He's not necessarily terrible with reason either. He does get things wrong but compared to what's typical on the left he's not a complete moron. A lot of his fame has been standing up against imbeciles which are plentiful on the left. There's a similar pattern for hotheads. The two tend to go hand in hand.
He's started to fall out of favour playing both sides and has become inconsistent in doing so.
Shapiro has always been open about not liking Trump but often on the side of democrats are worse, though this piece is particularly crass, I agree, going out of his way to bash and hate on Trump probably virtue signalling his audience and trying to gain acceptance. His litany of complaints suggests he's trying to buy in to TDS. He's always been out for himself which has pitted him against some of the left's lunacy though he himself isn't entirely departed from that either.
I think he's great with statistics and calling out people who manipulate them in the name of emotional arguments. I think he's pretty good at debate. For me, his complete inability to see Israel as anything other than pure as the driven snow is impossible to ignore and sometimes impossible to stomach and I had to stop listening. He was a decent step towards the right direction of where I am today. He's palatable for slightly advanced normies.
He gets some statistics wrong such as a 40% suicide rate.
It's suicide "ideation" and it's from sources, charities trying to pull on your heart strings to get you to open your open up your purse for them. In fact it goes through multiple sources with conflicting interests.
For example the group that finds trans people to survey and the groups that then write up and published the result are different but both have their interests served by presenting it as a sob story.
The study is flawed on many levels. It's a self survey where the applicants know it's in their interests to lie. A rate as low as 40% (rounded) is actually quite remarkable.
Other biased surveys are able to extract rates as high as 70% to 90% because of the inherent bias and often that it serves the interests of the person being surveyed, the person running the survey and the person publishing the survey to answer that way.
Those surveys with high results saw results go up again and again after trans people saw that it worked in their favour from the first widely published result.
What's interesting with the first publication is not only that it doesn't consider whether those high rates of suicide ideation support it's policies, that it doesn't consider the specifics or that it doesn't consider overlap with other circumstances fully.
Most people have at some point in their lives rogue thoughts that can be terrible and suicide ideation though they are spontaneous and involuntary so they don't think of it like that.
For example some people at some point of their lives standing by a bridge will have a spontaneous imagination of jumping of it. Many people have this thought when standing on the platform waiting for the train even though they have no desire to jump.
This might not necessarily be suicide ideation but it technically qualifies. Such unwanted thoughts or imaginings are often instead a response to the danger such as what not to do and don't necessarily indicate any indication toward suicide. It's a way to try to fathom the danger.
When I was studying the science of the NPC meme, I can't remember where it came from but somewhere people were talking about other studies about things such as inner dialogue, imagination, etc and other scientific studies or measurements of that.
In examining that there was a mention of around 40% of people surveyed, normal people, having involuntary thoughts that could be classed as suicide ideation such as the bridge example. These are often classed under intrusive thoughts.
I thought the study was bad before but after hearing of that other study which was psychology and not meant to be associated at all I choked on my orange juice.
There are so few trans people and the suicide rate is still very low even for them that it can't be measured very well. It nearly always falls within the margin of error the sample sizes are so small unless social "scientists" cheat with things such as intersectionality and torture the data to inflate the rate.
The whole claim that they must receive treatment otherwise death is a coin's flip (self inflicted death meaning they are one and the same threat) is bogus and Ben has done a lot of damage to repeat that erroneous claim that's often used to excuse the inexcusable such as sex change operations (which are just plastic surgery) being classed as "life saving operations" the same way as real life saving heart surgery would be classified at the tax payer's expense.
If you don’t mind my asking, why do you seem to know so much about inner dialogue, imagination, unwanted thoughts etc.? I have a special interest in all of that and wonder if you have some recommended reading a casual like me could check out to learn some more about it.
If you search for the NPC meme first (IE, know your meme). That's a concept usually based on gaming (Non Playable Character) and the hard problem of consciousness. Both of those can easily be found on wiki.
At some point in the meme people stumbled upon some research which isn't conclusive but that suggests some people might not have inner dialogue. That is, the inner processes that people experience that might constitute processes required for free thought.
That study isn't perfect but does raise a question about what we actually know about the inner processes if science shows that those we might typically experience are uniform.
Once you go down the road of what psychologists actually know about inner experience, what they have asked people "What are you thinking." and what they have collected then you're exposed to this.
There are quite a few video debates on it though nearly all tend to cover a few given angles at a time and don't give a big picture. Proof of NPCs tends to relate to the study that hinted at an absence of inner dialogue.
Inner experience might not always be the same problem as philosophical zombies but the term NPC can refer to a state arising from the absence of a number of different variations in faculties that can also be intermixed.
People can definitely be made to behave like NPCs. The NPC meme is in response to direct observation of people reciting often media provided or picked from the grapevine scripted dialogue to support their political position but otherwise aren't able to make proper cognisant debate in response to the person they're speaking too.
There is a strong suggestion that some people think less for themselves but also that what we're seeing is the difference between those who are intellectually lazy or otherwise incapacitated and those who are not.
He's not necessarily terrible with reason either. He does get things wrong but compared to what's typical on the left he's not a complete moron. A lot of his fame has been standing up against imbeciles which are plentiful on the left. There's a similar pattern for hotheads. The two tend to go hand in hand.
He's started to fall out of favour playing both sides and has become inconsistent in doing so.
Shapiro has always been open about not liking Trump but often on the side of democrats are worse, though this piece is particularly crass, I agree, going out of his way to bash and hate on Trump probably virtue signalling his audience and trying to gain acceptance. His litany of complaints suggests he's trying to buy in to TDS. He's always been out for himself which has pitted him against some of the left's lunacy though he himself isn't entirely departed from that either.
I think he's great with statistics and calling out people who manipulate them in the name of emotional arguments. I think he's pretty good at debate. For me, his complete inability to see Israel as anything other than pure as the driven snow is impossible to ignore and sometimes impossible to stomach and I had to stop listening. He was a decent step towards the right direction of where I am today. He's palatable for slightly advanced normies.
He gets some statistics wrong such as a 40% suicide rate.
It's suicide "ideation" and it's from sources, charities trying to pull on your heart strings to get you to open your open up your purse for them. In fact it goes through multiple sources with conflicting interests.
For example the group that finds trans people to survey and the groups that then write up and published the result are different but both have their interests served by presenting it as a sob story.
The study is flawed on many levels. It's a self survey where the applicants know it's in their interests to lie. A rate as low as 40% (rounded) is actually quite remarkable.
Other biased surveys are able to extract rates as high as 70% to 90% because of the inherent bias and often that it serves the interests of the person being surveyed, the person running the survey and the person publishing the survey to answer that way.
Those surveys with high results saw results go up again and again after trans people saw that it worked in their favour from the first widely published result.
What's interesting with the first publication is not only that it doesn't consider whether those high rates of suicide ideation support it's policies, that it doesn't consider the specifics or that it doesn't consider overlap with other circumstances fully.
Most people have at some point in their lives rogue thoughts that can be terrible and suicide ideation though they are spontaneous and involuntary so they don't think of it like that.
For example some people at some point of their lives standing by a bridge will have a spontaneous imagination of jumping of it. Many people have this thought when standing on the platform waiting for the train even though they have no desire to jump.
This might not necessarily be suicide ideation but it technically qualifies. Such unwanted thoughts or imaginings are often instead a response to the danger such as what not to do and don't necessarily indicate any indication toward suicide. It's a way to try to fathom the danger.
When I was studying the science of the NPC meme, I can't remember where it came from but somewhere people were talking about other studies about things such as inner dialogue, imagination, etc and other scientific studies or measurements of that.
In examining that there was a mention of around 40% of people surveyed, normal people, having involuntary thoughts that could be classed as suicide ideation such as the bridge example. These are often classed under intrusive thoughts.
I thought the study was bad before but after hearing of that other study which was psychology and not meant to be associated at all I choked on my orange juice.
There are so few trans people and the suicide rate is still very low even for them that it can't be measured very well. It nearly always falls within the margin of error the sample sizes are so small unless social "scientists" cheat with things such as intersectionality and torture the data to inflate the rate.
The whole claim that they must receive treatment otherwise death is a coin's flip (self inflicted death meaning they are one and the same threat) is bogus and Ben has done a lot of damage to repeat that erroneous claim that's often used to excuse the inexcusable such as sex change operations (which are just plastic surgery) being classed as "life saving operations" the same way as real life saving heart surgery would be classified at the tax payer's expense.
Thank you for a thorough response.
If you don’t mind my asking, why do you seem to know so much about inner dialogue, imagination, unwanted thoughts etc.? I have a special interest in all of that and wonder if you have some recommended reading a casual like me could check out to learn some more about it.
If you search for the NPC meme first (IE, know your meme). That's a concept usually based on gaming (Non Playable Character) and the hard problem of consciousness. Both of those can easily be found on wiki.
At some point in the meme people stumbled upon some research which isn't conclusive but that suggests some people might not have inner dialogue. That is, the inner processes that people experience that might constitute processes required for free thought.
That study isn't perfect but does raise a question about what we actually know about the inner processes if science shows that those we might typically experience are uniform.
Once you go down the road of what psychologists actually know about inner experience, what they have asked people "What are you thinking." and what they have collected then you're exposed to this.
There are quite a few video debates on it though nearly all tend to cover a few given angles at a time and don't give a big picture. Proof of NPCs tends to relate to the study that hinted at an absence of inner dialogue.
Inner experience might not always be the same problem as philosophical zombies but the term NPC can refer to a state arising from the absence of a number of different variations in faculties that can also be intermixed.
People can definitely be made to behave like NPCs. The NPC meme is in response to direct observation of people reciting often media provided or picked from the grapevine scripted dialogue to support their political position but otherwise aren't able to make proper cognisant debate in response to the person they're speaking too.
There is a strong suggestion that some people think less for themselves but also that what we're seeing is the difference between those who are intellectually lazy or otherwise incapacitated and those who are not.