I… What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings
ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?
If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.
Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.
My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it’s based on emotions, and we don’t understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it’s possible that we can delete the entire notion of “felt safety” since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.
Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that “feelings don’t matter” in comparison to safety, that is.
It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don’t follow your semantic reasoning, I mean… What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it’s related to safety, you shouldn’t follow your feelings. It’s ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it’s truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that’s super solid advice
it’s not really a logic knot, i just think the linguistic structure of that statement is really funny. It’s taking a concept that is primarily felt and experienced, and then saying “yeah actually don’t feel any of that.”
Which like, makes sense on the surface level, but that’s not what people mean when they say that, unless we’re meta shitposting on the original post here, and i missed that. Which is very possible.
and what do we do if somehow safety becomes intertwined into feelings?
What happens then?
You become trauma bonded
mhm see, that makes sense. But i was speaking with regards to the hypothetical presented here specifically.
I… What? The hypothetical that some kind of saw game show makes women actually choose? If the feelings are intertwined with safety, you become trauma bonded. Then die or run. Because safety is more important than feelings
ok so in the hypothetical presented here the entirety of feelings is less important than safety, yes?
If so, than feelings that are influencing your understanding/feeling of safety, are completely invalid and null in this case. Because again, feelings are less important than safety, but the problem here is trauma bonding influences your understanding of safety, with feelings. But those feelings literally do not exist in this example, so that entire field is of null value at this specific moment in the hypothetical.
Safety would quite literally only be dependent on the statistical analysis capability of the individual if feelings are no longer present. Unless of course this statement is written incredibly poorly and does not explain the position it holds properly. In which case, you should probably be more specific.
My point here is that this statement makes little sense, given that feelings often influence the feeling of safety, ironic really. While physical safety is an isolated and quantifiable fact. I.E. a knife can cut you, you should be careful with it. The felt safety is not something that can be quantified and understood, since it’s based on emotions, and we don’t understand how those work particularly well. But what we do understand is how they influence each other. I.E. feelings can often result in feeling unsafe due to many different reasons. But since feelings in this case, do not matter more than safety does it’s possible that we can delete the entire notion of “felt safety” since physical safety is a quantifiable concept.
Of course the feelings could matter, but that would be rather silly wouldnt it? Given that the entire statement here hinges off of the fact that “feelings don’t matter” in comparison to safety, that is.
It feels like you are making a logic knot only for yourself so you then can solve it? I am sure there is something you can gain from understanding that, what is meant here. But I don’t follow your semantic reasoning, I mean… What is put up is that, when your feelings say one thing, but your brain knows another way, and it’s related to safety, you shouldn’t follow your feelings. It’s ofc extremely generalised advice but from an old man, trust me it’s truer than you think. Listen to your brain if it tells you something is dangerous, even if your heart says woohoo. Just in general, that’s super solid advice
it’s not really a logic knot, i just think the linguistic structure of that statement is really funny. It’s taking a concept that is primarily felt and experienced, and then saying “yeah actually don’t feel any of that.”
Which like, makes sense on the surface level, but that’s not what people mean when they say that, unless we’re meta shitposting on the original post here, and i missed that. Which is very possible.