When I was in school, the attitude that many people had was that academic learning was worthless and that the only thing that mattered in life was common sense and social skills — Ilya B Shambat

Unless someone here actually adopts this unsupportable view, you're arguing a straw man.

You may want that attitude if you are raising salesmen and lawyers. — Ilya B Shambat

Except that lawyers and salesmen also need to be educated.

The strong willed person wakes up at 5 am on Saturday and trains in the driving rain for the upcoming marathon. The weak willed one sleeps in and eats doughnuts and watches the rain through the curtains.

There are thousands of examples you can create where your will is challenged. The heroin addict's will is tested minute by minute. Regardless, he has a free will.

Guys, this thread is here to allow discussion about recent bannings.

No, my position is that you haven't justified your assertion that if something causes harm then it is immoral. Perhaps some things are acceptable even if they cause harm. — Michael

Utilitarianism seems to require a reduction in overall harm, but the punishment cannot obviously exceed the harm of the drug itself.

Famous people's careers have survived worse, I'm afraid. Remember when Sean Penn beat up then-girlfriend Madonna with a baseball bat? — NKBJ

She denies that occurred. https://www.thedailybeast.com/madonna-comes-forward-about-sean-penns-alleged-abuse-sean-has-never-struck-me

I deny full responsibility because I'm not fully responsible. — S

Alright, so let's say you got drunk and belligerent and punched a guy named Bob in the face. There are 100 percentage points of responsibility you can dole out. How many of those 100 points do you get? If not 100, who gets the rest?

Perhaps your punishment should be lessened due to the extent of your intent, but I can't see reducing your responsibility.

If your behavior was motivated by a high fever, it'd likely reduce or eliminate your responsibility, but I can't see voluntary intoxication as a viable defense.

Alright, let's keep this in order:

You said:

Thing is, what this demonstrates is that there is no essential difference between mental illness and social stigma. — unenlightened

I said:

I can't buy into the argument, though, that Charles Manson was essentially fine and that I can't reliably tell him apart from the average man next door. — Hanover

You then said:

Then don't make the argument. It's certainly not one that I make. — unenlightened

And no one would be so silly as to try and suggest that. So remove the stuffing from your straw man and put it on the compost heap. — unenlightened

Mine wasn't a straw man, it was a reductio ad absurdum. That is to say, if one holds that there is no essential difference between mental illness and social stigma, one implicitly holds that Charles Manson (or, another example, Jeffrey Dahmer who raped and ate his victims) is not mentally ill but just someone we have chosen to stigmatize. That there might be hard cases where it's hard to distinguish if the person is mentally ill or whether we just find the person's behavior violative of certain societal norms doesn't mean there aren't obvious cases of mental illness.

I don't excuse my belligerence, I accept proportional responsibility, then I make light of it and move on, because otherwise it would eat me up inside and I would be at great risk of doing something even more self-destructive. — S

So you deny full responsibility to assuage your guilt so that you can feel better about yourself so that you can be a better person. Nice mental gymnastics. Does this method of self-affirmation work only for drug induced violent states or does it also work for intentional acts of violence? Can I shoot someone in the face and then deny full responsibility in order to unburden my conscience so that I can go out and be more productive?

You offered us once a personal account where you got wasted and belligerent to the point the police were involved. Obviously your belligerence was immoral, but wouldn't you say your decision to get wasted by itself was as well, even had you not become belligerent, just due to the fact that you recklessly exposed the public to a wild eyed S with no rational self control? Or do you maintain even your belligerence was excusable, as it was not really S doing those things, but a Mr. Hyde occupying your body?

Really? Then on your authority (you we're even the nick I borrowed from the old PF), I won't post anymore. — Wallows

Now that the issue is resolved, I'll close this thread.

We don't know who anyone is or where they're involved in. Except Hanover who has been outed as Kim Kardashian's bikini waxer — Baden

Jelly.

There should be a post-number before being able to start new threads. Like, after 10 or 20 posts you can start new threads — Christoffer

Some might have profound posts on the first attempt, while others might be at around post 7600 and only want to talk about celebrity pubic hair. It's really a case by case sort of thing.

It's not like anything actually happened. Nobody came. Nobody posted. Nobody left. Nobody even had trouble with the English language.

If only someone would name themselves Your Mama,, I could have endless fun.

You should do less of that and more campaigning for Obama. — Michael

I'll do it because you've told me to, but I think I probably should wait until he declares his candidacy for VP. Usually the presidential candidate picks his VP, but I guess this is a different sort of election.

Pfft. — Michael

That's why I said "I think." But anyway, he should give it a try and see what happens.

I don't think that's legal under the Constitution.https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#History

As to why mental illness was in quotes, if you had cared to read my post seriously you would have seen the examples where being a slave wanting to escape and being homosexual were mental illnesses. Do these mental illnesses really exist to you, are they due to a defect in the brain of these individuals, or were they a fiction in the minds of the people who wanted their slaves to behave and who didn't like homosexuals? — leo

I fully understand your post. It generalizes to the profession from a few examples. It just doesn't logically follow that because you have examples of past errors that the entire enterprise is failed. Or, more concretely, the fact that slaves were once diagnosed as mentally deranged because they sought emancipation does not mean that Charles Manson is sane. I agree entirely that anyone in a position of influence, from doctors to Indian chiefs, should exercise prudence when reaching their decisions because what they decide matters.

Regarding the article you posted, the author begins with this paragraph:

"In my career as a psychologist, I have talked with hundreds of people previously diagnosed by other professionals with oppositional defiant disorder, attention deficit hyperactive disorder, anxiety disorder and other psychiatric illnesses, and I am struck by (1) how many of those diagnosed are essentially anti-authoritarians, and (2) how those professionals who have diagnosed them are not."


This is non-scientific anecdotal opining. If you want to know what makes the profession unscientific, it's stuff like this. If they actually can show that the diagnoses of these disorders correlates simply with volitional objections to authority, then that might be cause to reconsider the current treatment and categorization of these behaviors as disorders.

I personally do question the ADD diagnoses that are often placed upon children, and I agree that it should be studied more and maybe reconsidered. I've often thought it better stood for Adult Discipline Disorder, where the problem really rested on poor parenting and not mentally troubled kids.

Well, based on the context, the quotes are clearly meant to differentiate it from physical illnesses, and associated approaches to curing them. — csalisbury

I disagree that that's why it was in quotes. The way one differentiates between mental and physical illness is simply to use the word "mental" or "physical." The reason mental illness was put in quotes was to question whether there really was such a thing.

think it's telling that your response to someone who is discussing how people with mental illness are shamed and stigmatized, making their problems worse - how the response is to post a highly inflammatory image meant to evoke the worst fears that people have about mental illness (fears shared by the mentally ill themselves.) — csalisbury

The posting of the image was to respond to the poster's suggestion that there really wasn't any such thing as mental illness. The image chosen was just because it was dramatic, not because it was of a homicidal maniac. I could just as much made my point posting someone clearly breaking from reality in a non-violent way. My point is just that there really is a thing called mental illness, and while I'll concede there are the hard cases where we're not sure if the behavior is to be designated an illness, there are many cases that are abundantly clear.

I was lost for a long time in the system, out of the system, back in the system - untiI Ifound a therapist who actually seemed to care, or think me as something other than an in-the-wild example of a DSM species. — csalisbury

I have sympathy for your personal experiences, but this comment seems to admit to the two things I was arguing for (1) that there is such a thing as mental illness, and (2) psychologists can and do help. Your complaint seems to be that you were burdened with some really bad therapists, but if you're acknowledging there is such a thing as good therapy, then the failure is in systematizing it so that it can be predictably available to everyone.

Thing is, what this demonstrates is that there is no essential difference between mental illness and social stigma. And when I say 'essential' I mean a difference that allows psychologists, psychiatrists, philosophers or anyone else to reliably tell them apart. — unenlightened

Perhaps there simply never was a meaningful basis to claim homosexuality was a mental illness, but that it was actually only so categorized due to reliance upon the morality of the time. Is the same true of schizophrenia though? Do you believe we consider a man who believes he is Jesus, who talks to a person who is not there but who he thinks is, and who meticulously stores all his fingernail clippings so that he can have them tested for the drugs he is certain the CIA is injecting into him when he sleeps simply someone we have socially stigmatized but who in a more enlightened time will be considered healthy?

My point here is simply to concede the fallibility of the profession in having in the past medicalized what really were simply moral judgments, but to also recognize that some people really are terribly mentally ill regardless of how liberal or conservative we might be in our political beliefs.

This seems like a typical categorization problem we always have with most things we do, where there is one group of things we call X, another not X, and the last maybe X. So, there are certain behaviors that are healthy, some clearly not healthy, and the last, maybe healthy, maybe not. I can't buy into the argument, though, that Charles Manson was essentially fine and that I can't reliably tell him apart from the average man next door.

All that you're saying is that corrupt people will use corrupt means to corrupt. That is true regardless of the means. It's irrelevant who or what they use to corrupt, whether that be physicians, psychologists, priests, police officers, judges, military personnel, or whoever. I get that psychologists, as recognized authorities, wield certain power, but so do all sorts of people. I just don't see that psychologists have that much power over policy in today's society or that they are a particular group that needs to singled out as oppressors.

Sure, it used to be considered a psychiatric illness to be homosexual, but it was hardly psychologists who first vilified homosexuals. They were pretty much just parroting the ideology of the times. Today's psychologists seem to be much farther left than right, being a force for greater human rights.

Most people don't need to ingest pills to feel better and cure or hide their 'mental illness'. They simply need to be accepted, respected, listened to, supported. If mental health practice was focused first of all on that, I'm sure it would be much much more effective. — leo

And what do you base your suggestion that the majority in the mental health field reject, disrespect, ignore, and refuse to support their patients? If you have arrived at a method to cure most people's mental illness, why don't you publish it so that it can be implemented if you're sure your method would be much much more effective?

Why is mental illness in quotes? Does it not really exist?

That's the best you can come up with? I must enjoy lynchings like a Klansman?

It also shouldn't be understated how major events can shape generations — Maw

True. I will never forget this most glorious day:

With your permission, I'd like to put your review on the back cover of my book.

Did I say anything remotely like this: that only in a utopian state can psychologists (or anyone have input) into the democratic process? — boethius

Yes. This is what you said:

"If community values are indeed reflected in an effective democratic system where no one is disenfranchised and everyone has equal say and political dialogue is open without parties with disproportional external or internal manipulative or obstructionist force, then I would expect mental health professionals to be in constructive dialogue with society to manage the issues outlined above without any fear of career repercussions of criticizing current policies as potentially unethical."

That view of a democracy is Utopian. There is not any such democracy nor could there be. It's an ideal you've posited.

If one feels one's government is not sufficiently just and fair, then one should expect such a government to use the tools of psychology/psychiatry and mental health sphere to maintain the power relations, where ever possible. — boethius

This complaint is a universal objection, having no more to do with psychology than any other science, religion, political theory, or common mythology. Bad people use recognized authorities to persuade others to their view. There's no reason to target psychology in this attack over any other group of alleged experts or authorities.

What I say was that an oppressive government is going to have oppressive policy objectives and will train for and select for psychologists and psychiatrists that are effective at achieving those objectives, just as with the police and military (which doesn't imply "all police are bad" or "the science of criminology doesn't exist" or that the only solution is a "utopia, and until we have utopia we must get rid of police, soldiers or psychologists"). — boethius

I'll concede the tautology. Oppressive governments will be oppressive. I just don't see how that translates into oppressive governments being more likely to use psychologists than they will plumbers to get what they want. Why are you targeting psychologists as the masterminds for the oppressive governments? If you think, for example, that today's America is manipulated by the government (and some surely do), that doesn't mean that this manipulation was orchestrated by a team of dark psychologists. What it means is that the people in power have manipulated people by the rhetoric and whatnot. They've not had their opposition institutionalized into psychiatric hospitals and declared crazy.

My secondary point, tangentially related to the main issues of the debate, is that I view a direct link between the civil rights movement, dissident scientists challenging the status quo of psychiatry (it was certainly not the psychology/psychiatry community as a whole that suddenly abandoned pseudo-scientific theories justifying segregation and other social injustices), and a direct link with features of American society that are part of what I would call effective democracy (freedom of speech, independent press, etc.). — boethius

The reason rehabilitative approaches were abandoned in the 1970s wasn't because dissident scientists challenged the status quo. It was because crime surged in the 1970s and it was felt we needed stricter punitive measures to being society under control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States ; <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762476/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762476/</a>

You make it sound like the move toward retributive policies was an outgrowth of liberal ideas and a recognition of the damage done by psychologists. The move toward retributive policies was a turn to the right, with an emphasis on law and order, punishment, and personal responsibility. Today, due to issues of overcrowding and expense, we're moving back toward a less punitive model, which is considered a liberalizing of the criminal justice system. It may in fact be, but I'd submit it's motivated by pragmatics more than anything else.

Have the balls to apply to a doctoral program as I did, make sure you have the grades, the letters of recommendation, as well as the background to support your excellent character. Get in, complete the program as well as residency. Get on the APA board and change the game from within. Getting on an online philosophy forum does shit to change the system. I at least put in the work to try and make a difference in the system and yes there is plenty to debate and disagree with, but for certain I've seen an excellent group of board members who are listening to people in psychiatric distress and we are evolving better methods of producing a better way in treating the human condition. — Anaxagoras

In response to this ad hom diversion, I'll present my own:

I really fail to see why you take such challenge to the posters on this board, constantly feeling the need to prove your credentials and authority on such matters. It doesn't sway any opinions and it just makes you look pissed off for not being taken as seriously as you demand. I'm just suggesting that the tact of explaining what it is that psychiatrists do in helping the world is a better approach than telling people they're dumbasses for criticizing that which they don't understand.

We need to talk about Kevin. — S

Yes, yes we do.

Here's my creative writing story. Let me know what you think. I call it "War and Peace."

Once upon a time there was a man named Jack and he had a son and brother named Jack. Jack was talking to Jack and he said that he wanted to go to the store, so Jack went to the store but he forgot Jack. His nephew was like, "what?" and Jack said to him that he shouldn't have left Jack, so Jack got all up in Jack's face and Jack and Jack went at it.

The setting for this story is a field. Jack, Jack, and Jack are in a field. The field is green and it's on the edge of Towntown. There's this butcher in Towntown and he had a red wagon with a broken wheel, but the broken wheel was inside the wagon, not attached to the wagon, so it didn't affect the wagon rolling, but it was so big, there was no more space inside the wagon for Jack because Jack was big. Because Jack was so big only Jack could fit inside the wagon because Jack was small.

Anyway, Jack was butchering a lamb with a club and trying to force it down a tiny pipe when Jack asked him if he could borrow the wheel. Jack said "sure," so Jack pulled the wheel off the wagon so it wouldn't roll and now the bloody lamb died. Jack used his foot to force the lamb into the pipe as Jack rolled the 3 wheeled wagon away with the big wheel in it named Kevin.

So Kevin rolled down the street pulled by Jack with Jack in it. The lamb twitched and the pipe was needed for the church organ, so Jack blew the blood from the pipe and put it in Kevin. The pipe got named Lisa and that was what it was called until the name change in Chapter 4.

The theme of this story is that you don't know what you've got until it's gone. Once Kevin tipped over and Lisa rolled away and the lamb died, Jack cried but Jack didn't care. "It really just depends upon who you are," mused Jack.

I'm in favor of deceit in all its multitude of forms, whether it be to obtain undeserved money, a better job, or the fleeting pleasure of a woman.

I'm being sarcastic, which is only to say I don't see where you've advocated a position that is reasonably disputed. Whoever might say they openly lie to women in order to have sex with them can no more justify their position than any liar can.

If community values are indeed reflected in an effective democratic system where no one is disenfranchised and everyone has equal say and political dialogue is open without parties with disproportional external or internal manipulative or obstructionist force, then I would expect mental health professionals to be in constructive dialogue with society to manage the issues outlined above without any fear of career repercussions of criticizing current policies as potentially unethical.

Yes, if mental health professionals are engaged in creating and/or enforcing state propaganda, directly or through all sorts of subtle ways their profession in organized, I place a tremendous amount of moral responsibility on them for their participation. — boethius

We don't have to live in a Utopian state in order to allow psychologists (or anyone for that matter) to provide input into the democratic process. Psychologists are but one voice among many, and their power is checked by the multitude of other interests in society.

There was no incompatibility between the Nazi value system and the science of mental or physical health. — boethius

The Nazi example does not stand for the proposition that psychiatry is bunk or that it is only a weapon for the corrupt. The Nazis believed Jews (and many others) non-human and devoid of any value. That determination was not made by the Nazi version of the American Psychological Association. The Nazis used everything in their power to destroy Jews. The propaganda advanced by psychologists against Jews, whatever it might have been, was the least of the Jews' worry at that time.

But to the point of whether a government can misapply science in all its forms (including psychology) to advance evil, of course. There's no limit to human evil.

The German psychiatrists and psychologists had all sorts of "science based" theories on why some people needed to be put in concentration camps, developed the criteria for putting people in camps and, once in camps, criteria for distinguishing "good laborers" from the bad. They also experimented on and found chemicals to help people adapt to the conditions in the camp without challenging authority as much. — boethius

The primary theory of why someone needed to be put into a concentration camp was that they were Jewish. Often the decision of where they'd be sent was made by a Nazi soldier who simply pointed which direction they would go. You make it sound like the Nazis kept charts by each person's bed and they reviewed each case closely and made careful deliberate decisions, thinking they had to justify each patient's case on a case by case basis.

Nazi Germany can be used to show the depravity of mankind no doubt. I'm just curious why you think it has special application to psychology as science. I can't imagine that Nazi dentists, for example, treated Jews very well. Why don't you discuss how we should therefore now be highly suspicious of dentistry?

However, the justification of mental health interventions rests on the justification of the government policies, both in the specific systems that deploy mental health but also in the general good governing sense. — boethius

Mental health intervention occurs only with judicial oversight and its not a matter of a psychiatrist just forcing people into institutions. The likelihood of someone being forced unwillingly into a bed is far lower than someone in need of a bed not finding one.

So I don't see what you're suggesting, that it was some voluntary shift of a system that "worked" (to avoid uncomfortable but ultimately unfounded criticism?) to the sad only alternative of increasing punishment, decreasing all forms of rehabilitation (which, again, is a false equivalence with psychiatry and mental health to begin with), and increasing the prison population as a whole? — boethius

The point is that the psychologists themselves, who you are suggesting are drunk with power to control society, arrived at the conclusion that forced psychiatric treatment was ineffective in resolving criminal propensities. The findings of psychologists resulted in turning the system into one more retributive than rehabilitative and therefore reduced their own influence.

Are the Chinese mental health professional that are helping to track and predict using integrated surveillance and AI systems to minimize disruptive Muslim behaviour doing good work (are they potential terrorists with the mental culturally wide health conditions the Chinese government claims, or legitimate political actors seeking self-determination, as most other nations did at some point)? — boethius

I'm not in favor of anyone who violates basic human rights, tortures, brainwashes, or does generally terrible things. That would be the case whether they were psychologists, physicians, plumbers, or philosophers.

If a justice and prison system is maintaining oppressive and racist policies and the conditions in prison are inhumane and closer to a concentration camp of forced labour than to anything resembling justice and rehabilitation, then it is justified to resist such conditions. — boethius

You place a tremendous amount of responsibility on the mental health community for the enforcement of community values and propaganda on the citizens. That governments are often oppressive and horrific is undisputed, and their employment of any means possible for their ends is a historical fact, but blame rests more on the government leadership than their puppets. Mengele was a physician I suppose, but I can't blame medical science for the horrible experiments on human beings, often children, that the Nazis performed.

As another historical fact (which is why I cited that quote of you above) the 1970s marked a departure from using psychiatric diagnosis and psychiatric treatment on inmates, leading to a far more punitive approach to corrections than previously. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762476/

Many see this departure from the rehabilitative approach as the cause for current prison population surges. That is to say, while psychiatric approaches might be oppressive, so might be it be to ignore such approaches.

There are sentences that have not been written, — Banno

I said "authored," not written. I use my term liberally, to include any that have been conceptualized, regardless of whether memorialized in writing, by utterance, or otherwise.

sentences come from a specific perspective, and my saying that we ought look to the use of a sentence in preference to looking at its meaning. — Banno

If you received a text with various misspellings and incorrect words placed in error by spell check, would you look to use or try to figure out what was meant?

Because knowledge involves belief. But knowledge and truth are distinct. — Banno

Are they? What is raw truth? When you say "truth" is that the noumena? I think it is. If all I can know is the phenomenal, then why talk about what really is?

Do you insist that every sentence has an implied perspective? — Banno

I insist that every sentence is authored, and every author has perspective, so every sentence must have perspective.

Knowledge from no perspective is incoherent. Am I wrong here? I ask not to be stubborn, but only to see if your language analysis really makes metaphysical analysis superfluous.

A decontextualized sentence, read only by looking at the words would have no clear perspective. Nothing is implied related to the statement "the cat is on the mat" in terms of intent or meaning until we look upon the author, as only people have intents or perspectives, but no useful sentence is not authored by a person.

I enjoyed that story about your life.

Anywhere means: "From all places everyone has looked, the cat is on the mat." That is consensus subjective or is that just what you mean by objective?

""From my perspective, this sentence is in English" is first person perspective.

"I like ice cream" defines "like" as "from my perspective." The grammatical limitations on the correct use of pronouns doesn't speak to the metaphysical perspective.

How can one not have perspective? The view from nowhere?

Here's a simple test you might use to check if some fact is objective or subjective. Ask if it can be said in the first person. — Banno

Your test isn't whether it can be said in first person, but any person. This is because "person" simply references perspective. That is I/you/he likes ice cream are all correct and they occur in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person. You posit by definition that the statement "the cat is on the mat" is objective, but that simply points out a grammatical difference in that the author of the sentence hasn't offered perspective.

The metaphysical question is dodged by the diversion to grammar. The question still must be asked based upon whose perspective is the cat on the mat. If your answer is that it is a universal perspective, then I ask who had this universal perspective to author that sentence? If the answer is no one, then I can't fathom how that sentence got written.

A last wrinkle as to pronoun perspectives a that there does exist an objective pronoun "one" ( 3rd person objective/4th person). "Banno should eat his green beans if he wants to be happy" is 3rd person, and per your rule subjective. As noted "I" and "he" (the 1st and 2nd perspectives) work as well and the sentence remains subjective. But what if "one" is substituted for "Banno" in that sentence? That is a pronoun driven objective statement.

Note too the complications arisimg from the entry of the moral "should" in that sentence.

And last:

Any fact can be put into the third person. "Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate"; "This text is in English" — Banno

"This text is in English" is not third person. It's not in any person grammatically, but metaphysically it must be.

When you will point me to some members who chose to study Plato and Aristotle in moslem countries, I will begin reading your link. — sunknight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelianism#Islamic_world

Guess you have to start reading.

Multiculturalism and postmodernism which is how leftists try to destroy European culture is as alien as islam is. — sunknight

What is European culture? What food do they eat, language do they speak, religion do they have, and government system do they use?

The only problem is you try to deny that the European region has a culture of its own. I've got news for you though, it does have one and it's not compatible with islamic culture. Those who embrace the islamic culture, have effectively denied their European one, no matter how blonde their hair is or what their passport says. — sunknight

Why did the Germans bomb London if they all had the same culture?

Also, what is the primary religion of these European nations: Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina?

As another example of similar censuring, this time of a university law professor who used the N-word in class and later in the presence of a student, neither time directed at anyone, but purely in an educational environment: There was the offense and now the backlash: https://www.thecollegefix.com/emory-faces-censure-complaint-for-punishing-law-professor-who-referenced-n-word/

I'm familiar with it because it's a nearby University, so it's in the local news.

We live in a world where we search to be offended, usually to delegitimize and neutralize an opponent regarding something other than the merits of their position. What we need is a leader who speaks with no filter, does what he wants, and responds to critics with childish taunting and trolling as his followers celebrate in amusement. That's what we got at least.

Not sure if you guys saw this video of Trump after the Mueller report. He never ceases to amaze.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109962032995069952

Perhaps we should cut through the shit and just fill out applications, exchange background reports and genetic analyses, measure each other for ideal proportions and symmetry, test each other for agility, for intelligence, for respectability, for ethics, and so on, assign scores, and see if the scores cross a minimum that we have decided upon. — petrichor

Such has always been the case, just done with intuition and guesswork, using what limited information we have to make decisions about who to date and who to hire. If today there is more information available and a better ability to assess that information, we would rely upon it. I might have years ago chosen a date just upon her looks and what little I knew about her, whereas today Google, Instagram, and Facebook can provide me a complete history as I peruse her Spring Break pics. It is a worse scenario if I'm misusing the information, discarding people based upon irrelevant details and unnecessary biases, but if that information could be properly assessed, why not? Are you devaluing someone as a human being to simply ask if they fit into your life or into your business?

Dating, like job hunting, is not for the faint of heart, especially for those with limited experience and insecurities. Each rejection is taken far too personally, as if there is some correlation between who they are as a person and whether there is compatibility. Those who find pain in such "competitions" really need to just not worry about the outcome, to have confidence in who they are, to not care about the opinions of others, and to battle forward. Success will actually come through perseverance. This isn't meant as an inspirational speech as much as just asking that you abandon the rationalization that there is some integrity that you're preserving by not entering the fray. The fray is part of life, and the struggle, as @Anthony realizes, is in maintaining one's sense of human dignity while cleaning out toilets, or whatever one need do to survive in the sometimes harsh reality.

If you're looking for an actual inspirational speech, I offer this: https://youtu.be/fFalmesXWMY

In what way, I wonder, do you think it sensible to multiply and divide one's value as a human and maintain non-eusocial self-sufficiency, and sacrality of the work of living? — Anthony

Your value as a human being is unquestioned and infinite. I'm not challenging that. Your role as a worker bee has a specific amount of value. That is reality. Social constructs and morality can't change the fact that if you don't plant any seeds, nothing will grow and if you don't pull the potatoes out of the ground, they won't end up in the pot.

You may be uncomfortable with the fact that the fastest man can outrun the threat or the hardest working man can grow the most food and you may wish that being a caring, nice guy will protect you from the forces of nature and feed you, but that's not how it works.

I understand your lament. You're just not a super competitive guy and you wish the Darwinian forces of nature weren't at work, but they are.