If by study you mean read approved books or go to school, no. If you mean understand religion, philosophy and psychology through childhood, experience and story and philosophical teachings and reading and watching videos online then sure. I'm getting the impression here that if I haven't read what you've read you are very exclusive of what you are willing to listen to. I notice how you talk in name drop and I talk in ideas. You even talk in named ideas and strawman them. "zero sum" is one example. If it isn't named or doesn't have an author you approve of them you aren't very receptive and that's very limiting imo. I think I've said enough to get my point across regardless of whether I met your approved reading quota. This is all based on an argument from authority which is a logical fallacy. It's doesn't automatically make you wrong or something but it's not great for communicating ideas. You seem to be more receptive to poetry but I find that to be manipulative so I don't do it.
Discussion
This is an argument from information. What books have you read on these topics?
This is one that interests me a lot. Psychology specifically and what is health and happiness and what brings it about. I've been studying it pretty intensely for the past ~4 years. I've read literally dozens of books, listened to who knows how many podcasts, read through maybe a hundred studies, worked with 3 professionals, etc. I've done the work, and as a result I have well informed opinions.
If you want to keep discussing this, cool. but please lets not devolve into viewing this convo through a political lens. I am not a political person, my opinions here are not along political lines.
No, it's a fallacious argument from authority. I gave you the information or at least enough cursory knowledge to look up more on your own if in fact you think I don't know what I'm saying. Information doesn't require an authoritative source. It just exists and it's true or not. It's not up to me to say names you like till you accept facts as facts. Test them yourself.
theories require testing. We discover what is true via theories and testing which then usually gets put into books so that others can consume it. So asking what you've studied/read is asking what data you are working with on this topic.
I gave you Dunbar. I gave you serotonin. I gave you my idea on social networks not being our natural state. You want charts? It's already been tested. Look it up.
And you give me a hostile tone.
But, let's dive into Dunbar! I love Dunbar's number! How exactly do you think that applies here?
You started with the tone the moment you implied my replies were insincere and started straw manning everything I said instead of taking it at face value. Since you are engaging in an actual topic let's put that in the past.
I explained extensively how I think it applies but maybe you thought I meant something else entirely so I will try again. Dunbar applies here because I have come to believe based on how humans operate and how they are breaking down in situations above Dunbar's number, especially due to things like depression and anxiety, that a once useful mechanism of comparison used to find your place and status is now constantly giving you negative feedback and causing you to check out instead of compete or participate. The idea here is that as you get your circle back to something approximating your Dunbar number, the mechanism will become helpful again. It's not so much about overcoming and refusing comparison (something you cannot stop because your brain chemically does it anyway) it's about being in the correct environment for the mechanism to work properly. It's like blaming the teeth on a gear for not driving your car when you put the gear on the hood instead of the transmission. The teeth on the gear only work inside the transmission. They don't need to be removed or ignored, they need to be in the right environment. Being closer to Dunbar's number is the right environment. It's not the comparisons (teeth) that are the problem, it's their location.
What political lines? Everything is political if you want it to be. That has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Experts are the problem. Results are what matter. Experts dislike results that disagree with their books. Books are only as good as the words written in them. This reverence for some sort of authoritative source of knowledge doesn't impress me. What is your thesis? Why doesn't it hold up to anything I said without straw manning? That's what you should be questioning. Not, "where did you get your information." That should be a red flag that what you know might not be what you know it might just be what you've been sold.
I'm not getting the impression that you are interested in a real conversation here. Let me know if I'm wrong.
I'm curious where you got your info as I have some theories as to where these ideas, your talking points, tend to come from and I'm trying to gather a new data point.
Also asking what you have read gives me an idea of what theories you support. What perspective you have on these issues.
I'm happy to share with you my theories and thoughts if you're interested, again this is a topic that I'm rather into.
It's super antagonistic and egocentric to start talking to someone as if they haven't given you everything they meant while you strawman what you think they mean and accuse them of things. And after all that say something trite like "I'm not sure you are even interested in real conversation". Umm. okay. I pretty much explained my position and when I say no it's not zero sum you just repeat yourself instead of trying to understand how it's not. How am I not being super patient with you while you act condescending? How is that not being conversational? You can't be serious. Your problem isn't comparison. Your problem is you think you are better than people who might have a different perspective than you and you hide behind your insecurities with an air of superiority.
What happens when you come across someone with no named theories? Or what happens when you come across a scammer that just makes up named theories and writes books about them? You are trying to pigeon hole me. That's the data point you are interested in. That why I refuse to name drop. I list one unapproved name and you will discredit. You already tried to say I was making this political and I have no idea why. We should be able to talk about ideas on their own. Where they came from doesn't matter to me, their merit does.