- Negative feedback loop, corrects a change
- Positive feedback loop adapts the system with a change.
Since social systems operate just like other systems in systems theory, then we just ask what are the feedback loops in our social system? What corrects change? Now we have found scorn, and now, we identify it right, as mechanism with a purpose in which we participate as cogs in a wheel!
1. Deviation happens due to behavior/belief
2. Disgust felt toward behavior/belief
3. Those experiencing disgust activate disgust in target source of deviation
4. Target feels disgust toward behavior/belief
5. That disgust elicits strong aversion toward behavior/belief,
6. Behavior ceases.
0. Social system restored to equilibrium.
Knowing exactly what it is for, helps us evaluate if it is beneficial to society/the system. It seems to be liked because it attacks the terrible problems it pretty much made in the first place. But attacking is not fixing, and when it comes to scorn, it is misdirection from the needs of the system and its job is to fix needs of the system. It is like an employee that is getting everyone else so focused on what others aren’t doing, that people pay less attention to what is not being done by the employee.
The evaluation reveals that scorn is a truly harmful, a very overrated mechanism that doesn’t do its job very well at all.Responding to Scorn’s Inadequacy and Harm as a Mechanism
Reduction doesn’t really work because of cognitive development concerns, leaving two options:
(A.) Opt for to maintain this specific systemic maintenance mechanism, at acceptable loss. (lives, quality of life, health, marginalization, ect.)
(B.) Replace the systemic mechanism with something with better efficacy.
I would say if you look at the acceptable loss cost, without the lens of seeing those losses as normal, it becomes clearly wrong to let this mechanism continue be used as a fix-it tool.
- it causes significant pain and suffering
- it causes irreparable harm
- it helps problems take root
- it creates new problems worse than the original
But the pain and suffering and irreparable harm alone makes it worth replacing. It isn’t an okay acceptable loss to keep it around.
Finally, applying this to skeptical inquiry, what stands in the way of good science in every area of Skepticism’s interests getting disregarded? Not getting a fair hearing of the case. The harm from scorn is a huge problem, and someone has to do something about it. It has to be taken seriously. If we continue to use this mechanism, we perpetuate world that is aversive to science, and prone to danger.
For further info and resources, see:
The Science for Scorn Being Too Awful, and Why It Must Be Replaced
Source: te