسیدن به مَسکن

امید به آنست که تا آن یکی نیست آن دیگری یار باشد نه بیش از این

که اگر بیش شد خودش زار میشود همچو آن بازار

END

.

ـ1️⃣ - پ،ن : Tetrahedron

این پست مکمل پست قبلی‌ست تا بدانم هیچ چیز به خودی خود بد نیست جعل که نوعی باطل است گاه مدد رسان است

حتی حتی اگر برای بشر ، خدای ذهنی(دینی) جعلی باشد از اصل خدای عینی(که تعر��ف شده)

اما

چه‌وقت؟ چه‌جا؟ چه‌قدر؟ در هرچیز مهم است

همان مثلث القاعده‌ی "تعادل" به راس چه‌کسی(یاچه‌چیزی)؟

به قول مولانا

گر با دیگری مجلس میسازم و لاغ

ننهم به خدا ز مهر کس بر دل داغ

لیکن چو فرو شود کسی را خورشید

در پیش نهد بجای خورشید چراغ

.

ـ2️⃣ - پ،ن : The eternal painter

در تکاپوی ساخت این پست بودم که متوجه شدم انگلیسی زبان ها گویا واژه ای با مفهوم "ازلی" ندارن

ازلی و ابدی را

Eternal

میدانند مفهومی که ما آنرا "ابدی" میدانیم که البته در اینجور بحث ها صحیح تر است . آیا واقعا اینطوریه؟ انگلیسی دان ها جواب بدهند

اگر اینطور باشه خودشون رو توی مسائل غیر عینی در مسیر درست راحت کردن اما در علم منفی و مثبت بی‌نهایت را خوب رعایت میکنن😅ـ

.

.

.

[mbti-notes]

Anon wrote: Hello again. I am always grateful for your responses and your knowledge. I have this topic which I want to discuss.

I realized that when making judgements and critiques I am often objective. I look from all aspects and give an objective judgement which often comes as vague. I don’t have personal internalized values and morals; I often take and adapt external moral judgments rather from my own.

In many situations I can’t decide what is right and wrong, for example with people’s behavior, I see what is supposed to be accepted and judge it that way. I ask people what would they do in certain situations, for example if someone just came and slapped you out of nowhere, and what would their reaction be and try to see what is the right response (to slap back, to get angry, to ask, to stay silent). I see the world too objectively that it may seem a bit apathetic.

I don’t know if this is a result of low self esteem where I see that my opinions don’t matter (although I really don’t have an opinion and I have no idea what I should be thinking), or a projection of fe function (I am an INFJ), or something else.

Just to add that I am not distressed by the fact that I don’t know what is right and what is wrong, I just go by certain ‘universal’ principles, which that I concretely can make judgments of (and are somewhat general). Its just that I am confused why I am like this.

----------------------

There's nothing wrong with being objective per se, in fact, it is often a good thing to be more objective when making decisions. It only becomes a problem when it's actually motivated by some unhealthy psychological issue that you're not fully aware of, which means the objectivity isn't genuine.

There are two main factors to consider, which may work separately or interact with each other:

1) Ego Development: An important stage of healthy ego development is the formation of a personal identity, which includes possessing your own beliefs, values, and ideals, among other things. Having a strong personal identity necessitates self-respect, self-expression, and asserting individuality. There are a variety of reasons why people do not get through this stage of ego development. These people generally suffer the ill-effects of having a weak sense of self. If you believe objectivity requires you to be fair and take every viewpoint into account, then why isn't yours included? For a human being to not have a viewpoint means that they are not fully exercising their intellectual faculties and not properly honoring their own personal needs/preferences, which essentially results in them being "empty" and completely vulnerable to manipulation or exploitation. This is obviously not a good way to be.

2) Fe Development: Overindulgence of auxiliary Fe is characterized by overdependence on outside/objective sources when making value judgments. Value judgments include moral judgments. Usually, the underlying reason for the overdependence is a fear of taking full personal responsibility. If you hold strong personal beliefs and values, especially of the moral variety, you will feel compelled to stand up and stand out in order to defend them. Do you dare live your life constantly getting in other people's faces? Many FJs fear expressing their individuality fully because it would make them vulnerable to conflict, criticism, social reprisals, or being judged negatively as self-centered or selfish. It's easier to hide behind the mask of so-called impersonal "objectivity" when it is implied to be "unassailable". Making the choice to think in the same way as everyone else grants you social safety, does it not? It's a big reason why so many people choose conformity. But conformity is not the same as objectivity.