A child who believes in Santa Claus eventually reaches the moment when that cherished figure dissolves into myth. It’s a small heartbreak, a quiet realization that the world is more complicated than the stories we’re told. Yet one thing is consistently true: the older and more knowledgeable the child becomes, the easier this truth is to accept. In fact, the earlier you reveal the reality to a child who wholeheartedly believed, the sharper the pain tends to be. The disappointment is heavier, the emotional shock more profound.
But Santa Claus is only a convenient example. This principle extends far beyond holiday folklore. In almost every area of life, truths revealed too early can sting; sometimes more than the truth itself warrants. As we mature, the same truths that once felt devastating become manageable, even trivial.
Understanding this helps us appreciate both the fragility and the adaptability of human perception. Pain isn’t just about the truth we learn, but the readiness with which we learn it.
And perhaps that’s the real lesson: truth doesn’t just depend on what we know, but when we’re prepared to know it.
But Santa Claus is only a convenient example. This principle extends far beyond holiday folklore. In almost every area of life, truths revealed too early can sting; sometimes more than the truth itself warrants. As we mature, the same truths that once felt devastating become manageable, even trivial.
Understanding this helps us appreciate both the fragility and the adaptability of human perception. Pain isn’t just about the truth we learn, but the readiness with which we learn it.
And perhaps that’s the real lesson: truth doesn’t just depend on what we know, but when we’re prepared to know it.
The most democratic country in the world is "monarchy" according to Our World in Data.
Shar🤝ing
Democracy report.pdf
A bunch of empirical evidence of why democracies are better than autocracies
Forwarded from HabiKatura
«Соққа» устидаги Фемида кун келиб барибир йиқилади.
Карикатура: @habikatura
Карикатура: @habikatura
Prof.: What is your position on the proto-world vs. polygenesis debate? Do you think it's most likely that human language arose once, and spread (the proto-world hypothesis) or that it came about in different communities at different times (the polygenesis position)?
We won't be able to prove you wrong, so don't worry about that - but do try to find some kind of evidence to back up your position. Your evidence might come from your knowledge about topics like human evolution, neuroscience, physiology or the like; it might come from your experience with traditional knowledge such as religious practice or origin stories. You can even google these ideas and let your opinion be influenced by what you find!
But there's one thing that we think is not possible to claim: no contemporary natural language is provably more or less 'ancient' than any other (with the possible exception of conlangs such as Esperanto). All contemporary natural languages trace back further than we can reconstruct, just as English is trace-able back to the proto-Indo-European language. Similarly, Tohono O'odham traces back to a mother language called 'proto-Uto-Aztecan', and Chinese to 'proto-Sinitic' (just as a few examples).
Me: From what I have observed, the most reasonable answer often lies between two opposing positions—especially in issues that have been widely debated for many years and continue to divide public opinion. In such cases, it is often necessary to find a kind of “golden middle.” My answer is based on this approach. In other words, I believe that both sides of the argument have some valid basis. I will explain this view in detail below.
From a religious perspective, it is acceptable to say that all of humankind originated from a single ancestor. Our earliest ancestors may have used forms of communication different from what we now call language. At some point in history, humans developed a system of communication that met the necessary criteria to be considered a language, and this system evolved over time. By then, humanity may already have existed for a long period and formed different communities.
Thus, when early humans appeared, they likely shared a common form of communication. Over time, this shared system served as the foundation for the development of communication systems that eventually became full languages. In this sense, language can be said to descend from a single “ancestor communication system.” However, this ancestor system was not itself a language, because it did not yet include all the defining features and characteristics of language.
To restate this idea using an analogy from science: it is widely accepted that all living organisms originated from single-celled organisms. In this sense, all life shares a single ancestor. However, at later points in evolutionary history, different groups—such as mammals and reptiles—diverged. Mammals and reptiles do not have separate ultimate origins, but they do have distinct evolutionary paths after branching off from a common ancestor.
Applying this analogy to language, we can think of single-celled organisms as the “initial means of communication.” Later branches—such as mammals—can be compared to language, while reptiles and other classes can represent other forms of communication, such as animal sounds, visual signals, facial expressions, or gestures. Some of these non-linguistic communication systems (just like some non-mammalian species) have been preserved and still exist today among both humans and other animals.
In this way, we can say that language and other forms of communication share a very distant common origin, even though language later developed into a distinct and more complex system.
We won't be able to prove you wrong, so don't worry about that - but do try to find some kind of evidence to back up your position. Your evidence might come from your knowledge about topics like human evolution, neuroscience, physiology or the like; it might come from your experience with traditional knowledge such as religious practice or origin stories. You can even google these ideas and let your opinion be influenced by what you find!
But there's one thing that we think is not possible to claim: no contemporary natural language is provably more or less 'ancient' than any other (with the possible exception of conlangs such as Esperanto). All contemporary natural languages trace back further than we can reconstruct, just as English is trace-able back to the proto-Indo-European language. Similarly, Tohono O'odham traces back to a mother language called 'proto-Uto-Aztecan', and Chinese to 'proto-Sinitic' (just as a few examples).
Me: From what I have observed, the most reasonable answer often lies between two opposing positions—especially in issues that have been widely debated for many years and continue to divide public opinion. In such cases, it is often necessary to find a kind of “golden middle.” My answer is based on this approach. In other words, I believe that both sides of the argument have some valid basis. I will explain this view in detail below.
From a religious perspective, it is acceptable to say that all of humankind originated from a single ancestor. Our earliest ancestors may have used forms of communication different from what we now call language. At some point in history, humans developed a system of communication that met the necessary criteria to be considered a language, and this system evolved over time. By then, humanity may already have existed for a long period and formed different communities.
Thus, when early humans appeared, they likely shared a common form of communication. Over time, this shared system served as the foundation for the development of communication systems that eventually became full languages. In this sense, language can be said to descend from a single “ancestor communication system.” However, this ancestor system was not itself a language, because it did not yet include all the defining features and characteristics of language.
To restate this idea using an analogy from science: it is widely accepted that all living organisms originated from single-celled organisms. In this sense, all life shares a single ancestor. However, at later points in evolutionary history, different groups—such as mammals and reptiles—diverged. Mammals and reptiles do not have separate ultimate origins, but they do have distinct evolutionary paths after branching off from a common ancestor.
Applying this analogy to language, we can think of single-celled organisms as the “initial means of communication.” Later branches—such as mammals—can be compared to language, while reptiles and other classes can represent other forms of communication, such as animal sounds, visual signals, facial expressions, or gestures. Some of these non-linguistic communication systems (just like some non-mammalian species) have been preserved and still exist today among both humans and other animals.
In this way, we can say that language and other forms of communication share a very distant common origin, even though language later developed into a distinct and more complex system.
https://x.com/GPAIndiana/status/2005636373579964671?s=20
Creativity needs freedom; it dies if the creator considers everyone's opinion. Maybe thats one of the reasons why people are craving old movies.
Creativity needs freedom; it dies if the creator considers everyone's opinion. Maybe thats one of the reasons why people are craving old movies.
Qanday yashash kerak?
Qisqa javob: xohlaganingizcha.
Uzun javob — quyida.
Odam axloqiy jihatdan qanday yashash kerakligi haqida o‘ylaganda, uning ichida asosan ikki qarama-qarshi pozitsiya kurashadi: konservator va liberal.
Konservatorlik — jamiyatda mavjud an’analarni saqlab qolish yoki ularni asta-sekinlik bilan o‘zgartirib yashash kerak, degan qarash. Liberalizm esa mavjud an’analarni qayta ko‘rib chiqib, “mazlum”ning erkinligini kengaytirish va “zolim”ning zulmini kamaytirish orqali yanada progressiv yashash tarzini ilgari suradi.
Bugun yashar ekansiz, oldingizda muqarrar savollar paydo bo‘ladi: farzandlaringizni o‘zingiz ulg‘aygan muhitdagidek tarbiyalash kerakmi yoki yengilroq, erkinroq munosabatda bo‘lish ma’qulmi? Bu savollar sizni oila a’zolaringiz va yaqinlaringiz bilan bo‘lgan munosabatlarni ham qayta ko‘rib chiqishga majbur qiladi. Oilada er ustun bo'lishi kerakmi yoki ayol? Jinoyatchi o'z jinoyatiga qanchalik javobgar?
Konservator o‘z an’analarini qanchalik himoya qilmasin, vaqt o‘tishi bilan uning qadriyatlari jamiyatda birin-ketin sinovdan o‘ta boshlaydi. Buni ko‘rgan konservator jamiyat “oxir zamon” yoqasiga kelib qoldi, deb o‘ylaydi. Liberal esa, aksincha, bundan ham ko‘proq erkinlik bo‘lishi kerakligini ta’kidlaydi.
Konservatorlar bugun siz kurashayotgan g‘oyalarning aksariyati baribir kun kelib yemiriladi. Bu — faqat vaqt masalasi. Xo‘sh, unda konservator nega baribir kurashadi? Chunki jamiyatdagi o‘zgarishlar unga noqulaylik tug‘diradi. Liberallar esa biz "sog'inadigan" o'tmishni buzib boraveradi.
Aniqroq misol keltiraylik. Kun kelib hayvon mahsulotlari va go‘sht iste’moli noqonuniy bo‘lishi mumkin. Kun kelib jamiyatda ayollar ustun mavqega ega bo‘lishi ehtimoldan xoli emas. Kun kelib hayvonlarga ham yuridik subyekt sifatida qaraladi. Biz bugun tushunadigan oila qadriyatiga tinimsiz zarar yetib boraveradi.
Shunda savol tug‘iladi: qanday yashash kerak? Konservator bo‘libmi yoki liberal bo‘libmi?
Javob oddiy: qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, osonroq yashash kerak.
Jamiyat muammolari hech qachon tugamaydi. Axloqning yagona, mutlaq mezoni yo‘q. Adolat va haqiqatning universal etaloni mavjud emas. Ishonmaysizmi? Ko‘p emas, ozgina falsafa va etikani o‘qing. Shunda siz “oliy haqiqat” deb bilgan g‘oyalaringiz naqadar original emasligini va dunyo qanchalik murakkab ekanini anglaysiz.
Agar “menga bunday murakkabliklar kerak emas” desangiz, marhamat — o‘z g‘oyangizni oliy haqiqat deb hisoblab yashayvering. Ammo bir narsani unutmang: bu dunyoda hech kim va hech bir g‘oya abadiy emas. Dunyo o‘liklarniki emas — tiriklarniki.
Biz bugungi kunni hal qila olamiz, ammo qo‘limiz yetmaydigan ertangi kunni keyingi avlod hal qiladi. Siz ajdodlaringizga nisbatan liberalroqsiz va bu tendensiya sizdan keyin ham davom etadi. Jamiyat bu evrilishlarni sekin-asta boshdan kechiradi va vaqt o‘tib, ko‘zingiz ham o‘rganadi.
Agar o‘rganmasangiz-chi? Unda bu jarayonni sekinlashtirishga yoki to‘xtatishga harakat qilasiz. Ammo qachongacha?
Shuning uchun oliy haqiqatni izlash shart emas. Osonroq yashang. Agar baribir izlamoqchi bo‘lsangiz, marhamat — o‘z g‘oyangiz uchun ma’lum makon va zamonda, imkoniyatlaringiz doirasida kurashavering. Jamiyatga konservator ham, liberal ham kerak, chunki jamiyatda oliy haqiqatga eltuvchi yagona yo'lboshchi shaxs yoki g'oya mavjud emas.
Qisqa javob: xohlaganingizcha.
Uzun javob — quyida.
Odam axloqiy jihatdan qanday yashash kerakligi haqida o‘ylaganda, uning ichida asosan ikki qarama-qarshi pozitsiya kurashadi: konservator va liberal.
Konservatorlik — jamiyatda mavjud an’analarni saqlab qolish yoki ularni asta-sekinlik bilan o‘zgartirib yashash kerak, degan qarash. Liberalizm esa mavjud an’analarni qayta ko‘rib chiqib, “mazlum”ning erkinligini kengaytirish va “zolim”ning zulmini kamaytirish orqali yanada progressiv yashash tarzini ilgari suradi.
Bugun yashar ekansiz, oldingizda muqarrar savollar paydo bo‘ladi: farzandlaringizni o‘zingiz ulg‘aygan muhitdagidek tarbiyalash kerakmi yoki yengilroq, erkinroq munosabatda bo‘lish ma’qulmi? Bu savollar sizni oila a’zolaringiz va yaqinlaringiz bilan bo‘lgan munosabatlarni ham qayta ko‘rib chiqishga majbur qiladi. Oilada er ustun bo'lishi kerakmi yoki ayol? Jinoyatchi o'z jinoyatiga qanchalik javobgar?
Konservator o‘z an’analarini qanchalik himoya qilmasin, vaqt o‘tishi bilan uning qadriyatlari jamiyatda birin-ketin sinovdan o‘ta boshlaydi. Buni ko‘rgan konservator jamiyat “oxir zamon” yoqasiga kelib qoldi, deb o‘ylaydi. Liberal esa, aksincha, bundan ham ko‘proq erkinlik bo‘lishi kerakligini ta’kidlaydi.
Konservatorlar bugun siz kurashayotgan g‘oyalarning aksariyati baribir kun kelib yemiriladi. Bu — faqat vaqt masalasi. Xo‘sh, unda konservator nega baribir kurashadi? Chunki jamiyatdagi o‘zgarishlar unga noqulaylik tug‘diradi. Liberallar esa biz "sog'inadigan" o'tmishni buzib boraveradi.
Aniqroq misol keltiraylik. Kun kelib hayvon mahsulotlari va go‘sht iste’moli noqonuniy bo‘lishi mumkin. Kun kelib jamiyatda ayollar ustun mavqega ega bo‘lishi ehtimoldan xoli emas. Kun kelib hayvonlarga ham yuridik subyekt sifatida qaraladi. Biz bugun tushunadigan oila qadriyatiga tinimsiz zarar yetib boraveradi.
Shunda savol tug‘iladi: qanday yashash kerak? Konservator bo‘libmi yoki liberal bo‘libmi?
Javob oddiy: qanday bo‘lishidan qat’i nazar, osonroq yashash kerak.
Jamiyat muammolari hech qachon tugamaydi. Axloqning yagona, mutlaq mezoni yo‘q. Adolat va haqiqatning universal etaloni mavjud emas. Ishonmaysizmi? Ko‘p emas, ozgina falsafa va etikani o‘qing. Shunda siz “oliy haqiqat” deb bilgan g‘oyalaringiz naqadar original emasligini va dunyo qanchalik murakkab ekanini anglaysiz.
Agar “menga bunday murakkabliklar kerak emas” desangiz, marhamat — o‘z g‘oyangizni oliy haqiqat deb hisoblab yashayvering. Ammo bir narsani unutmang: bu dunyoda hech kim va hech bir g‘oya abadiy emas. Dunyo o‘liklarniki emas — tiriklarniki.
Biz bugungi kunni hal qila olamiz, ammo qo‘limiz yetmaydigan ertangi kunni keyingi avlod hal qiladi. Siz ajdodlaringizga nisbatan liberalroqsiz va bu tendensiya sizdan keyin ham davom etadi. Jamiyat bu evrilishlarni sekin-asta boshdan kechiradi va vaqt o‘tib, ko‘zingiz ham o‘rganadi.
Agar o‘rganmasangiz-chi? Unda bu jarayonni sekinlashtirishga yoki to‘xtatishga harakat qilasiz. Ammo qachongacha?
Shuning uchun oliy haqiqatni izlash shart emas. Osonroq yashang. Agar baribir izlamoqchi bo‘lsangiz, marhamat — o‘z g‘oyangiz uchun ma’lum makon va zamonda, imkoniyatlaringiz doirasida kurashavering. Jamiyatga konservator ham, liberal ham kerak, chunki jamiyatda oliy haqiqatga eltuvchi yagona yo'lboshchi shaxs yoki g'oya mavjud emas.
Kelishuvlar konkretlashadi — munosabatlar "nosamimiylashadi".
Vaqt o‘tib, jamiyat rivojlangan sari kelishuvlar va qoidalar tobora konkretlashib boradi. Masalan, izolyatsiyalangan kichik shaharchada deylik 2–3 ta mashina bor. Bunday vaziyatda yo‘l belgilari, yo‘l chiziqlari yoki svetofor kabi murakkab infratuzilmalarga ehtiyoj bo‘lmaydi. Ammo mashinalar soni ko‘paygani sari, tabiiy ravishda murakkab va aniq ijtimoiy kelishuvlar — qoidalarni joriy etishga ehtiyoj tug‘iladi.
Xuddi shuningdek, 3 kishilik firmani boshqarish bilan 3000 kishilik kompaniyani boshqarish o‘rtasidagi ma’muriy tafovut juda katta. Jamiyat rivojlangani sari odamlarning bir-biriga shunchaki yordam berish holatlari kamayadi, chunki kelishuvlarning loyqa bo‘lishidan ko‘ra ularning aniq belgilangan bo‘lishi foydaliroq bo‘lib boradi.
Tasavvur qiling, siz "mehr-oqibatli" qishloqda yashaysiz. Odamlar bir-biriga yordam kerak paytda qarashadi. Bu yerda asosiy faraz shuki: men yordam bersam, boshqalar ham menga yordam beradi. Ammo odamlar soni ko‘paygani sari, insonning qadri nisbatan kamaygani kabi odamlarning "mehr-oqibati" ham susayib boradi va bir-biriga yordam berish ehtimoli kamayadi.
Shu sababli, do‘stingizdan qarz so‘ragandan ko‘ra bankdan kredit olish, mashinangiz buzilib qolganida qarindoshingizni chaqirgandan ko‘ra maxsus xizmatga murojaat qilish ma’qulroq bo‘lib boradi. Chunki bunday yordamlar bir tomonlama bajarilgan taqdirda ham, ikkinchi tomondan kutilganidek javob qaytishiga kafolat yo‘q. Jamiyat yiriklashgani sari bu javobning qaytish ehtimoli yanada kamayadi. Eng qulay yo‘l — masalani konkret usulda, ya’ni pul orqali hal qilishdir.
Buni kuzatgan odamlar yoshlikdagi insonlarning "beg'uborligi" va "mehr-oqibati"ni sog‘ina boshlaydi. Ammo bu holat aslida rivojlanishning muqarrar to‘lovi ekanini ko‘pincha sezmaydi.
Bu "mehr-oqibat" masalasi faqat eshik ortidagi jungli hisoblanmish jamiyatgagina xos emas — u xonadoningizga ham kirib keladi. Chunki oila ham jamiyatdir. Oilangizda onangiz tekinga ovqat pishiradi, ammo uning qilayotgan xarajatlari pul topadigan otangizning xohish-irodasiga bog‘liq bo‘lib qoladi. Kelishuv biroz "loyqaroq", shunday emasmi?
Yechim nimada? Ayollar ham pul topishi kerak yoki xonadonda qilayotgan mehnati uchun haq to‘lanishi lozim. Bilaman, siz yaxshi ersiz yoki kelajakda yaxshi er bo‘lasiz. Lekin bunga kim kafolat beradi? Faraz qilaylik, siz shunday bo‘ldingiz ham, butun jamiyat miqyosida otalar ayollarini abadiy, hech qanday muammosiz ta’minlab berishini kafolatlash mumkinmi? Albatta, yo‘q.
Yechim yana o‘sha — qoida va kelishuvlarni konkretlashtirishda. Siz bu o‘zgarishlarni ko‘rib, bolaligingizdagi "nuclear family"ni sog‘inasiz: otangiz ishdan kelganda gulli fartuk taqqan onangiz pirog hidi aralash oshxonadan yugurib chiqib, farzandlari bilan birga otangizni kutib oladi. Naqadar baxtli oila, shunday emasmi?
Ammo vaqt o‘tmoqda, jamiyat o‘zgarmoqda, kelishuvlar konkretlashmoqda. Siz esa kofe mashinasida tayyorlangan sevimli ichimligingizni xo‘plagancha, yangi chiqqan iPhone’ingizda ijtimoiy tarmoqlarga kirib, odamlar "mehrsiz" bo‘lib ketayotganidan noliyapsiz.
Vaqt o‘tib, jamiyat rivojlangan sari kelishuvlar va qoidalar tobora konkretlashib boradi. Masalan, izolyatsiyalangan kichik shaharchada deylik 2–3 ta mashina bor. Bunday vaziyatda yo‘l belgilari, yo‘l chiziqlari yoki svetofor kabi murakkab infratuzilmalarga ehtiyoj bo‘lmaydi. Ammo mashinalar soni ko‘paygani sari, tabiiy ravishda murakkab va aniq ijtimoiy kelishuvlar — qoidalarni joriy etishga ehtiyoj tug‘iladi.
Xuddi shuningdek, 3 kishilik firmani boshqarish bilan 3000 kishilik kompaniyani boshqarish o‘rtasidagi ma’muriy tafovut juda katta. Jamiyat rivojlangani sari odamlarning bir-biriga shunchaki yordam berish holatlari kamayadi, chunki kelishuvlarning loyqa bo‘lishidan ko‘ra ularning aniq belgilangan bo‘lishi foydaliroq bo‘lib boradi.
Tasavvur qiling, siz "mehr-oqibatli" qishloqda yashaysiz. Odamlar bir-biriga yordam kerak paytda qarashadi. Bu yerda asosiy faraz shuki: men yordam bersam, boshqalar ham menga yordam beradi. Ammo odamlar soni ko‘paygani sari, insonning qadri nisbatan kamaygani kabi odamlarning "mehr-oqibati" ham susayib boradi va bir-biriga yordam berish ehtimoli kamayadi.
Shu sababli, do‘stingizdan qarz so‘ragandan ko‘ra bankdan kredit olish, mashinangiz buzilib qolganida qarindoshingizni chaqirgandan ko‘ra maxsus xizmatga murojaat qilish ma’qulroq bo‘lib boradi. Chunki bunday yordamlar bir tomonlama bajarilgan taqdirda ham, ikkinchi tomondan kutilganidek javob qaytishiga kafolat yo‘q. Jamiyat yiriklashgani sari bu javobning qaytish ehtimoli yanada kamayadi. Eng qulay yo‘l — masalani konkret usulda, ya’ni pul orqali hal qilishdir.
Buni kuzatgan odamlar yoshlikdagi insonlarning "beg'uborligi" va "mehr-oqibati"ni sog‘ina boshlaydi. Ammo bu holat aslida rivojlanishning muqarrar to‘lovi ekanini ko‘pincha sezmaydi.
Bu "mehr-oqibat" masalasi faqat eshik ortidagi jungli hisoblanmish jamiyatgagina xos emas — u xonadoningizga ham kirib keladi. Chunki oila ham jamiyatdir. Oilangizda onangiz tekinga ovqat pishiradi, ammo uning qilayotgan xarajatlari pul topadigan otangizning xohish-irodasiga bog‘liq bo‘lib qoladi. Kelishuv biroz "loyqaroq", shunday emasmi?
Yechim nimada? Ayollar ham pul topishi kerak yoki xonadonda qilayotgan mehnati uchun haq to‘lanishi lozim. Bilaman, siz yaxshi ersiz yoki kelajakda yaxshi er bo‘lasiz. Lekin bunga kim kafolat beradi? Faraz qilaylik, siz shunday bo‘ldingiz ham, butun jamiyat miqyosida otalar ayollarini abadiy, hech qanday muammosiz ta’minlab berishini kafolatlash mumkinmi? Albatta, yo‘q.
Yechim yana o‘sha — qoida va kelishuvlarni konkretlashtirishda. Siz bu o‘zgarishlarni ko‘rib, bolaligingizdagi "nuclear family"ni sog‘inasiz: otangiz ishdan kelganda gulli fartuk taqqan onangiz pirog hidi aralash oshxonadan yugurib chiqib, farzandlari bilan birga otangizni kutib oladi. Naqadar baxtli oila, shunday emasmi?
Ammo vaqt o‘tmoqda, jamiyat o‘zgarmoqda, kelishuvlar konkretlashmoqda. Siz esa kofe mashinasida tayyorlangan sevimli ichimligingizni xo‘plagancha, yangi chiqqan iPhone’ingizda ijtimoiy tarmoqlarga kirib, odamlar "mehrsiz" bo‘lib ketayotganidan noliyapsiz.