Top products from r/IntellectualDarkWeb

We found 25 product mentions on r/IntellectualDarkWeb. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.

Next page

Top comments that mention products on r/IntellectualDarkWeb:

u/kodheaven · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Steven Pinker shares this article that challenges some of Peterson's assumptions.

An excerpt:


>Dostoevsky Distraction — Abandon Judeo-Christianity at your peril:
>Crime and Punishment is the best investigation, I know, of what happens if you take the notion that there’s nothing divine about the individual seriously.”
>Deconstruction #1 — Jordan repeatedly cites the character Raskolnikov as being the poster child for what happens when a person gives up a belief in the divinity of other humans; or, as he and Dostoevsky define it, an atheist. Except, and as a psychologist, he knows that someone who determines other people have no intrinsic value “is the psychopath’s viewpoint.” That he conflates atheism with psychopathy is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and professionally irresponsible.
>Deconstruction #2 — Like Jordan, Dostoevsky was a committed Christian who viewed the abandonment of Judeo-Christian values as an ill omen, and sounded the warning. However, Jordan omitted the inconvenient truth that his literary hero was an avowed Christian socialist who proclaimed: “If everyone were actively Christian, not a single social question would come up.”

Moral Atheist Mystification — If you act in a moral way, you’re acting out religious values:

>“As I said at the beginning, the atheist types act out a religious structure.”

Deconstruction #1 — As pointed out in the Deuteronomistic Paradigm, moral values preceded their codification in religious texts, and in the Dostoevsky Distraction, that Jordan has his own, unique, definition of what atheist means, it is irresponsible for Jordan to fuel the flawed perception that atheists are immoral.

Deconstruction #2 — Despite Jordan’s ominous warnings that leaving religion behind is bad for society, there is a clear correlation between countries with increasingly secular tendencies and the happiness of its citizens.

Deconstruction #3 — Again, also despite Jordan’s warning of putting the Judeo-Christian traditions out to pasture, is the idea that atheists are calling for anarchy and immoral behaviour. In conjunction with this perspective, is Jordan’s wholesale ignoring of the immoral acts listed in the Bible (drowning the planet, Abraham’s willingness to murder his child, the Passover slaughter of innocent Egyptians to make a point, Job, etc.); and the fact that most parishioners do not read these stories metaphorically, as Jordan claims religious passages should be understood — not literally, but figuratively — for the morals of the story.

Deconstruction #4 — Jordan’s obsession with the nihilism of Nietzsche is unwarranted, and, indeed, bordering on Chicken Little; especially in light of the facts of deconstruction #2.

It appears contradictory, to me anyway, that if the values contained within the Judeo-Christian tradition preceded the tradition (part 4), then why should Jordan be worried if people are simply abandoning the vehicle which, successfully, conveyed the values? The values are the important factor, the ones that emerged from the unconscious, not the transmission mechanism. “Adamant anti-religious thinkers” are not advocating that we abandon morality, or “our immersement in the underlying dream,” so the values themselves will remain intact. Another Canadian psychologist, Steven Pinker, makes this point in Enlightenment Now:

>“If the positive contributions of religious institutions come from their role as humanistic associations in civil society, then we would expect those benefits not to be tied to theistic belief, and that is indeed the case.”

Steven, as the subtitle of the book alludes, made “The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,” that society is not in any danger — contrary to Jordan’s dire warnings — from increasing secularization:

>“Evolution helps explain another foundation of secular morality: our capacity for sympathy (or, as the Enlightenment writers variously referred to it, benevolence, pity, imagination, or commiseration). Even if a rational agent deduces that it’s in everyone’s long-term interests to be moral, it’s hard to imagine him sticking his neck out to make a sacrifice for another’s benefit unless something gives him a nudge. The nudge needn’t come from an angel on one shoulder; evolutionary psychology explains how it comes from the emotions that make us social animals…Evolution thus selects for the moral sentiments: sympathy, trust, gratitude, guilt, shame, forgiveness, and righteous anger. With sympathy installed in our psychological makeup, it can be expanded by reason and experience to encompass all sentient beings…
>A viable moral philosophy for a cosmopolitan world cannot be constructed from layers of intricate argumentation or rest on deep metaphysical or religious convictions. It must draw on simple, transparent principles that everyone can understand and agree upon. The ideal of human flourishing — that it’s good for people to lead long, healthy, happy, rich, and stimulating lives — is just such a principle, since it’s based on nothing more (and nothing less) than our common humanity.
>History confirms that when diverse cultures have to find common ground, they converge toward humanism.”

u/Currently_roidraging · 21 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

The book itself it a hack-job hit piece on men, and Ben Sixsmith's review – which is what's linked – is a great takedown of Plank's "work."

If anyone is interested in further reading regarding actual masculinity and what men face today, here's a small reading list:

  • King, Warrior, Magician, Lover: Rediscovering the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine, by Robert Moore and Douglas Gillette [Both of these two gentlemen work is generally worth reading but this is the best breakdown of the positive and negative sides of masculinity that I've found. It also equipped me to start tackling my own masculinity in earnest; especially once I had the "immature masculine" models laid out before me in this book.]
  • The Boy Crisis: Why Our Boys Are Struggling and What We Can Do About It, by Warren Farrell PhD and John Gray PhD. [Don't let the title mislead you; Farrell does an excellent job of identifying the overarching issues facing men today and from where they seem to stem. His use of "you're son" in the place of a proverbial "you" takes some getting used to, but it is every bit an eve-opening, depressing, motivating, and forthright read. This was tied for the top of this list with 'KWML. The importance of a present and engaged father cannot be ignored any longer.']
  • The Myth of Male Power, by Warren Pharrell PhD. [Another hard-hitting contribution from Farrell, this entry challenges the dogma of the entire concept of a patriarchy an does so well-armed with stats, studies, and facts. Men being indoctrinated into being expendable with the illusion of gaining/having power could be (I believe it's VERY likely) a huge contributor to the increasing plight of men in western societies, despite the deluge of rhetoric claiming men are so powerful they oppress everyone else.]

    I may even make a separate post for this because it's very important to me. I am in the middle of researching and writing a book that, I hope, does what Plank's drivel claimed to do. The materials here are just a few selections I've come across in my research. Maybe I can elaborate more on my work if I make a more comprehensive 'recommended reading' post re: masculinity. I'd love to see more discussion around this as I believe it's exactly the kind of thing to tackle in a community like this.
u/JainKratom · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Wow! No one has mentioned premier honor philosopher Tamler Sommers! He wrote a book called why honor matters

His mom Christina hoff sommers is an IDW member and I’ve always thought tamler should be a member as well. He has a great podcast on moral psychology and philosophy called very bad wizards, he’s had on sam Harris and Paul bloom frequently:

Great podcast checkout out and check out the subreddit r/verybadwizards

Honor takes a lot of explaining but tamlers always talking about. Or asking him u/tamler

Honestly best podcast I’ve listened to, takes shots at Making Sense with Sam Harris.

u/Amator · 6 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Submission statement: Cal is an academic and bestselling author of many books on productivity, focus, and effective study. This post talks about the effectiveness of "Indie Social Media" to achieve a completely different objective than other alternative social media failures that try to be the next Facebook or Twitter. The IDW is name checked as well.

> If you’re deeply committed to the Intellectual Dark Web, for example, then Thinkspot will probably return you much more value than Instagram or Twitter, even though its audience size is a minuscule fraction of these giants.

If you're not familiar with the author, I highly recommend his books Deep Work and Digital Minimalism.

u/wricker · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

I took a semester of an introductory course of Game Theory. We followed the textbook An Introduction to Game Theory by Osborne. The book is great for a first dive into the subject, has ample examples, easy explanations, and is not too mathematically involved. Don't trust the online ratings; this is a very clear-cut book that covers a lot of material.

We also had Theory of Games and Economic Behavior by Neumann and Morgenstern, the founders of Game Theory, as a reference. It covers the motivations for game theory, explains basic concepts (like utility) which are taken for granted, and also explains economic behavior using Game Theory. It's a 600-page monster.

u/banduzo · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

I read this. Haven't read much into Game Theory besides this book, but it's probably a more general overview of Game Theory with real life examples.

u/Flexit4Brexit · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb

Submission statement:

Amit Varma interviews Rebecca Goldstein. They center on Plato at the Googleplex, branching into ancient philosophy by way of Plato and his themes.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/IntellectualDarkWeb


I am challenging the idea that our "religious" behavior is genetic. It is not. Humans possess the ability to create explanatory knowledge which affects how we behave. Unlike animals who only run based on the knowledge contained within their genes.

So the idea that religious behavior is genetic and inevitable is mistaken. Religious behavior happens at the level of memes, not genes. Religious behavior is an anti-rational meme, in that it requires the suppression of criticism to replicate.

The explanation of artificial creativity is contained in this book chapter 7. And the explanation about memes and the difference between rational memes and anti-rational memes is contained in chapter 15.


My argument has nothing to do with the human genome project.

u/5MinutePlan · 10 pointsr/IntellectualDarkWeb

>Why would you call out something that doesn't exist. This whole left wing censorship crusade is just something to get the right wing base frothing at the mouth and nothing more.

There is a lot of evidence that there is an authoritarian culture, with a lot of power, on the left.

This David Pakman video has multiple examples.

Exiting the Vampire Castle, written by Mark Fisher, criticizes leftwing authoritarianism from a communist perspective.

The Grievance Studies affair highlights postmodern academic disciplines where many authoritarian ideas are coming from.

The books The Tyranny of Opinion and The Coddling of the American Mind also each have multiple case studies of authoritarianism.


>You MUST acknowledged a right wing propaganda talking point

It's true that the right is having a moral panic about this issue, but that doesn't mean that the problem isn't real.