The word ‘needs’ is important, due to our evolutionary and cultural history as homo sapiens. We have relied on our group for support and for the majority of our history would die without that. If a person is not accorded respect and dignity, at a base level they respond as if their existence is threatened.

In my humble opinion, this mitigates constructive communication.

Combined with what you write above, Barb, I think that a lot of progress can be made in fostering critical thinking.

Similarly it doesn’t mean don’t speak up if you have a view.

Kindly, I perceive the following issues:

1. The “model” is not falsifiable(does not distinguish itself from a 50/50 stochasticity): Even if every human’s life on this planet was to be followed, interrogated for every say nanosecond for the “happy” or “sad” state provided if such states can even be clearly demarcated at molecular or even more macro to meet a robust standard, and even if the so called desired ratio of 1 is attained, the model contains no scientific substance to ascertain and provide insight on such a ratio of 1. Instead the “model” appeals to “meta” physics or supernatural ones. The scientific enterprise rests on the Karl Popperian/Baconian way of an experimental strategy to falsify a model/theory. The model does not distinguish itself from a 50/50 stochastic outcome. I recall Charles Darwin gathering tremendous amount of data, and then finally presenting his theory to explain it all. Einstein, in the same manner observed an incronguity in the then existing models, if I recall correctly. Paradigm shifting ideas are usually tethered and seeped into experimentation, but always validated from experimentation.

2. The PDF math article noted above is not empirical(not based on experiment). Its a very simple toy model(linear based) that generates numbers and interesting shapes that receives an input, called “happy”. It could very well have been named anything else. Even a simple 3-body problem which actually is based on a hamiltonian with an actual potential can have extremely complicated dynamics, let alone, a complex organism, deserves a lifetime of scrutiny, as evidenced by many who spend their time on it.

3. The desiderata of requiring a perfect ratio of 1, from a pure point of view, is challenged by the uncertainty principle, quantum. Extremely highly sensitive measurements do exist for say single systems, but for a many many body problem such as the human brain, ensemble measurements contain measurement errors. In such a fashion, one would need to then jerry-rig the definition of happy and sad state, which is undesirable.

4. Observing the ratio of 1 does not prove nor disprove the model, because at the end, chance may give rise to a ratio of 1 as well, since the model, does not distinguish why or why not either scenario should or should not be favored. In other words, the model does not provide a clear guidance and scientific insight, on why one or the other outcome should or should not occur, appealing to the current canonical wisdom of science.

5. A gedanken counter example to the “model”: Person A willfully makes person B miserable(sad) for all the lifetime of person B, when ascertained experimentally! Then, B dies! Therefore the ratio not being 1. Gradations maybe be realized as well.

6. One person’s happiness may be another’s sadness or semisadness or vagueness with a variable coeffcient. Calibrating each and every is tricky.

Also, Can the ratio be 1 at the end? Maybe, but is it a law, well, it would be, but till then I would need to see a scientific model for it and how such a scientific model would distinguish itself uniquely rom say 50/50 stochastic one or any other ones.

An example may elucidate. I can say, half the time, people on this planet, are hungry. Well, it may well be true, just because chance and statistics would render it so. Should I then declare that there is such a law, “the hungry 1/2 people law of balance”. Well, I can, but it wouldn’t offer much elucidation nor insight. I can instead say, 50/50 it has occurred. On the other hand, I can dig deeper and ask why that is happening, such as socio-economic and so on factors. Its always very important, to discuss a topic with a language that befits the task at hand, otherwise, the model is ill posed to interact with that issue and at the end, would grotesquely struggle to be falsafiable.

I think, its rather important, to not be sensational, but rather when one wishes to investigate, just to do so, for the sake of learning.

Lastly, yea’s and nay’s are irrelevant. The scientific method has a strict guideline on what is and is not falsafiable and scientifically plausable. Polls are irrelevant when a model is not falsafiable and when so overreached that can barely be interacted with.

Perhaps, any science enthusiasts out there, can immerse himself/herself to study a science paper in depth, and say spend 6 months on understanding what goes into model making, experimentation, validation and the extreme care that goes into the scientific process, to render appreciation and further sharpness. Science is a very beautiful enterprise and especially when one asks the relevant questions, which I confess for myself, is not very easy. And that’s why having the background knowledge is extremely important before model making, in my humble opinion.

With much best wishes and Regards….
ps. Its always very important to ask, what am I learning from such and such? How powerfully does a model/theory elucidate an exisiting set of data!