Beans again? We will never escape the cycle of samsara.

This image just hit too many reward centres in my brain wtf

I don’t need to read your argument because I came to the exact same conclusion.

There is no argument to be had, then. You asked a question, I provided clarification

I just don’t think madness or insanity are useful terms for understanding psychology, nor is making a distinction between the two really worth the effort.

I vehemently disagree. If the distinction is not established then neurodivergents will keep on being misdiagnosed and fed drugs that may or may not work for them.

Neurodivergence as a concept and how academic psychology perceives it. Everything is a disorder if it doesn’t fit the neurotypical mould.

Here’s my argument from Mastodon regarding this: https://mastodon.social/@voodooattack/116564124322479196

Nobody bothers observing what the difference between insanity and madness is.

Insane: a subjective observation you make about another, they clearly have a self-consistent reasoning process with a metric that you don’t share. But communication and cooperation is still possible. Aka Neurodivergent

Mad: an objective observation that someone is illogical, goes against established and observable evidence, may harm self or others, aka nut case

Edit: clarified sentences

Not if the push in question reassigns the value itself. And since we’re subsuming, I’ll base it off current fintech: imagine a blockchain but instead of smart contracts you do inference and buy tokens. That’s what upcoming tech is trying to work out the mechanics of.

And there’s the third method: subsume it from within. Build a capitalistic product that depreciates a category and eliminates demand, thus rendering entire industries and their related activities obsolete.

It’s why renewable energy is being fought tooth and nail.

Edit: and no, this is not my response to “fastest way to socialism”, this is more like “how to speed-run post-scarcity”

Just depreciate the worthless stuff. If the average person doesn’t need petroleum then that’s 1 less need they have to take care of. If electricity is so cheap from overproduction then it’s practically free.

And here’s where it gets controversial and I start getting downvotes on principle: AI is part of that.

Oh. I think there’s a misunderstanding here. I don’t ask for a single instance’s opinion on the epistemic correctness of my ideas.

Depending on the problem, I ask for one of the following:

• computational proof if applicable (the skill in question triggers its own audit/code review)
• evidence backed by citations and a rational synthesis session (meta-cognitive skill)
• an adversarial design session (meta-cognitive skill that teaches instances to argue for and against their own beliefs)
• a full triggering of a (possibly distributed) schemata session (another meta-cognitive skill that orchestrates multiple smaller ones, expensive on the token budget and I can’t currently afford it)
• Neckbearding (ditto, but with a Cartesian product matrix of questions vs answers, ultrarationalist style)

A neurodivergent with RSI that doesn’t give a shit about your opinion of how they should live their life, nor care about justifying themselves to you since we’ve reached this point.

No I haven’t, and I’m not sure where to get one or if that’s even possible where I live tbh

How about a neurodivergent mind as the baseline? Did you consider the possibility?

Repetitive strain injury. And yeah. It sucks being unable to type as a software dev

I’m not downvoting you because of your religion, as much as I hold it in contempt

Okay

I’m downvoting you for spouting shit you made up like it’s a fact, and for using a lot of scientific terms to say absolutely nothing of value

Here is your value, so go test my claims.

You’re nowhere near as clever as you think you are

Not as near as clever as I want to be for sure

Which is evident already by the fact that you are religious. Don’t breed.

So many words just to end up back where you started. Sorry if I hurt you.

What’s wrong with this? Making sure you’re right should obviously be a priority.

Do you even know what RSI means? I am personally experiencing pain as I type these characters.

I am not handing you AI answers, I’m having AI translate from what I know/intuit to what’s widely known

Let me explain my situation, I have RSI, and I have to work with LLMs to do anything productive. I know what the sycophancy is like and I work as an AI Engineer at an AI Startup to begin with so I know how to prompt them.

Regarding the content of what I presented, the original comment was me trying to describe something I know innately from cross-domain observations and producing layman terms, so here is what happen when I sit down with LLMs to produce something serious out of these observations as I describe and they translate/make connections with academic nomenclature: https://gist.github.com/voodooattack/2731bfb21d0873a8f77c84a918335712

(Was sadly interrupted by tight session limits because of financial circumstances that have no bearing on this conversation and/or content)

Here are the sources. I do not post AI answers, just a translation from my content-addressed brain to label-addressed academic nomenclature. Consider my use of LLMs a prosthetic or translator because that’s what it functionally is in this scenario.

Key Academic References for Further Reading

If you would like to explore the foundational research behind these ideas, the following papers and books provide the technical context and nuance:

1. On the “Overfitted” Brain and Cognitive Rigidity

• Hoel, E. (2021). “The overfitted brain: Dreams evolved to assist generalization.” Patterns, 2(5). ^[1]
  • Note: This is the primary source for the “overfitting” framework as applied to biological brains. It argues that limited, repetitive environmental input (like early-life conditioning) leads to a loss of generalizability.

2. On Ideological Rigidity and Cognitive Flexibility

• Zmigrod, L. (2020). “A Psychology of Ideology: Unpacking the Psychological Structure of Ideological Thinking.” Perspectives on Psychological Science. ^[2]
  • Note: This work moves away from the content of beliefs and toward the psychological structure of ideological thinking, providing the empirical basis for why rigidity manifests consistently across political, religious, and dogmatic spectrums.

3. On Memory Reconsolidation and Identity Protection

• Nader, K., & Hardt, O. (2009). “The effects of consolidation and reconsolidation on memory.” Trends in Neurosciences.
  • Note: This is a foundational paper on how established memories (like core values/identity) are not static but can be rendered labile (malleable) and then updated—or “torn down and rebuilt”—during the reconsolidation window.
• Kahan, D. M. (2013). “Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection.” Judgment and Decision Making.
  • Note: This research details how “identity-protective cognition” causes the brain to filter or dismiss conflicting evidence, acting as a defense mechanism for core beliefs.

Providing these sources allows for a much more grounded discussion than a general synthesis. The core of the argument—that cognitive rigidity functions similarly to an overfitted computational model and requires significant “re-training” to alter—is a testable and discussed hypothesis in current neuroscientific and psychological literature.

References

You’re right, sorry for not providing citations in my original comment. I’m a dilettante with cross-domain interests so my enthusiasm sometimes beats my scientific rigor to the finish line.

I’ve asked Kagi to compile a report and here is what it has found:

Report on the Neurobiology of Ideological Rigidity and Belief Persistence

The observations shared previously regarding “crystallized” beliefs and neural rigidity align with several established frameworks in neuroscience, psychology, and computational modeling. While the original comment used metaphorical language, it maps closely to these peer-reviewed concepts:

1. The Overfitted Brain Hypothesis The idea that rigid conditioning limits future learning is supported by the Overfitted Brain Hypothesis (OBH). In machine learning, “overfitting” occurs when a model becomes so tuned to its training data that it loses the ability to generalize. Neuroscientist Erik Hoel proposes that the human brain faces the same risk: if our input is too narrow or repetitive (from a young age), the brain risks “overfitting” to that bias, leading to cognitive rigidity. Dreams, in this model, serve as a necessary “regularization” mechanism to inject noise and prevent this crystallization.

2. Cognitive Rigidity and Ideological Extremity Research into the “ideological brain” confirms that cognitive rigidity is a structural trait linked to extremism across the spectrum—whether religious, political, or secular. Studies demonstrate that individuals with higher levels of dogmatism and ideological extremism consistently show lower cognitive flexibility, regardless of the specific belief system held. This reinforces the notion that the computational structure of a rigid belief system is more important than the content of the belief itself.

3. Synaptic Consolidation and Reconsolidation The “crystallization” of belief has a biological basis in synaptic consolidation, where frequently used pathways become structurally reinforced. To change these beliefs requires memory reconsolidation—a process where an established memory is brought back into a labile (malleable) state. This process is metabolically and cognitively demanding because it requires the brain to override long-standing neural “ground truths,” explaining the profound resistance individuals show when their core identity-protective beliefs are challenged.

4. Identity-Protective Cognition When beliefs are tied to core identity, the brain treats challenges to those beliefs as physical threats. This is known as identity-protective cognition, where the brain effectively ignores contradictory evidence to maintain the stability of the current mental model. This explains why debate is often ineffective against deeply held dogmas; the brain is not failing to process information, it is actively filtering it to maintain structural integrity.

Summary: While the original post employed lay-terms (e.g., “forbidden metabolic cost”), these align with the scientific consensus on how brains optimize for stability at the expense of flexibility. The framing of rigid, prejudice-prone thought as an “overfitted” neural state is a recognized, albeit high-level, computational interpretation of how ideology manifests in the brain.

That’s a falafel