General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2192178

    [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

    Locked

    by sleepin’dawg ·

    A few months back I argued the case for value investment and asset protection.
    I referenced scientific studies that didn’t support technical analysis
    or market timing. Some people strongly objected to my conclusions, but
    nobody addressed the question of my evidence.

    Similarly, over the years I’ve written and spoken extensively about
    individual liberty, and found myself puzzled when I couldn’t
    convert followers of socialism, communism, or any other forms
    of big government to the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility.
    Once again, all this, in spite of historical evidence.

    I’ve puzzled over this phenomenon throughout my life.
    Arguments for a free-market fail to sway those who believe in
    government intervention. Evidence for Darwinian evolution
    fails to convince believers in religion. And studies showing
    the random nature of price movements fail to sway believers in
    technical analysis.

    It seems that evolution has endowed us all with wiring that
    demands we support whatever beliefs that have been “stamped”
    into our brains. This has been demonstrated by a recent
    research study at Emory University in Atlanta, a study that
    has potentially wide implications, from politics to religion
    to investments.

    The investigators used functional magnetic-resonance imaging
    (fMRI) to study a group of committed Democrats and Republicans
    during the three months prior to the last U.S. Presidential
    election. The Democrats and Republicans were asked to evaluate
    threatening information about their own candidate while
    undergoing fMRI to see which parts of their brains were
    activated.

    As reported by Emory, “…the partisans were given 18 sets of
    stimuli, six each regarding President George W. Bush, his
    challenger, Senator John Kerry, and politically neutral male
    control figures such as actor Tom Hanks. For each set of
    stimuli, partisans first read a statement from the target
    (Bush or Kerry), followed by a second statement that
    documented a clear contradiction between the target’s words
    and deeds, generally suggesting that the candidate was
    dishonest or pandering. Next, partisans were asked to consider
    the discrepancy, and then to rate the extent to which the
    person’s words and deeds were contradictory.”

    Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory who led
    the study, said: “We did not see any increased activation of
    the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning, What
    we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up,
    including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating
    emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving
    conflicts.”

    In other words, in most cases, no amount of logic interferes
    with our strongly-held beliefs. The brain automatically
    rationalizes discrepancies in facts to support our beliefs.
    Evidence that contradicts our beliefs fails to reach the
    dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most
    associated with reasoning (as well as conscious efforts to
    suppress emotion). The finding suggests that the
    emotion-driven processes that lead to biased judgments occur
    outside of conscious awareness.

    Do you and I succumb to emotionally-biased judgments when we
    have a vested interest in supporting our beliefs? Only when we
    find ourselves resisting the evidence. Success in life tends
    to be proportional to our willingness to examine the evidence.

    H. L. Mencken observed: “The most common of all follies is to
    believe passionately in the palpably not true.” Beliefs, at
    least false beliefs, are an impediment to us all.

    Or, as Mark Twain put it, “It ain’t what you don’t know that
    gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    As well, Sportin’ Life in Porgy and Bess put it, “It ain’t necessarily so……..”

    [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

    [i]Edited for spelling and punctuation errors[/i]

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #3145778

      It is not the strongest that survive

      by mjwx ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      But those most responsive to change and in so doing are those most able to change.

      First of all Dawg, the tests performed on the politicians are flawed. you’re asking them to think reasonably and honestly, two traits which don’t belong to any polly. 🙂

      In my experience one can only accept new ideas when ones beliefs allows them to. Belief seems to be the greatest motivation once our primary needs are taken care of (food, water, shelter, sex and yes reproduction is one of our most basic needs) after this we need something to concentrate on, and so we developed concepts such as civilization, government and religion.

      I believe as Winston Churchill did “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others we have tried.” and I feel pretty much the same way about free market. Now this is not to say I am against democracy and free market, I see them as the highest step on the civilization staircase. I am trying as hard as I can to put my foot on the next step up. History has proven time and time again that no system stays in place for ever, all things must change and I do not fear that change.

      Now some people fear change and some people want to go in the other direction. I do not understand why people would not want to advance, but then I remember that not all people believe as I do. I hope that the majority can see reason. the problem lies in the definition of that reason. take a thorn we have over here (I don’t classify him as a problem only an anoyance) an Indonesian cleric named Abu Baku Bashir. He was jailed for praising the Bali Bombers 3 years ago and recently released. Upon his release he said to the press that John Howard should convert to Islam to be saved an eternity in hell blah blah blah . I was somewhat in sensed at this until I realized that he was merely a troll and once ignored he would simply disappear from the face of the earth (literally, the place he lives is not easy to get to).

      It is people like this who I view as wrong but then again to Bashir I (and most of you here) would make quiet the infidel ]:) (I like that idea). This is the crux of the problem everyone sees right and wrong differently and who is to say which way is right and which is wrong, wars have been fought over this since time immoral, we were fighting each other because of our differences since before we could write. Throughout history we have refined the concept, religion, race, territory, resources, slavery, democracy/communism. In each of the conflicts no matter how long or short the it was not always the strongest or most dedicated side that won out. It was the side who was best able to handle a catastrophic change.

      The Ancient Greeks had superior tactics that won against superior numbers (Persians). The Nazi’s has superior tactics and technology that lost to superior production and numbers.

      I have subscribed to the red queen theory of evolution. In Alice of wonderland the red queen tells Alice she has to run as fast as she can just to stay where she is. the is the same with species on an evolutionary scale, species must run as fast as they can just to stay where they are. If they cant then they go over the precipice of extinction. then how does one run faster? well as we’ve figured out stronger is not the answer. then how else does one get faster, we learn to run smarter, change to become more streamlined and loose what weighs us down and restricts out movements. I believe (theres that word again) this is the only way for the human species. Forgive me for being melodramatic but the days of the homo-sapiens race are numbered, the only way to survive is to evolve. the next evolution of the species homo-deus(the godly men). the next evolution IMO will be one where we are our own masters, physically, emotionally and spiritually.

      Do you and I succumb to emotional based judgements. Well of course we do, emotions are part of the core of our being. emotions play a part in everything we do. what would happen if we had no emotional persuasions. Emotions can generate both good and bad actions. It is generally the mark of a civilized person to lean towards the right emotional decisions. you (Dawg) and I believe in free speech, free market (although differing views on some aspects), A say in our governance and free religion (or at least I do, I don’t know where you sit on this topic). this is because these are the thing we feel most comfortable in and generate the most empathy for us. we are emotionally biased towards these things (probably because thats how we lived our lives up until this point). others who did not grow up in surroundings like ours do not share all or any of our view’s and dare I say it passions for freedom. We humans are quiet simply emotional creatures, I believe in understanding my emotions (as in why do i feel sad/happy/guilty, finding the cause to each).

      The worst mistake we can make is to believe that we are right beyond doubt.

      • #3145757

        I agree with a lot you said except for one discrepancy.

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to It is not the strongest that survive

        The testing wasn’t done on politicians. It was done on ordinary people, who just happen to express support for a party. Unlike Canada, Britain or Australia, when US citizens register to vote, they have to declare, one way or the other, their support for a particular party, the main choices being Republican, Democrat or say that they are independent. I just recently found out the ramifications of this, because the Americans conduct a little process, before every presidential election wherein they participate in something called the PrimarIes. These are like mini versions of the main election, but only the various candidates for the office, [b]in each party[/b] get to run in them. these are not conducted against the candidates of the other partiies but strictly between the candidates of the party a person is registered for. Thus, you have Democratic Primaries and you have Republican Primaries. You are supposedly only capable of voting in the primary of the party you are registered for and independent get no official Primary to vote in. Am I being clear enough here?
        After reading this I’m not too sure but maybe an American can correct any errors I may have made. I’m not too sure but I think you can change your party of registration but again but again, I’m not sure. I only know you can vote in the Primary of the party you are registered for.

        Anyway, from what I can see, this was the process that determined the selection of the candidates for testing. These people were not politicians, just people of the parties they were registered to vote for. Maybe they should have included a section for independents but they didn’t. I imagine because of each fMRI test being conducted is quite expensive and they were doing several of them over the course of the study, several times on each subject.

        [b][i]to study a group of committed Democrats and Republicans
        during the three months prior to the last U.S. Presidential
        election. The Democrats and Republicans were asked to evaluate
        threatening information about their own candidate while
        undergoing fMRI to see which parts of their brains were
        activated. [/b][/i]

        Your points are still valid but the tests were not done with real live politicians, if such a thing exists.

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

      • #3145756

        One thing you said

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to It is not the strongest that survive

        You said, [i]”The worst mistake we can make is to believe that we are right beyond doubt.”[/i]

        Do you believe that comment to be true beyond all doubt?

        If your answer is yes, then you just contradicted yourself. If your answer is no, then the comment is not true.

        • #3145743

          Damn it Max, you had me reading and rereading my own stuff before……….

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to One thing you said

          Talk about being conceited. I finally woke up to the idea that you might not be addressing me. I was positive I hadn’t said anything like that but if you said I had, I just had to find it. Doh! :^0

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3270747

          the comment is only absoulte

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to One thing you said

          if you beleive only in absolutes. Untill then it is an opinion. A quote if you will.

          The comment “the worst mistake we can make is to believe that we are right beyond all doubt’ is not a statement of absolute truth but a guide, something to live by but not to dominate your every move.

          What it means is that there are no absolute truths. You can be 99% certain but there is always 1% of uncertainty. The comment should be taken in that light. So not believing 100% to the letter is actually what I meant by the comment, allowing your doubts and the doubts of others to construct upon ideas.

          Unless of course max you are stirring me up in which case, good show.

        • #3270628

          I think the quote implies…

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to the comment is only absoulte

          that we have a tendency to continue to hold our beliefs even in light of contradictory facts, which supports Dawg’s initial post. It’s a case of “I’ll see it when I believe it.” It’s difficult to wrap our heads around the facts until we understand that we have to question what we’ve “learned” in the past.

        • #3270611

          Belief in the face of the evidence

          by keithc ·

          In reply to I think the quote implies…

          The US Navy did some experiments on this many years ago. In a simulation, shi captains continued to believe earlier information long after new stuff should have supplanted it. In aviation, this often leads to what is called a “controlled flight into the ground”.

        • #3271217

          I’ll see it when I believe it

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think the quote implies…

          I use that line quite often. In the context of a person achieving great things and overcoming personal obstacles, many people take an “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude. That’s backwards, however, because they’ll actually [i]see it when they believe it[/i].

          I get the feeling that people are taking this discussion in different directions. There’s a difference in “believing” the house is brick, when it really has wood siding (which is a analogy that might apply to some of the comments made here), and “believing” that you can own that big brick house if a person applies himself and “believes” in himself (which is the analogy that can be used in my context).

          “I’ll see it when I believe it” is a great sentiment to bear in mind to help a person achieve lofty goals. An “I’ll believe it when I see it” attitude, on the other hand, becomes an obstacle in and of itself.

        • #3142050

          Excellent point

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to I’ll see it when I believe it

          I usually think of “I’ll believe it when I see it” externally. For instance, that I need to show other people results for implementing a managerial change before they’ll line up to support it. You’ve painted it with a much broader brush; that I need to think of “see” as a vision rather than simple understanding. Thanks!

        • #3141837

          Both apply to different types of things

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Excellent point

          .
          Man-Caused Global Warming: I’ll believe it when I really see it.

          Pigs Can Fly: I’ll believe it when I really see it.

          My Next Lofty Goal: I’ll see it when I really believe it.

          Taking Self-Responsibility: I’ll see it when I really believe it.

          Maybe it’s the tangible-intangible thing. One person might be arguing from one perspective, while another person is arguing from the other. It’s no wonder they can’t agree and/or see each other’s point.

          And another thing, now that I’m going off on tangents, I’ve been accused (by others) of being both rigid and inflexible AND waffling and being inconsistent. Both used the other as the preferred way (although worded a bit differently, I suppose). Why is it that when a person is simply grounded in principle, and is unwavering in that principle, he’s closed-minded? But when a person isn’t, he lacks conviction? People argue, and will use either retort, to justify their desired conclusion. And I think a lot of people are really afraid to take a definite stand on some issues, so they have to offer some silly and profound-sounding wiggle words. My guess is that they just can’t take the criticism that will undoubtedly follow when one stands up for one’s principles.

          One of my core principles: People, if physically and mentally able, are responsible for their own lives, and are responsible to not be a burden on the lives of others. And if I give myself enough credit for having the ability to take self-responsibility, how could I possibly suggest that another person doesn’t? I just can’t look a person in the eye and tell him, to his face, that he doesn’t have what it takes to accept self-responsibility. And if I can’t tell him to his face, how could I justify telling him by proxy? I could “reexamine” that until I’m blue in the face, and it’ll never change. So there comes a point in time when you just quit reexamining some things, live life accordingly, and just let the chips fall where they may.

          P.S. This has been some good dialogue, by the way. Better than the one who (might have) suggested my life was not worth living because I don’t reexamine every aspect of my life. (And who’s to say that just because I don’t reexamine ALL aspects of my life ALL the time, I don’t reexamine some of it some of the time?) Oh well, in the words of President Lincoln, you can’t please all the people all of the time.

        • #3271167

          It just sounds silly

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to the comment is only absoulte

          You said, [i]”The worst mistake we can make is to believe that we are right beyond doubt.[/i]”

          First of all, it’s not a quote, unless you attribute it to somebody. Who are you quoting? Yourself? Yea, okay, it’s your opinion. But it’s not my opinion.

          Second of all, [i]”The worst mistake”[/i] a person can make? Please, there are much worse things than whatever this was intended to mean.

          Third of all, for a person to believe he/she is right is anything but a mistake. Since when does confidence or certainty in one’s self become a mistake?

          Fourth of all, people strive to remove doubt in themselves, at least the person I would like to be and/or the people I would like to be around? Why in the world would a person want to be, or associate with, a bunch of “doubting Thomases”?

          Lastly, I just think it was an attempt to say something profound, but it came out all discombobulated and meaningless. It may be something you want to “live by”, but not me.

        • #3142035

          The unexamined life is not worth living

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to It just sounds silly

          Socrates said that many centuries ago.

          What I see in the first point is hubris. If we think we are right beyond doubt, without any internal dialogue or questioning, it can be very wrong. That doesn’t mean we have to expose those internal examinations to the world, or show the world a lack of confidence.

          I question myself all the time, I don’t trust my memory on everything anymore, and I am open to re-examining my opinions on most subjects. For me to do otherwise, falls into what you and I call lazy thinking.

          It is the fact that I do rethink and re-examine that gives me self confidence. At times I do find I have made a mistake or a bad assumption, and I often take pains to say so.

          It goes to motive -if you beleive you are right because you got there logically, and you are open to re-examining things if new information comes to light, then go ahead and be confident.

          If you hold stubbornly or pridefully onto an idea without being open to re-examining, then you have hubris. Many successful people have it, but thats what tragedies are made of. Some people, like Donald Trump, manage to maintain it even though they have spectacular failures (like bankruptcies).

          I agree with your idea – its not the “worst” mistake someone can make.

          James

        • #3269699

          Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to The unexamined life is not worth living

          …..or at least this one aspect of it.

          Point: I’ve always held the belief that I should take full and total self-responsibility, and not become a burden on others or society. Okay, let me reconsider that. After all, I don’t want to be rigid in my beliefs and be called closed-minded.

          Thinking ………. reexamining ………. considering ………. still thinking ………. still reexamining ………. still considering ……….

          Okay, I’ve changed my mind. From now on, I think I’ll just rely on others, I mean on society as a whole to take responsibility for me. I’m now “open-minded”. I now consider that other people might have a better idea as to how I should live my life.

          What’s the next rigid point in my life that I should reexamine? How about this one? I’ve always held the belief that it’s wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to me, even if I elect some broker to take it by proxy. Let me now reexamine that silly “closed-minded” belief.

          Thinking ………. reexamining ………. considering ………. still thinking ………. still reexamining ………. still considering ……….

          Okay, I’ve changed my mind again. From now on, I think I’ll just take what I need from others, I mean from society as a whole so that others can really take responsibility for me. No, wait a minute; let’s be a little more open-minded, here. On second thought, I’ll not take what I want or need, per se, but what others want me to have, and what others think I should have. Yes, that’s better. After all, we are all a family, of sorts, and we must rely on each other because we “care”.

          I’m now “open-minded”. I now consider that other people might have a better idea as to how I should live my life.

          How am I doing?

          Man, that sure is a burden off my shoulders. This open-minded stuff might make my life easier. Thanks for pointing it out to me.

          Okay, what should I do now? What should I think now? I’m now open-minded, and I really want to know how you think I should live my life.

        • #3269597

          Not at all what I was trying to say.

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          The point is not to have others tell you how to live your life. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough in my point.

          The point is to examine your life and your beliefs for yourself. And I am not trying to take credit for the quote – its from Socrates, who as far as I can tell is not a socialist.

          The point is that we as individuals should not hold dogmatically to beliefs, but consider information that comes to light. New information comes out all the time. If tomorrow a new breakthough in climatological research comes out which proves your theory on Global Warming comes out, would you want those who believe that man made global warming exists to consider it? Or should they hold tightly to their beliefs?

          As you might know from some of the other posts, I am a bit of a history buff and I hold lots of beliefs about WWII, the causes, the issues, the decisions made etc. But I am willing to consider the fact that some younger newer historians writing today may access newer material thats been declassified or even never thought important before, and they may have insights I haven’t considered. New information comes to light and it may be necessary to re-examine one’s beliefs.

          What I think it comes down to is core beliefs versus more complex issues. I don’t feel I have to constantly re-examine my core beliefs, but my perspective on large complex issues should be open to re-examination.

          I’m not trying to tell you anything about how to live your life. My intial point was regarding “the worst mistake you can make is…” post that mjwx made. I thought you were in agreement to some extent.

          James

        • #3269576

          Here is the answer for your question.

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          …what you should do now. I have a task for you. Next time I want to argue with somebody, I want you to argue for me 🙂

          I disagree and agree with you, but I must say you express yourselves very well. And good articulations point to a good thinking mind. I wish I was able to improve my thinking.

          BTW, I do agree with the two points here: 1)Accepting responsibility 2)Not stealing.

        • #3269556

          My sarcasm run amok. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          …was also to make a point. It’s absolutely ridiculous to see people (not necessarily you) call me “closed-minded” because I try to live by a few basic beliefs. It takes an extremely ignorant and intolerant (and closed-minded?) person to criticize another for bring “closed-minded”, just because that person is one of conviction. It’s also absolutely ridiculous to see people (not necessarily you) call me “closed-minded” just because I’m not convinced by their argument. I’m not convinced, but you want me to fall in line anyway? Why? And why should I?

          You said, [i]”The point is that we as individuals should not hold dogmatically to beliefs, but consider information that comes to light. New information comes out all the time. If tomorrow a new breakthrough in climatological research comes out which proves your theory on Global Warming, would you want those who believe that man made global warming exists to consider it? Or should they hold tightly to their beliefs?”[/i]

          First of all, as a disclaimer, I think it’s bass-ackwards to call my position on man-caused global warming a “theory”. How can one theorize that such a thing is not taking place? The burden of proof lies in proving that it is, and up to now the claim is just that, a “theory”. That’s the primary problem with their position; the notion of man-caused global warming is anything but conclusive, but it’s being advanced as though it is. It’s a theory, not a fact.

          However, taking your comment as I believe it was intended, let me say this. Of course I would want them to reconsider their beliefs. In fact, in this case, I wonder why they don’t reconsider their beliefs. It is they who are firmly holding onto their “rigid beliefs”, not me. In my opinion, enough research HAS been conducted, and HAS been publicized (although not as much as the contrary position) that suggests the notion of “man-caused” global warming is anything but conclusive.

          Their position is that the accused (man-caused global warming) is already tried and convicted, and they’re now crying for an execution. My position, on the other hand, is that the preverbal jury is still out, and I’ll wait for the final verdict. Who’s being “closed-minded”? Not me? The man-caused global warming alarmists, on the other hand, ARE standing firm in their beliefs, even though it’s not conclusively proven. And then, if you consider the driving force behind the man-caused global warming movement is, what I consider, a bunch of political con-men, why in the hell should I capitulate? I’m not convinced by their arguments, and I don’t trust the people behind the claim. It’s about as simple as that. And also, in this case, these people advancing the notion are preying on people’s fear by advancing the “worst mistake you can make……” argument. Sorry, but their “just in case” argument is not only stupid, but fear-mongering as usual.

          I’ve actually given this a lot of thought and dedicated a lot of time reading into the issue. I’m extremely open-minded. I’m waiting with baited breath for the proof, the whole proof, and nothing but the proof; and then I’ll fall on the side of absolute proof.

          Here’s an analogy. You’re standing in the middle of Kansas on a dark and cloudy day; you can’t see the direction of the sun and you can’t see the stars at night. It’s a VERY CLOUDY day (just like it’s a very cloudy issue). The assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to get to Missouri. Do you start walking just to take action? No, you wait until you can learn, with absolute certainty, that you’ll be walking east. These man-caused global warming folks are walking in every-which direction, before they even know which way is east. They’re acting foolishly, just to be cautious. I’m waiting patiently, just to be cautious.

          How is it that I’m being closed-minded and they’re not?

        • #3269552

          onbliss – – – –

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          Thank you very much. You made my day a little better.

        • #3144085

          ROFLMAO Max.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          If you want to play follow the leader raise your right arm from the shoulder and Seig Heil!.

          If you’d all do some thinking (Max you are excused from this exercize to give others a chance),and did it well, you would probable agree with me.

          .50 cal Knob creek type impact on the post Max.

        • #3144079

          Onbliss – A point of accuracy

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          You said, [i]”….I (you) do agree with the two points here: 1)Accepting responsibility 2)Not stealing.”[/i]

          I didn’t say anything at all about “stealing”. I said, [i]”I’ve always held the belief that it’s wrong to take something that doesn’t belong to me, even if I elect some broker to take it by proxy.”[/i] This isn’t necessarily stealing. Stealing is another issue entirely.

        • #3144057

          Taxes, eh?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Okay, let me reexamine my life…..

          At first I did equate it to stealing. That is how usually we teach kids, do not take stuff that does not belong to you.

          It is possible for a person to take/grab/rob/steal/snatch something from “others” and/or “society” (these two double-quoted words were used by you) with their full knowledge or complete lack of knowledge.

          ps:
          webster.com gives the following as one of the definitions for the word steal: [i]to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice[/i]

        • #3269579

          Profound

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to It just sounds silly

          You can agree or disagree with that particular piece of opinion.

          Okay, say if you were given the assignment to state that opinion in your own words, how would you have stated that without inviting “arguments for the sake of the argument”?

        • #3269549

          Maybe something like this:

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Profound

          A person owes it to himself to be open-minded to issues that are inconclusive and to people who might hold differing beliefs.

          I’m not sure if that’s barking up the same tree, but it’s the best I can come up with on short notice.

        • #3269529

          I am going to go with mjwx

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          I liked his form better. It has that element of “punch”.

        • #3269482

          Maybe, but . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          …it has no substance.

        • #3144086

          Context

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          Proverbs, adages, wise sayings etc. address an issue from an angle (or from a few angles). One might be able to find exceptions or contexts where they do not fit well.

        • #3144083

          However, How can I possibly. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          …..restate, in different words, what someone else said, if I have no idea what he was trying to say in the first place? I will admit one of my flaws or shortcomings. I’m not a very good interpreter if gibberish.

        • #3144078

          So you do have flaws :-)

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          I admit I was being unfair in requesting you to restate something, especially when you did not agree (whole heartedly, perhaps) to the substance.

          [i]I will admit one of my flaws or shortcomings. I’m not a very good interpreter if gibberish.[/i]

          Ouch, ouch ouch. LOL. Nice trick, there.

        • #3144066

          Onbliss – just having some fun

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          Perhaps mjwx@… will restate his sentiment so I can decide whether or not I agree.

        • #3143854

          Abstract and Concrete

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          I put a lot of ideas and theories into that post so I don?t think I could have put much in that would not be overshadowed by the mood of the post. I made the post at 10:30 PM after doing 4 hours straight of Java programming (Homework for a TAFE course and I am not a programmer) so I suffered somewhat of a “Brainfart” and couldn?t think of anything better.

          I was trying to end on something meaningful, an idea that could make a person think. Not necessarily straight forward but simple enough. It was my intent to have people think about and further discuss my ideas.

          As for the comment in question, maybe it is not the worst mistake but it is certainly a mistake to think that you are 100% right 100% of the time. This is as simple as I can put it.

          Max, there are abstract thinkers and concrete thinkers. I’m not saying one is better than the other but concrete thinkers (I think you are a pure concrete thinker, correct and analytical) aren’t very good at finding meanings in vague messages and tend to be methodical in using tried and tested solutions. Abstract thinkers like to look for meanings even when there isn?t one to be found and generally try to find alternative and creative solutions. I consider myself to be somewhat of an abstract thinker, outside the box but this is how [b]i[/b] consider [b]myself[/b].

        • #3143785

          I created an abstract of a concrete plan just the other day

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          The contractor didn’t know what to think!

        • #3142341

          Contractor…

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to Maybe something like this:

          …wrong audience. Different people, different documents.

    • #3145758

      I’ve said a similar thing before

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      [b][i]Everyone sees the world through the prism of their own bias.[/b][/i] (Bias, in this case, equals experience, rearing, influences, teachings, etc.)

      And it’s true. How can someone who’s taught the “victim” mentality from early childhood, possibly see a world in which he is limited only by his own ambition? But people can be retrained, and learn to see things in a different light.

      What the mind can conceive and believe, it can achieve.
      – Earl Nightingale

      The challenge is getting the mind to really believe it, or in the very least make the choice to try and believe such a thing. And why do I persist, not only with myself but in my relationship with others? Because it’s better than any other alternative.

      • #3145754

        I am assuming the Nightingale you mention is……………

        by sleepin’dawg ·

        In reply to I’ve said a similar thing before

        The Nightingale of Nightingale-Conant, publisher of many motivational treatises?

        BTW, you are the one who explained the Primary process to me, as mentioned above; feel free to make any corrections you deem necessary.

        [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3145753

          My answers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I am assuming the Nightingale you mention is……………

          Yes to the first question, no the second.

          I’ll post more later. This is one subject on which I am fairly well versed, pretty opinionated, and quite passionate.

        • #3145744

          I was fairly certain I was treading in a dangerous area and…………….

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to My answers

          was more than likely going to make some mistakes. About a year, maybe a bit longer, ago, I stated I failed to see the necessity of the primary process. I am still not sure of the necessity for primaries because I still think there has to be a simpler and cheaper process but I sort of knew I probably would be messing something up. I was just try to make a simple explanation to another outsider of the US electoral system and how candidates are chosen.

          I know the subjects weren’t politicians beyond that, you’ll have to teach me.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3270614

          You summarized the primary process pretty well

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to I was fairly certain I was treading in a dangerous area and…………….

          I would add that there’s actually quite a process that goes on before the primaries. Often for state races, there are party conventions or caucuses that try to choose a single candidate to put on the ballot. If the convention, made up of delegates selected locally, doesn’t have a concensus choice, a candidate can “force” a primary. And the convention is preceeded by petitioning and all sorts of politicking.

          In general, the election laws are left to the individual states, so there’s a lot of variation between the arrays of laws, rules and traditions that are followed across juisdictions. In a sense, you need to live it to really learn it. Much of the work is done through backoffice deals. It’s pretty fascinating, if not fair and open.

    • #3145755

      “Hey don’t confuse me with facts !

      by jardinier ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      My mind is already made up.”

      That was a favourite, but all too true joke included in the repertoire of a former colleague of mine, who was an ex fraud squad detective. He worked with me for four years when I was editor of the Action Line column on the now defunct Daily Mirror newspaper. This was a kind of consumer affairs service in which people who were not getting a fair deal from some retailer, tradesmen or government department or agency, would ask the newspaper to intervene to get their problem resolved.

      Well so much for that.

      Dawg you are unquestionably the most creative writer in these discussions, as highlighted by your classic flame of 1AW. But sometimes you get a bit long winded when introducing serious topics.

      My own experience causes me to agree with the familiar “nature and nurture” combination. However if we are raised by our natural parents, then we get a double whammy of nature because we not only inherit our genes from our parents, but we are taught to believe as our parents do also.

      I am sure you are familiar with the term atavism, which suggests that we have within our psyche some remembrance of every stage of human evolution.

      Are we hard wired? Of course. What is our most fundamental responsibility as a member of a society? To become a little bit wiser than our parents.

      It is my belief that any parent who brings up their children to be a little more independent in thought than they themselves were, has helped society to progress a little.

      There is a classic example close to home. My sister and I grew up in what is now termed a dysfunctional family. However, despite the most appalling scenario in her own marriage, she raised two fine young boys who are most definitely VERY MUCH better adjusted than either herself or her husband, and QUITE objective and independent in their thinking.

      This past week, following on from a family crisis, I have been exchanging emails with my elder nephew, who is aged 31, until 4 or 5 in the morning. That young man is able to see the whole messy situation of both his own family and that of his grandparents TOTALLY objectively.

      Because my sister suffers chronic (and almost certainly endogenous) depression, she cannot see this remarkable accomplishment of hers. She sees herself as a failure and her life as wasted, and yet she has nurtured my nephew so cleverly that he is largely free of any inherited negative traits.

      Enough for now. I may chime in again later.

      This is a great discussion topic by the way.

    • #3145750
    • #3270794

      best government / society option is socialism

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      To define Socialism for this definition, a reprise of Asimov’s 3 Laws.

      1) I can take no action that will cause harm to another life form.
      [i] originally: I can take no action that causes harm to a human. [/i]

      To obey this ideal, you have to look at the consequences of your actions.

      2) I cannot through my inaction allow harm to come to another life form.
      [i] originally: I cannot through my incation cause or allow harm to a human.[/i]

      This one requires you to pay attention to the “common good”

      3) I must obey the laws of society, in spirit as well as literally, except for when those laws will cause harm to another life form.
      [i]originally: I must obey all orders from a human except when such orders conflict with the first or second laws[/i]

      By adopting these as the core of society, and making sure that they are taught to children, we would wind up with a society that accepts responsibility for their actions, that pays attention to the consequences of their actions and requires a lot less policing, since individual members are very much self policing.

      • #3270772

        Who wants a robotic society?

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to best government / society option is socialism

        Those were the laws to be followed by robots, not people. First introduced by Isaac Asimov in his short story [i]Runaround[/i] in 1942, they state the following:

        1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

        2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by a human being, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

        3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

        As far as applying these “laws” to people, I couldn’t disagree more.

        • #3141912

          who said

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Who wants a robotic society?

          a robotic society?
          I said that teaching kids to accept responsibility for their actions would create a better society, and such a society would fit under the label of socialism.

        • #3269764

          That’s not what you said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to who said

          You said, [i]”By adopting these (Asimov’s three Laws) as the core of society, and making sure that they are taught to children, we would wind up with a society that accepts responsibility for their actions, that pays attention to the consequences of their actions and requires a lot less policing, since individual members are very much self policing.”[/i]

          You suggested teaching those “three laws”, not self-responsibility (“…..teaching kids to accept responsibility for their actions “)

          Moreover, self-responsibility is not the cornerstone of a socialist society. You’re a huge collectivist thinker. That is NOT self-responsibility.

          Where do you come up with this stuff? (I noticed no one is agreeing with you!)

          (And I said a “robotic society” because they were LAWS FOR ROBOTS, something you forgot to mention.)

          The problem with people like you who have this utopian idea of a collectivist la-la land is that you have to force others, who otherwise don’t want to capitulate, into your “collective”. [i]You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile![/i]

          Asimov, by the way, was a HUGE Democrat (Russian immigrant to the USA) and socialist, advocated a huge tax-base, was an atheist, advanced feminist and environmental causes and everything George McGovern would be proud of.

        • #3144054

          Max – where do you come up with this stuff?

          by jalefevre ·

          In reply to That’s not what you said

          Jaqui said nothing about Robots, mind control, Democrats, or even Socialism (out side of the title).

          Paraphrasing, the suggestion was: Don?t whack people (or other things), and respect the law. That sounds a lot like George Bush Sr.?s ?Kinder, gentler world?, illuminated by his ?thousand points of light?. George is still a Republican, I believe.

          She also adds the ?crimes of omission? that is: don?t cause harm by failing to act.

          Further how are any of her suggestions in the post inconsistent with responsible behavior?

        • #3144038

          You missed the reference to the ORIGINAL use

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max – where do you come up with this stuff?

          The 3 laws, as stated by Jaqui, were ORIGINALLY created in Isaac Asimov’s short story [i]Runaround[/i]. Jaqui misstated the original wording, and he overlooked giving the original credit.

          Those three original laws state the following:

          1. A robot may not harm a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

          2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by a human being, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

          3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Laws.

          Jaqui applied them to people; and I commented that as far as applying these “laws” to people, I couldn’t disagree more.

          [b]Isaac Asimov wrote ROBOT BOOKS.[/b] The [i]I, Robot [/i]series, which he wrote in the 1950s, is the specific one I mentioned.

          If somebody quotes a book, or something originally printed in the book, the reference is made. Just because YOU missed the reference, or are so uninformed amd/or unread and/or too young to know about the books, it doesn’t negate the obvious reference. (My guess is that Jaqui, himself, didn’t even know he was quoting the three laws of robots!)

          I thought I explained this already? Did you miss something?

          By the way, jaqui did indeed mention socialism — and he’s an admitted socialist. (It doesn’t mix well with me, an admitted libertarian.)

        • #3144013

          jaqui did indeed mention socialism

          by jalefevre ·

          In reply to You missed the reference to the ORIGINAL use

          And you mentioned Democrats (I hadn?t recalled you mentioning socialism). Jaqui?s three laws relate to neither that I can see. Most Republicans and libertarians support respecting the law and not damaging things arbitrarily. Jaqui did credit Asimov as inspiration.

          The question to you is what part of Jaqui?s suggestion that children should be taught to respect the law and not cause damage are you taking issue with, and how do they conflict with your stated belief in a person taking responsibility for their own actions?

        • #3143983

          My answers

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to You missed the reference to the ORIGINAL use

          For my own reference, and to needle the ‘dawg, you said, [i]”And you mentioned Democrats (I hadn?t recalled you mentioning socialism). Jaqui?s three laws relate to neither that I can see. Most Republicans and libertarians support respecting the law and not damaging things arbitrarily. Jaqui did credit Asimov as inspiration. ….. The question to you is what part of Jaqui?s suggestion that children should be taught to respect the law and not cause damage are you taking issue with, and how do they conflict with your stated belief in a person taking responsibility for their own actions?”[/i]

          First of all, why don’t you let jaqui speak for himself? He’s a big boy and should be able to debate his own argument (although he seldom does.) But I’ll indulge your questions, nonetheless.

          My point-by-point replies:

          Democrats in the United States ARE socialists, in my opinion (And Republicans are “baby” Democrats — “baby” socialists by extension). Jaqui mentioned socialism in his very first message. I decided to make the connection to Democrats, especially since his “inspiration” was a big-time Democrat. If you don’t like it, too bad.

          jaqui’s laws relate to both Democrats and Socialists, the way I interpret it. Moreover, he even said as much himself. Perhaps you should read his messages again, and then disagree with him. He’s the one that said it to begin with.

          Of course most Republicans and Libertarians support respecting the law and not damaging things arbitrarily. Most Libertarians, however, believe there are too many laws, too many restrictions, and too many limits placed on individual liberty, thereby hindering one’s ability to to take self-responsibility. Republicans used to think that way, but not any more. Moreover, “not damaging things arbitrarily” has gotten out of hand. When a land owner can’t build a house because of some bug, it’s gone too far. No, jacki didn’t mention “bugs”, but rather all living things, or some such nonsense. That’s what socialists do — put bugs before people, or at least on equal footing. I don’t.

          Sure, Jaqui did credit Asimov as inspiration, but he also misquoted what he claimed was an “original” quote. It’s a VERY VERY pertinent premise, that Asimov laws were intended for robots, not people — a HUGE omission on jaqui’s part, and apparently yours as well.

          I take issue with jaqui’s intent. Of course, I’m reading into it, but he has yet to correct me. Until he does, I’ll presume I read into it correctly. In a nutshell, however, I prefer to teach children how to think for themselves, not what to think. The tone of the laws suggested closer to [i]what[/i], not [i]how[/i]. It sounded like indoctrination to me. And again, jaqui has yet to take issue.

          I’m all in favor of a person taking self-responsibility individual, not collectively. There’s a huge difference. We are treading on dangerous socialist waters when “self-responsibility” becomes a collective decision. That’s exactly the implication. And that’s exactly what I take issue with.

        • #3142330

          Collectivism: Why is it bad ?

          by onbliss ·

          In reply to You missed the reference to the ORIGINAL use

          …..

          And is it bad:
          1) ALL the time
          2) MOST of the time
          3) SOME times
          4) FEW times

        • #3143935

          . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Max – where do you come up with this stuff?

        • #3269730

          What you also said

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to who said

          You said, [i]”By adopting these (Asimov’s three Laws) as the core of society, and making sure that they are taught to children, we would wind up with a society that accepts responsibility for their actions, that pays attention to the consequences of their actions and requires a lot less policing, since individual members are very much self policing.”[/i]

          In other words (I hate it when people put my words in “other words”, because they almost always get it wrong. In this case, however, I’m gonna’ do it anyway. Besides, I’m probably not wrong.), you have this utopian view that all children can, and should, be taught to think the same way. That doesn’t sound like “teaching” to me; it sounds like indoctrination. And who gets to decide how/what to indoctrinate …. I mean teach?

          Gee, isn’t this nice. If only we could all think alike. Let’s all just get along and sing a song…..

          I’d like to build the world a home
          And furnish it with love
          Grow apple trees and honey bees and snow-white turtle doves

          I’d like to teach the world to sing
          In perfect harmony
          I’d like to hold it in my arms and keep it company
          I’d like to see the world for once
          All standing hand in hand
          And hear them echo through the hills “Ah, peace throughout the land”

          ….. excuse me for a minute while I go throw-up.

        • #3269714

          Awwww, Max

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to What you also said

          Did you have to go there? Really? Now that song is stuck in MY head!

          Right behind you on the throwing up thing!

        • #3269692

          In that case, there’s only one thing to do

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Awwww, Max

          Go have a bottle of Coca-Cola.

      • #3270762

        One more comment

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to best government / society option is socialism

        If I had a mind to,
        I wouldn’t want to think like you.
        And if I had time to
        I wouldn’t want to talk to you.

        I don’t care
        What you do,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.
        I don’t care
        What you do,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.

        If I was high class
        I wouldn’t need a buck to pass.
        And if I was a fall guy,
        I wouldn’t need no alibi…

        I don’t care
        What you do,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.
        I don’t care
        What you do,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.

        Back on the bottom line,
        Diggin’ for a lousy dime.
        If I hit a mother lode,
        I’d cover anything that showed.

        I don’t care
        What you do,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.
        I don’t care
        What you do…
        I wouldn’t wanna,
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.
        I wouldn’t want to be like you.

        Edited to add the following, and seek the “answer”.

        No “question” was asked in this message, per se, but the one who answers it gets the GRAND PRIZE!

        • #3270651

          Ummmm..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to One more comment

          Who is the Alan Parsons Project?

        • #3270612

          That’s one-third of the answer

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ummmm..

          Or really one-fourth. It all needs to be tied together.

        • #3270602

          Like you don’t remember

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Ummmm..

          “time passages”?

        • #3270601

          perhaps I do..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to Like you don’t remember

          but I’m trying to forget it. Blech.

          Edited to berate JD..

          Damnit JD. It’s stuck now. That is just cruel on a Monday morning. I hope you die horribly.

        • #3270589

          May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          by dmambo ·

          In reply to perhaps I do..

          Not __________, but Al Stewart was just as bad!

          Edited because JD confused me and Max pointed it out. Wasn’t thinking – sorry.

          Damn you, JD. That whole “Time Passages” sent me into a tizzie.

        • #3270588

          Throw in

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          some Harry Chapin and we have music for the comatose.

        • #3270563

          Nah.

          by gadgetgirl ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          Sugar Sugar by the Archies……

          ]:)

          GG

        • #3270560

          You guys aren’t thinking this through…

          by tig2 ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          Try an endless loop of REALLY bad Christian “rock”. Easy to find, actually…
          🙂

          Cat Stevens?

          Edit- typo

        • #3270543

          “…..was just as bad”?

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          Did I misread your message, or did you just say Alan Parsons was “bad”?

          I hope not, because I think he was, and still is, an absolute musical genius. He’s received a lot more acclaim in Europe than in the USA, which is a damn shame, if you ask me. In addition to creating his own unique musical style, he was also the producer (the second producer working under George Martin) who brought us such great albums as The Beatles’ [i]Abbey Road[/i], and on his own producing Pink Floyd’s [i]Dark Side of the Moon[/i]. In fact, he won a Grammy for the best engineered album for [i]Dark Side of the Moon[/i]. If you listen to Pink Floyd and then give Parsons a wide-listen, the similarities in style is unmistakable.

          No, on second thought, you probably didn’t say Alan Parsons was bad. I just need another cup of coffee.

        • #3270539

          Mae – One of the BEST SONGS of all time. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          ….was written (with his wife) and performed by Harry Chapin. Whenever I find myself torn between doing something with my son and just about anything else, these lyrics help me make my decision.

          A child arrived just the other day,
          He came to the world in the usual way.
          But there were planes to catch, and bills to pay.
          He learned to walk while I was away.
          And he was talking ‘fore I knew it, and as he grew,
          He’d say, “I’m gonna be like you, dad.
          You know I’m gonna be like you.”

          And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
          Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
          “When you coming home, dad?” “I don’t know when,
          But we’ll get together then.
          You know we’ll have a good time then.”

          My son turned ten just the other day.
          He said, “Thanks for the ball, dad, come on let’s play.
          Can you teach me to throw?” I said, “Not today,
          I got a lot to do.” He said, “That’s ok.”
          And he walked away, but his smile never dimmed,
          Said, “I’m gonna be like him, yeah.
          You know I’m gonna be like him.”

          And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
          Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
          “When you coming home, dad?” “I don’t know when,
          But we’ll get together then.
          You know we’ll have a good time then.”

          Well, he came from college just the other day,
          So much like a man I just had to say,
          “Son, I’m proud of you. Can you sit for a while?”
          He shook his head, and he said with a smile,
          “What I’d really like, dad, is to borrow the car keys.
          See you later. Can I have them please?”

          And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
          Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
          “When you coming home, son?” “I don’t know when,
          But we’ll get together then, dad.
          You know we’ll have a good time then.”

          I’ve long since retired and my son’s moved away.
          I called him up just the other day.
          I said, “I’d like to see you if you don’t mind.”
          He said, “I’d love to, dad, if I could find the time.
          You see, my new job’s a hassle, and the kid’s got the flu,
          But it’s sure nice talking to you, dad.
          It’s been sure nice talking to you.”
          And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me,
          He’d grown up just like me.
          My boy was just like me.

          And the cat’s in the cradle and the silver spoon,
          Little boy blue and the man in the moon.
          “When you coming home, son?” “I don’t know when,
          But we’ll get together then, dad.
          You know we’ll have a good time then.”

          ————————————–

          Here, have a listen:

          http://www.birdsnest.com/catcrad.htm

        • #3271210

          Ho Hum..

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to May he have to listen to “The Year of the Cat” on his deathbed.

          Max, I don’t need to listen. I KNOW the song. I just don’t like it. Although, I do accept that your belief is that it’s one of the best songs of all times. I think it’s smarmy.

          Of course, MY belief that Complete Control by the Clash is one of the greatest songs of all times probably makes you cringe. 🙂

        • #3142064

          My day

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to perhaps I do..

          is complete already! 😀

          And I didn’t even have to post any of the lyrics! B-)

          Ahh, the earwigs strike again! ]:)

          rock the casba ROCK the casba!

        • #3142052

          JD

          by maecuff ·

          In reply to My day

          I’m always good to you. Why do you have to be so mean?

          BTW, I don’t mind the casbah.

        • #3271205

          Okay, all this ties together. . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Ummmm..

          …and that is the answer.

          Here I thought I was being clever, and I just ended up being obscure. (Where’s that damned “getting old” thread?)

        • #3141791

          You guys are no fun!

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Okay, all this ties together. . . . . .

          The lyrics to the song that I pasted was a cut from Alan Parson’s album, [i]I, Robot[/i], which was inspired by, and was a reply, in part, to Isaac Asimov’s book, [i]I, Robot[/i]. The irony is as incredible as the differences. (I’m just too friggin old, and/or out of my element.)

    • #3270623

      A fancy way of saying

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      What I have always known.

      People hear, but they don’t listen.

      Well thought out Dawg.

    • #3270606

      Man is not rational, he is rationalising

      by tig2 ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      And it appears that the study bears this out. What is so difficult is that whatever it is you are arguing and from whatever viewpoint, it SEEMS TO YOU that you are arguing from logic, not emotion. At least at the time.

      It is only in retrospect that I have a place where I can look back at the conversation (or re-read it)and honestly assess- to the best of my ability- if I have been logical in the context of the conversation. I have had situations here where another person has pointed out a mis-statement. Fortunately I have been able to go back and re-state my position with more clarity. Or re-think my position in it’s entirety.

      I think that to an extent, openess to faith WAS hard-wired- but only because I was taught faith from earliest childhood. On the other side, I know people with a similar upbringing that have since chosen to not practice a faith. In the case of one man I know, he tells me that his current faith choices were developed by examining his faith through logic and deciding that there wasn’t a logical case for faith. While I understand his position, I have the same logical capacity as this man but was brought up believing that faith is not subject to logic. The church may be, but faith is not. So I have never questioned it, nor do I care to.

      I think that the same is true of politics. My parents raised Republican, consevative kids. I have four sisters. Two of us are still practicing Republicans, one does not involve herself in politics at all, two are independant. While I do not agree with all things Republican, I agree with much that the party stands for. I am not passionate about politics in general, but the morals that drive my opinions, I AM passionate about.

      I think that the resistance that you run into in espousing personal responsibility is that many people do not WANT to take personal responsibility. They don’t care to confront the fact that they are the creators of their own destiny. If they do, they also have to recognise that they are where they are by their own actions or lack thereof. For many, that is a difficult thing to face. My parents instilled personal responsibility into all of their children- we get it. My partner did the same with his son. And his son lives responsibly as a result. Unfortunately, self responsiblity isn’t mandated by society and isn’t consistantly taught and reinforced.

      It was proven through research years ago that women are more inclined to think more emotionally than men. While a generalisation, I think that there is some truth there. It would be interesting to know if the researchers saw any difference between men as women in the test subject’s reactions.

    • #3270591

      The choice to be lazy

      by dmambo ·

      In reply to [i]We are hard wired to [u]BELIEVE[/u] whatever is stamped into our minds.

      Some people, not all, do not do well in school because they are too lazy or choose to be distracted by other things.

      Some people, not all, do not prosper in the working world because they choose to do as little as possible to keep their job.

      Some people settle for their station in life because they choose to be home with the family for dinner every night, or choose to play guitar in the garage band, or to live where they do, or whatever.

      Some people believe what they do because it gives them a comfort zone that surrounds their lives. Religion is a great example. I don’t mean this as a criticism of religion. I’ve questioned my own beliefs, but I choose to keep them because of the peace of mind it gives me, not the literal belief in the tenets of my stated religion. Taking this away from the religious arena, I hold some political views that I do because I have a basic belief that people sometimes need a hand, but in general do not want to live on the dole forever. This belief is often not borne out in reality. The belief that a completely unfettered free market would release untold prosperity is also often not borne out in reality. It would for some, but it would also lead to dire poverty for others. I don’t think that given free reign, the market would provide safe, reliable products 100% of the time.

      Maybe people are mentally lazy and unwilling to do the hard work that it takes to reform the foundations of their beliefs. Or they’re too fearful to take a chance to consider alternatives. And what they believe is good enough for them. Deep down it’s a choice.

    • #3270293
      • #3270291

        .

        by ontheropes ·

        In reply to .

        .

Viewing 8 reply threads