superMemo1 Flashcards

Question

Projection

Answer 1

- **Definition and Nature**: Psychological projection is an unconscious act where a person denies their own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the external world or others. It is a complex and hidden process critical for self-awareness. - **Survival Mechanism**: Historically, projection likely served as a survival mechanism, allowing early humans to deceive others by first deceiving themselves, thus behaving truthfully while being deceptive. - **Social Functioning**: Modern perspectives suggest that projection is essential for social functioning, as it enables individuals to ascribe their feelings to others, aiding in empathy and understanding, though it can lead to delusions and harm, particularly in the context of ethnic or cultural conflicts. - **Freudian Theory**: Developed by Sigmund Freud and refined by Anna Freud, projection is seen as a defense mechanism where unacceptable thoughts or desires are attributed to others to avoid confronting them directly. - **Examples and Applications**: Projection can manifest in various ways, such as blaming others for personal failures or falsely accusing others to maintain self-created illusions. It plays a role in maintaining self-esteem and justifying actions that would otherwise be seen as unacceptable. - **Related Concepts**: The process is associated with other defense mechanisms like denial, compartmentalization, and splitting, illustrating the ego's effort to maintain control and avoid acknowledging shifting, instinctual, or emotional aspects of self. - **Philosophical and Historical Insights**: The concept has been explored in religion, literature, and history, indicating its wide-reaching impact on human understanding of the self and others. Notably, it has been used to explain phenomena in religion and historical events like the Salem witch trials. - **Counter-projection and Reflection**: The mechanism of counter-projection involves an obsession with the trauma or its perceived perpetrator, highlighting the complex interplay between an individual's projections and their environment. Friedrich Nietzsche's caution about becoming what one fights against reflects the deep psychological impact of projection and counter-projection.

Answer 2

A reclaimed word is a word in a language that was at one time a pejorative but has been brought back into acceptable usage—usually starting within the communities that experienced oppression under that word, but often also among the general populace as well.This can have wider implications in the fields of discourse, and is often described in terms of personal or sociopolitical empowerment.A reclaimed word involves re-evaluating and re-appropriating a term that in the dominant culture is, or at one time was, used by a majority to oppress various minorities of that same culture. One exception is "military brat", though only when "brat" is prefixed by "military" or a specific branch of military service. One of the older examples of successful reclaiming is the term "Jesuit" to refer to members of the Society of Jesus, as it was originally a derogatory term referring to people who too readily invoked the name of Jesus in their politics, but which over time members of the Society actually adopted for themselves and the word came to refer exclusively to them, and only in a positive or neutral sense.Reclaimed words differ from general reclamation outside of language because of their deliberately provocative nature. In addition to neutral or acceptable connotations, reclaimed words often acquire positive meaning within the circles of the informed. Outside the community, such transitions are rare. As such, the use of these terms by outside parties is viewed as strongly derogatory.

Answer 3

The homunculus argument is a fallacy arising most commonly in the theory of vision. One may explain (human) vision by noting that light from the outside world forms an image on the retinas in the eyes and something (or someone) in the brain looks at these images as if they are images on a movie screen (this theory of vision is sometimes termed the theory of the Cartesian Theater: it is most associated, nowadays, with the psychologist David Marr). The question arises as to the nature of this internal viewer. The assumption here is that there is a 'little man' or 'homunculus' inside the brain 'looking at' the movie.The reason why this is a fallacy may be understood by asking how the homunculus 'sees' the internal movie. The obvious answer is that there is another homunculus inside the first homunculus's 'head' or 'brain' looking at this 'movie'. But how does this homunculus see the 'outside world'? In order to answer this, we are forced to posit another homunculus inside this other homunculus's head and so forth. In other words, we are in a situation of infinite regress. The problem with the homunculus argument is that it tries to account for a phenomenon in terms of the very phenomenon that it is supposed to explain.Homunculus arguments in terms of RulesAnother example is with cognitivist theories that argue that the human brain uses 'rules' to carry out operations (these rules often conceptualised as being like the algorithms of a computer program). For example, in his work of the '50s, '60s and '70s Noam Chomsky argued that (in the words of one of his books) human beings use Rules and Representations (or to be more specific, rules acting on representations) in order to cognise (more recently Chomsky has abandoned this view: c.f. the Minimalist Program).Now, in terms of (say) chess, the players are given 'rules' (i.e. the rules of chess) to follow. So: who uses these rules? The answer is self-evident: the players of the game (of chess) use the rules: it's not the case (obviously) that the rules themselves play chess. The rules themselves are merely inert marks on paper until a human being reads, understands and uses them. But what about the 'rules' that are, allegedly, inside our head (brain)? Who reads, understands and uses them? Again, the implicit answer is (and, some would argue, must be) a 'homunculus': a little man who reads the rules and then gives orders to the body to act on them. But again we are in a situation of infinite regress, because this implies that the homunculus has cognitive process that are also rule bound, which presupposes another homunculus inside its head, and so on and so forth. Therefore, so the argument goes, theories of mind that imply or state explicitly that cognition is rule bound cannot be correct unless some way is found to 'ground' the regress.This is important because it is often assumed in cognitive science that rules and algorithms are essentially the same: in other words, the theory that cognition is rule bound is often believed to imply that thought (cognition) is essentially, the manipulation of algorithms, and this is one of the key assumptions of some varieties of artificial intelligence.Homunculus arguments are always fallacious unless some way can be found to 'ground' the regress (For example: a possible counter to this is that the brain as a whole is the homunculus, rather than thinking a specific part must be watching the movie). In psychology and philosophy of mind, 'homunculus arguments' (or the 'homunculus fallacies') are extremely useful for detecting where theories of mind fail or are incomplete.The Homunculus fallacy is closely related to Ryle's Regress.

Answer 4

The Luddite fallacy is a concept in development economics related to the belief that labour-saving technologies (i.e., technologies that increase output-per-worker) increase unemployment by reducing demand for labour. The concept is named after the Luddites of early nineteenth century England. The original Luddites were hosiery and lace workers in Nottingham, England in 1811. They smashed knitting machines that embodied new labor-saving technology as a protest against unemployment, publicizing their actions in circulars mysteriously signed, "King Ludd."[1]According to neoclassical economists, labour-saving technologies will increase output per worker and thus the production of goods, causing the costs of goods to decline and demand for goods to increase. As a result, the demand for workers to produce those goods will not decrease. Thus, the "fallacy" of the Luddites lay in their assumption that employers would keep production constant by employing a smaller albeit more productive workforce instead of allowing production to grow while keeping workforce size constant.[1] Economist Alex Tabarrok summarises the neoclassical presentation of the fallacy as such: If the Luddite fallacy were true we would all be out of work because productivity has been increasing for two centuries.[2]However, the Luddite fallacy is fallacious only at the macroeconomic level: overall employment in the economy will not decrease, but individual workers who do not possess the skills to utilize new technologies may become unemployed.[1]Theoretical models have been developed that both support and deny this hypothesis.Economist William Easterly remarks that worries about "jobless growth" are an example of the Luddite fallacy.

Answer 5

The overjustification effect occurs when an external incentive such as money or prizes decreases a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task. According to self-perception theory, people pay more attention to the incentive, and less attention to the enjoyment and satisfaction that they receive from performing the activity. The overall effect is a shift in motivation to extrinsic factors and the undermining of pre-existing intrinsic motivation. In one of the earliest demonstrations of this effect, researchers promised a group of 3–5 year old children that they would receive a "good player" ribbon for drawing with felt-tipped pens. A second group of children played with the pens and received an unexpected reward (the same ribbon), and a third group was not given a reward. All of the children played with the pens, a typically enjoyable activity for preschoolers. Later, when observed in a free-play setting, the children who received a reward that had been promised to them played significantly less with the felt-tipped pens. The researchers concluded that expected rewards undermine intrinsic motivation in previously enjoyable activities. A replication of this experiment found that rewarding children with certificates and trophies decreased intrinsic interest in playing math games. Theories One explanation of the overjustification effect is self-perception theory. According to this approach, people infer causes about their behavior based on external constraints. The presence of a strong constraint (such as a reward) would lead people to conclude that they are performing the behavior for the reward. This would shift the individual's motivation from intrinstic to extrinsic. The most detailed explanation for the overjustification effect is cognitive evaluation theory. This theory proposes that tangible rewards (like money) are perceived as controlling or coercive, and act to decrease perceived self-determination and undermine intrinsic motivation. Because unexpected tangible rewards do not motivate behavior during a task, they are less likely to be perceived as controlling, and thus less likely to undermine intrinsic motivation. Informational rewards (like praise) increase perceived self-determination and feelings of competence, and consequently tend to enhance intrinsic motivation. Controversy The overjustification effect is controversial because it challenged previous findings in psychology on the general effectiveness of reinforcement on increasing behavior, and also the widespread practice of using incentives in the classroom. Nevertheless, two meta-analyses found that intrinsic motivation is diminished by expected, tangible rewards in both children and adults, especially when the reward is given for simply performing a task, regardless of the results. Nontangible rewards, such as verbal praise, and unexpected rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. In fact, praise may actually increase intrinsic motivation. These conclusions were challenged in a separate meta-analysis which found that tangible rewards offered for outperforming others and for performing uninteresting tasks (in which intrinsic motivation is low) lead to increased intrinsic motivation. A rebuttal defended the original findings and concluded that this analysis was flawed. Application Research in this area suggests that parents and educators should rely on intrinsic motivation and preserve feelings of autonomy and competence as much as possible. When the task is unattractive and intrinsic motivation is insufficient (e.g. household chores), then extrinsic rewards are useful to provide incentives for behavior. Student grades may not undermine intrinsic motivation because grades convey information about competence, much like praise.

Answer 6

Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence.[citation needed]Consequentialism is usually distinguished from deontology, in that deontology derives the rightness or wrongness of one's conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also distinguished from virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision.Although all consequentialist theories use consequences as the basis for moral judgements, they differ in how they define moral goods. In Mozi's state consequentialism the moral good is state stability and in Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism the moral good is pleasure and individual happiness.Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T.M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly considered a "deontological" concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights.[1] Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable "side-constraints" which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do.

Answer 7

The friendship paradox is the phenomenon first observed by the sociologist Scott L. Feld in 1991 that, for almost everyone, their friends have on average more friends than they do – and vice versa.[1][2]The friendship paradox is the phenomenon where most people have fewer friends than their friends have, on average.[1] It can be explained as a form of sampling bias in which people with greater numbers of friends have an increased likelihood of being observed among one's own friends. In contradiction to this, most people believe that they have more friends than their friends have.[2]The same observation can be applied more generally to social networks defined by other relations than friendship: for instance, most people's sexual partners have had (on the average) a greater number of sexual partners than they have.In spite of its apparently paradoxical nature, the phenomenon is real, and can be explained as a consequence of the general mathematical properties of social network graphs. However, it may also be the cause of a number of social misconceptions.

Answer 8

Creeping normalcy refers to the way a major change can be accepted as normality if it happens slowly, in unnoticed increments, when it would be regarded as objectionable if it took place in a single step or short period. Examples would be a change in job responsibilities, a more auto-dominated landscape, or a change in a medical condition.The North Korean Army has been accused of using a strategy of creeping normalcy to build up its forces near the demilitarized zone next to South Korea. [1]Jared Diamond has invoked the concept (as well as that of landscape amnesia) in attempting to explain why in the course of long-term environmental degradation, Easter Island natives would, seemingly irrationally, chop down the last tree: Gradually trees became fewer, smaller, and less important. By the time the last fruit-bearing adult palm tree was cut, palms had long since ceased to be of economic significance. That left only smaller and smaller palm saplings to clear each year, along with other bushes and treelets. No one would have noticed the felling of the last small palm.

Answer 9

In economics, money illusion refers to the tendency of people to think of currency in nominal, rather than real, terms. In other words, the numerical/face value (nominal value) of money is mistaken for its purchasing power (real value). This is a fallacy as modern fiat currencies have no inherent value and their real value is derived from their ability to be exchanged for goods and used for payment of taxes.The term was coined by John Maynard Keynes in the early twentieth century, and Irving Fisher wrote an important book on the subject, The Money Illusion, in 1928.[1] The existence of money illusion is disputed by monetary economists who contend that people act rationally (i.e. think in real prices) with regard to their wealth. Shafir, Diamond and Tversky (1997) have provided compelling empirical evidence for the existence of the effect and it has been shown to affect behaviour in a variety of experimental and real world situations.[2]It has been contended[who?] that money illusion influences economic behaviour in three main ways: Price stickiness. Money illusion has been proposed as one reason why nominal prices are slow to change even where inflation has caused real prices or costs to rise. Contracts and laws are not indexed to inflation as frequently as one would rationally expect. Social discourse, in formal media and more generally, reflects some confusion about real and nominal value.Money illusion can also influence people's perceptions of outcomes. Experiments have shown that people generally perceive a 2% cut in nominal income as unfair, but see a 2% rise in nominal income where there is 4% inflation as fair, despite them being almost rational equivalents. Further, money illusion means nominal changes in price can influence demand even if real prices have remained constant.[3]Some have suggested that money illusion implies that the negative relationship between inflation and unemployment described by the Phillips curve might hold, contrary to recent macroeconomic theories. If workers use their nominal wage as a reference point when evaluating wage offers, firms can keep real wages relatively lower in a period of high inflation as workers accept the seemingly high nominal wage increase. These lower real wages would allow firms to hire more workers in periods of high inflation.Explanations of money illusion generally describe the phenomenon in terms of heuristics. Nominal prices provide a convenient rule of thumb for determining value and real prices are only calculated if they seem highly salient (e.g. in periods of hyperinflation or in long term contracts).

Answer 10

Gay is GOOD You'll notice that the concept of "homosexual harassment" barely exists in our culture at present. Neither is the useful notion of a "gay mafia" a popular way to think about these kind of cover-ups, where some offenders are allowed to go on for years, and others are quietly eased out with a good letter of recommendation. I'm fascinated by how the human mind has terrible trouble with having mixed opinions about anybody. This leads to bizarre dichotomizations in the conventional wisdom. For example, in my lifetime, Charles Darwin has been promoted past sainthood to near divine status, while his half-cousin and successor Francis Galton has been demonized as the scapegoat for all the unfortunate consequences of the Darwinian revolution.Similarly, over the last generation we've been instructed over and over that Gay Is Good, while at the same time going through frenzies of loathing about pedophiles. Therefore, anything bad can't be homosexuality, it has to be pedophilia. "The best defense is a good offense" may explain much of the otherwise puzzling gay marriage project. Gay Liberation unleashed a number of Big Gay Screw-Ups, such as AIDS and the Catholic Church scandals. But rather than admit that, it was much easier emotionally to just go on the offensive over some random issue like gay marriage. There are big advantages to having the press constantly up in arms about how you are a victim of discrimination. For example, it can help cover up your own discriminating. Many industries appear to have, as Marc Ambinder admitted yesterday about Washington D.C., gay mafias discriminating against non-gays. That's usually laughed off, as Ambinder and Robert Wright did, with the assumption that the victims of discrimination are straight men, so that's A-okay. But what happens when the victims are members of a Designated Victim Group? For example, most of the competition in the fashion business is between gay men and women, and that industry's powerful gay mafia notoriously treats aspiring female designers badly.

Answer 11

AKA Embedding. Once you have accepted a theory and used it as a tool in your thinking, it is extraordinarily difficult to notice its flaws. If you come upon an observation that does not seem to fit the model, you assume that there must be a perfectly good explanation that you are somehow missing. You give the theory the benefit of the doubt, trusting the community of experts who have accepted it. Many scholars have surely thought at one time or another of stories such as those of Anthony and Betty, or Jack and Jill, and casually noted that these stories did not jibe with utility theory. But they did not pursue the idea to the point of saying, “This theory is seriously wrong because it ignores the fact that utility depends on the history of one’s wealth, not only on present wealth.” As the psychologist Daniel Gilbert observed, disbelieving is hard work, and System 2 is easily tired.

Answer 12

Newspeak is a fictional language in George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The term was also used to discuss Soviet phraseology. [1] In the novel by Orwell, it is described as being "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year". Orwell included an essay about it in the form of an appendix[2] in which the basic principles of the language are explained. Newspeak is closely based on English but has a greatly reduced and simplified vocabulary and grammar. This suits the totalitarian regime of the Party, whose aim is to make any alternative thinking—"thoughtcrime", or "crimethink" in the newest edition of Newspeak—impossible by removing any words or possible constructs which describe the ideas of freedom, rebellion and so on. One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: "It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."The Newspeak term for the English language is Oldspeak. Oldspeak is intended to have been completely eclipsed by Newspeak before 2050.The genesis of Newspeak can be found in the constructed language Basic English, which Orwell promoted from 1942 to 1944 before emphatically rejecting it in his essay "Politics and the English Language".[3] In this paper he laments the quality of the English of his day, citing examples of dying metaphors, pretentious diction or rhetoric, and meaningless words – all of which contribute to fuzzy ideas and a lack of logical thinking. Towards the end of this essay, having argued his case, Orwell muses:“ I said earlier that the decadence of our language is probably curable. Those who deny this would argue, if they produced an argument at all, that language merely reflects existing social conditions, and that we cannot influence its development by any direct tinkering with words or constructions. ”Contents[show][edit] Basic principles[edit] To remove synonyms and antonymsThe basic idea behind Newspeak is to remove all shades of meaning from language, leaving simple dichotomies (pleasure and pain, happiness and sadness, goodthink and crimethink) which reinforce the total dominance of the State. Similarly, Newspeak root words served as both nouns and verbs, which allowed further reduction in the total number of words; for example, "think" served as both noun and verb, so the word thought was not required and could be abolished. A staccato rhythm of short syllables was also a goal, further reducing the need for deep thinking about language. (See duckspeak.) Successful Newspeak meant that there would be fewer and fewer words – dictionaries would get thinner and thinner.In addition, words with opposite meanings were removed as redundant, so "bad" became "ungood". Words with comparative and superlative meanings were also simplified, so "better" became "gooder", and "best" likewise became "goodest". Intensifiers could be added, so "great" became "plusgood", and "excellent" and "splendid" likewise became "doubleplusgood". Adjectives were formed by adding the suffix "-ful" to a root word (e.g., "goodthinkful", orthodox in thought), and adverbs by adding "-wise" ("goodthinkwise", in an orthodox manner). In this manner, as many words as possible were removed from the language. The ultimate aim of Newspeak was to reduce even the dichotomies to a single word that was a "yes" of some sort: an obedient word with which everyone answered affirmatively to what was asked of them.Some of the constructions in Newspeak, such as "ungood", are in fact characteristic of agglutinative languages, although foreign to English. It is possible that Orwell modeled aspects of Newspeak on Esperanto; for example "ungood" is constructed similarly to the Esperanto word malbona. Orwell had been exposed to Esperanto in 1927 when living in Paris with his aunt Ellen Kate Limouzin and her husband Eugène Lanti, a prominent Esperantist. Esperanto was the language of the house, and Orwell was disadvantaged by not speaking it, which may account for some antipathy towards the language.[2][edit] To control thought“ By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.[4] ”The underlying theory of Newspeak is that if something can't be said, then it is hugely more difficult to think it. (See Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.) There is substantial argument in favor of this notion, in that most humans think by carrying on a dialogue in their heads. They tend to subvocalize their thoughts as they form them and manipulate them; most thought is actually a dialogue with oneself. When new and complex developments come along, new words are invented (or old words adapted) to hold the meme as a gestalt. This is why specialist vocabularies are particularly common – if instead one shrank the vocabulary, one would substantially reduce the memes available to manipulate during this thinking/vocalizing process.[citation needed]Some examples of Newspeak from the novel include crimethink, doubleplusungood, and Ingsoc. They mean, respectively, "thoughtcrime", "extremely bad", and "English socialism" (the official political philosophy of the Party). The word Newspeak itself also comes from the language. All of these words would be obsolete and should be removed in the "final" version of Newspeak, except for doubleplusungood in certain contexts.Generically, Newspeak has come to mean any attempt to restrict disapproved language by a government or other powerful entity.[5][edit] GrammarThe "A" group of words are for simple concepts, such as "eating" and "drinking".[6] Groups of words such as the "B" group convey more complicated topics. The only way to say "bad" is with ungood. Something awful or extremely terrible is called "doubleplusungood". The "C" group is for very technical vocabulary. Since the Party does not want people to be intelligent in multiple fields, there is no word for "science". There are separate words for different fields.

Answer 13

Paradox of nihilism is the name of several paradoxes. The paradox of nihilism is "that the absence of meaning seems to be some sort of meaning". Truth Luhmann construes the paradox as stating "that consequently, only the untrue could be the truth".[2] In a footnote in his PhD thesis, Slocombe equates nihilism with the liar paradox.[3][edit] ReligionRivas locates the paradox in the "conservative attitude of Roman Catholicism" developed in reaction to Nietzschean nihilism, in that it "betrays a form of nihilism, that is, the forced oblivion of the real ambiguity and the paradox that inform the distinction between the secular and the sacred".[4][edit] Critical Legal TheoryIn Critical Legal Studies (CLS) theory, the arguments used to criticize the centrist position also undermine the position of CLS.[5][edit] EthicsAccording to Bornemark, "the paradox of nihilism is the choice to continue one's own life while at the same time stating that it is not worth more than any other life".[6] Wright sees relativism as the root of the paradox.

Answer 14

The outcome bias is an error made in evaluating the quality of a decision when the outcome of that decision is already known.[edit] OverviewOne will often judge a past decision by its ultimate outcome instead of based on the quality of the decision at the time it was made, given what was known at that time. This is an error because no decision maker ever knows whether or not a calculated risk will turn out for the best. The actual outcome of the decision will often be determined by chance, with some risks working out and others not. Individuals whose judgments are influenced by outcome bias are seemingly holding decision makers responsible for events beyond their control.A belief that the outcomes of a behaviour were intended by the person who chose the behaviour.Baron and Hershey (1988) presented subjects with hypothetical situations in order to test this.[1] One such example involved a surgeon deciding whether or not to do a risky surgery on a patient. The surgery had a known probability of success. Subjects were presented with either a good or bad outcome (in this case living or dying), and asked to rate the quality of the surgeon’s pre-operation decision. Those presented with bad outcomes rated the decision worse than those who had good outcomes.The reason why an individual makes this mistake is that he or she will incorporate presently available information when evaluating a past decision. To avoid the influence of outcome bias, one should evaluate a decision by ignoring information collected after the fact and focusing on what the right answer is, or was at the time the decision was made.

Answer 15

Eventually, everyone loses the battle with willpower; it’s only a matter of time. Consider my parents. Neither of them smoked when they joined the armed forces, but it didn’t take long for them to join their smoking co-workers. At first, they resisted, but as the days turned into weeks, the grind of saying no when everyone else was saying yes wore them down. Decades later, quitting proved nearly impossible when they turned to willpower. Everyone around them smoked. The very same force that encouraged them to start was preventing them from stopping. They were only able to kick their habit when they changed their environment. They had to find new friends whose default behavior was their desired behavior.What looks like discipline is often a carefully created environment to encourage certain behaviors. What looks like poor choices is often someone trying their best to use willpower to go against their environment.The people with the best defaults are typically the ones with the best environment. Sometimes it's carefully chosen, and sometimes it's just plain luck. Either way, it’s easier to align yourself with the right behavior in the right environment.The way to improve your defaults isn’t by willpower but by creating an artificial environment where your desired behavior becomes the default behavior.Joining groups whose defaults are your desires is an effective way to create an artificial environment. If you want to read more, join a book club. If you want to run more, join a running club. If you want to exercise more, hire a trainer.Your environment will do a lot of the heavy lifting for you if you align it with where you want to go.

Answer 16

A: The naturalistic fallacy is the idea that what is found in nature is good. It was the basis for Social Darwinism, the belief that helping the poor and sick would get in the way of evolution, which depends on the survival of the fittest. Today, biologists denounce the Naturalistic Fallacy because they want to describe the natural world honestly, without people deriving morals about how we ought to behave -- as in: If birds and beasts engage in adultery, infanticide, cannibalism, it must be OK).The moralistic fallacy is that what is good is found in nature. It lies behind the bad science in nature-documentary voiceovers: lions are mercy-killers of the weak and sick, mice feel no pain when cats eat them, dung beetles recycle dung to benefit the ecosystem and so on. It also lies behind the romantic belief that humans cannot harbor desires to kill, rape, lie, or steal because that would be too depressing or reactionary.

Answer 17

The Tinkerbell effect describes those things that exist only because people believe in them. The effect is named for Tinker Bell, the fairy in the play Peter Pan who is revived from near death by the belief of the audience.Claimed cases include: monetary system the value of a nation's money in a fiat system, civil society, the "rule of law", deities authority.

Answer 18

Concept of Anomie: Anomie is a sociological term meaning a personal feeling of a lack of norms or normlessness. It was popularized by Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist, in his book "Suicide" (1897), building upon ideas from French philosopher Jean-Marie Guyau. Durkheim's Contribution: Émile Durkheim is considered a founder of modern sociology. He identified four environmental conditions leading to high suicide rates: egoism, altruism, anomie, and fatalism. Anomie is the focus here. Definition of Anomie in Durkheim’s Work: Anomie refers to a societal state where there is inadequate regulation or control over the goals and desires of individuals. Durkheim suggested that human nature has limitless passions and appetites that society must regulate to ensure individual happiness and well-being. In the state of anomie, society fails to exert this regulatory influence, leading to unchecked desires. Anomie and Suicide: High rates of suicide in anomic societies are seen as a result of disillusionment and despair from the pursuit of unattainable goals. Durkheim linked anomie to various societal phenomena, including economic instability, professional pressures in trade and industry, and inadequate regulation of sexual desires. Durkheim’s Macro-normative Approach: Durkheim’s study of suicide represents a macro-normative approach to understanding deviance, focusing on variations in the social environment rather than individual psychological traits. Merton’s Theory of Social Structure and Anomie: Robert Merton extended Durkheim's concept of anomie in his analysis of American society. He focused on the cultural emphasis on material goals and the societal regulation of the means to achieve these goals. Merton's theory addressed the strain caused by the discrepancy between societal goals and the structural limitations in achieving these goals through legitimate means. Merton’s Adaptations to Environmental Pressures: Merton identified various adaptations individuals use in response to cultural and structural pressures: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion. Each adaptation describes how people cope with or deviate from societal norms and expectations. Impact and Evolution of Anomie Theory: The theories of Durkheim and Merton on anomie have significantly influenced sociological approaches to deviance, prompting extensive theoretical and empirical work in this field. Anomie, in broader terms, deals with the mismatch between personal or group standards and wider societal standards. Historical and Etymological Context: Durkheim introduced the concept of anomie in the context of industrialization and societal change. The term originates from the Greek "a-" (without) and "nomos" (law), originally referring to a state against or outside the law. Anomie in Literature and Culture: The concept of anomie has been explored in literature, film, and theater, often portraying characters struggling with a lack of societal norms, values, and meaningful personal connections. Hindu Mythology and Anomie: The concept of anomie parallels the Hindu idea of Maya, which signifies a state of disconnection between the individual and the rest of reality. Hindu rituals like Dhyana aim to overcome this sense of disconnection, seeking enlightenment and integration with the world.

Answer 19

Four studies examined how impulse-control beliefs—beliefs regarding one's ability to regulate visceral impulses, such as hunger, drug craving, and sexual arousal—influence the self-control process. The findings provide evidence for a restraint bias: a tendency for people to overestimate their capacity for impulse control. This biased perception of restraint had important consequences for people's self-control strategies. Inflated impulse-control beliefs led people to overexpose themselves to temptation, thereby promoting impulsive behavior. In Study 4, for example, the impulse-control beliefs of recovering smokers predicted their exposure to situations in which they would be tempted to smoke. Recovering smokers with more inflated impulse-control beliefs exposed themselves to more temptation, which led to higher rates of relapse 4 months later. The restraint bias offers unique insight into how erroneous beliefs about self-restraint promote impulsive behavior.

Answer 20

Chronos leads to Kairos

Answer 21

British writer William Somerset Maugham description of Cap Ferrat, a beautiful town in France: 'Cap Ferrat is the escape hatch from Monaco for those burdened with taste'.

Answer 22

A Professional Cuddler

Answer 23

- **Significance of Unconscious Thinking**: The text highlights the importance of the ideas that occupy our minds during unguarded moments, such as when showering, emphasizing that these moments can significantly contribute to problem-solving and creativity. - **Top Idea Concept**: It suggests that at any given time, one dominant idea tends to occupy our mind, benefiting from our passive thought processes, while other ideas get neglected. - **Impact of the Wrong Top Idea**: Having an undesirable idea as the top one in your mind can be detrimental, diverting attention and energy from more important or preferred thoughts. - **Control Over Thoughts**: While direct control over our drifting thoughts is not possible, we can indirectly influence them by choosing the situations we put ourselves in, thereby affecting which ideas become dominant. - **Avoiding Negative Thought Patterns**: The text advises against allowing thoughts about money and disputes to dominate our minds, as they tend to consume a disproportionate amount of attention and energy, detracting from more productive thinking. - **Historical Example of Newton**: Isaac Newton's experience is cited as an example of how getting embroiled in disputes can distract from more meaningful work, even advising to avoid public controversies to preserve mental space for valuable ideas. - **Practical Strategy for Mind Control**: A practical strategy for managing one's dominant thoughts is proposed—actively choosing to ignore or minimize the mental space given to negative or unproductive experiences and focusing on more constructive and satisfying matters. - **Self-Awareness and Reflection**: The text encourages self-awareness regarding the dominant ideas in our minds, suggesting that reflection, such as during a shower, can reveal our true preoccupations and allow us to make conscious adjustments to our thought patterns.

Answer 24

“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is...in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.”

Answer 25

In my opinion, theater shouldn't give advice to citizens.Theater is there to search for questions. It doesn't give you instructions.

Answer 26

I will never allow myself to have an opinion where I don't know the other side's argument better than they do.

Answer 27

Under the influence of protecting our resentments and spite, our ignorance becomes sacrosanct: The gap in knowledge allows us the opportunty to replace it with our own anger-fueling conclusions and assumptions...which then loops back to justify the anger to begin with.

Answer 28

Peter principle: In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence.

Answer 29

Sometimes the frequency of correctness does not matter it is the magnitude of correctness that matters.

Answer 30

Benford’s Law of Controversy: Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

Answer 31

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Answer 32

When a measure becomes a target-- it ceases to be a good measure and it ceases to be a good target.

Answer 33

And then there’s that trans joke, in which Dave, finding himself at a poncey gallery party, is stared down when he dares to ask ‘Is he okay?’ after a cross-dresser collapses in the corner.‘I support anyone’s right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?’

Answer 34

n relation to Availability Cascade...Premastication, pre-chewing, or kiss feeding is the act of chewing food for the purpose of physically breaking it down in order to feed another that is incapable of masticating the food by themselves. This is often done by the mother or relatives of a baby to produce baby food capable of being consumed by the child during the weaning process. The chewed food in the form of a bolus is transferred from the mouth of one individual to another, either directly mouth-to-mouth, via utensils, hands, or is further cooked or processed prior to feeding.The behaviour was common throughout human history and societies and observed in non-human animals. While premastication is less common in present-day Western societies it was commonly practiced, and is still done in more traditional cultures.Although the health benefits of premastication are still being actively studied, the practice appears to confer certain nutritional and immunological benefits to the infant, provided that the caretaker is in good health and not infected by pathogens.

Answer 35

The SJW creed:Race doesn’t exist...until there is a transracial (ie NAACP woman) or cultural appropriation hubub...then Race is fixed and immutableIf you notice that these two statements are contradictory, you clearly need to up your Doublethink training regime.Equally stark is SJW Creed Volume II:Biological sex is wholly socially-constructed and hence infinitely malleable therefore Sexual orientation is infinitely variable...EXCEPT for gayness...gayness is ‘born that way’ immutable.

Answer 36

Yes, survival rates are improving — modestly. Five-year survival rates for all cancers combined have increased to more than 60 per cent, up from 50 per cent in the 1970s. Some of the greatest triumphs have been cancers that strike children. There, survival rates have skyrocketed.Also, keep in mind that the best way to 'improve' cancer survival rates is to be overly aggressive in detecting 'turtle' cancers (those that don't really go anywhere).and how screening is sending some people down a road of aggressive treatment they should never have been on.As Otis Brawley, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society told the Post: “Some of the people we’ve cured didn’t need to be cured.”An ever-growing proportion of the population knows someone who survived a cancer diagnosis. Less clear is how many were never destined to develop symptoms or die from their condition.“The fastest way to increase five-year survival rates,” said Dr. Gilbert Welch, “is to diagnose a whole lot of people with cancer."Welch, an American academic, cancer researcher and expert in overdiagnosis, said the old medical dictionary definition of cancer is “a neoplastic disease” whose natural outcome is, ultimately, death.That led to the belief all cancers are bad — that each one begins life as a small tumour that inexorably grows, spreads and kills.The belief all cancers are deadly started in the 1850s, when German pathologist Rudolph Virchow performed autopsies on women who had died of invasive breast cancer. Some of them had such advanced disease their breasts had been literally eaten away, said Brawley.“Today, we can find a lesion in a woman’s breast the size of a green pea. And we can stick a needle into it and send a piece of that pea-sized lesion to a pathologist. And that pathologist says, ‘this thing that you’ve sent me, this pea-sized lesion, looks just like what the Germans said killed that women in 1850.”That tiny lesion may be genetically programmed to spread and kill. Alternatively, “It may be programmed to stay pea-sized for the next 50 years in this 50-year-old woman’s breast,” Brawley said. Or it may run out of its blood supply, shrink and die.It’s not just sophisticated cancer screening that’s picking up indolent tumours. The more doctors order ultrasounds, CT scans and MRIs for “non-specific” physical complaints, like pain in the belly, the more we’re picking up suspicious lumps and lesions purely by chance — so-called “incidentalomas” that may otherwise never have revealed themselves in the person’s lifetime.cancer cell“Once in a while, these are serious conditions, and that’s when everyone wins,” said Dr. Laurence Klotz, a Toronto urologic oncologist who, over the course of two decades, has revolutionized how men with low-risk prostate cancer are treated worldwide.However, much of the time, incidentalomas may never pose a threat. “But the knee-jerk position has been that if someone is found to have a small cancer, you better treat it before it gets worse,” Klotz said.

Answer 37

he Keys to Good GovernmentThere are three keys: honesty, effectiveness, and efficiency.Munger says:“In a democracy, everyone takes turns. But if you really want a lot of wisdom, it’s better to concentrate decisions and process in one person. It’s no accident that Singapore has a much better record, given where it started, than the United States. There, power was concentrated in an enormously talented person, Lee Kuan Yew, who was the Warren Buffett of Singapore.”Lee Kuan Yew put it this way himself: “With few exceptions, democracy has not brought good government to new developing countries. . . . What Asians value may not necessarily be what Americans or Europeans value. Westerners value the freedoms and liberties of the individual. As an Asian of Chinese cultural background, my values are for a government which is honest, effective, and efficient.”

Answer 38

A good illustration as to how most organizations (and families) make decisions...and why it this method sucks... Imagine walking into a courtroom where the trial consists of a prosecutor presenting PowerPoint slides. In 20 pretty compelling charts, he demonstrates why the defendant is guilty. The judge then challenges some of the facts of the presentation, but the prosecutor has a good answer to every objection. So the judge decides, and the accused man is sentenced. That wouldn’t be due process, right? So if you would find this process shocking in a courtroom, why is it acceptable when you make an investment decision? Now of course, this is an oversimplification, but this process is essentially the one most companies follow to make a decision. They have a team arguing only one side of the case. The team has a choice of what points it wants to make and what way it wants to make them. And it falls to the final decision maker to be both the challenger and the ultimate judge. Building a good decision-making process is largely ensuring that these flaws don’t happen. The conclusion: Start focusing the process of decision making, rather than the typical 'analysis' of the decision. The problem with 'analysis' is that you're really just analyzing the PRESENTED FACTS, but not ALL the facts. What's worse is that we delude ourselves into thinking that we are looking at more facts than we really are. It's a terrible delusion, and we'd probably be better off not even considering any facts, rather than just selectively looking at a few. This way, at least, we won't be lying to ourselves. The best prescription, then, is to implement of robust process of decision making.

Answer 39

A Great post in this is here: https://hbr.org/2017/01/are-you-solving-the-right-problemsBut creative solutions nearly always come from an alternative definition of your problem.Through my research on corporate innovation, much of it conducted with my colleague Paddy Miller, I have spent close to 10 years working with and studying reframing—first in the narrow context of organizational change and then more broadly. In the following pages I offer a new approach to problem diagnosis that can be applied quickly and, I’ve found, frequently leads to creative solutions by unearthing radically different framings of familiar and persistent problems. To put reframing in context, I’ll explain more precisely just what this approach is trying to achieve.The Slow Elevator ProblemImagine this: You are the owner of an office building, and your tenants are complaining about the elevator. It’s old and slow, and they have to wait a lot. Several tenants are threatening to break their leases if you don’t fix the problem.When asked, most people quickly identify some solutions: replace the lift, install a stronger motor, or perhaps upgrade the algorithm that runs the lift. These suggestions fall into what I call a solution space: a cluster of solutions that share assumptions about what the problem is—in this case, that the elevator is slow. This framing is illustrated below.R1701D_WEDELL_PROBLEMFRAMING_A.pngHowever, when the problem is presented to building managers, they suggest a much more elegant solution: Put up mirrors next to the elevator. This simple measure has proved wonderfully effective in reducing complaints, because people tend to lose track of time when given something utterly fascinating to look at—namely, themselves.R1701D_WEDELL_PROBLEMFRAMING_B.png The mirror solution is particularly interesting because in fact it is not a solution to the stated problem: It doesn’t make the elevator faster. Instead it proposes a different understanding of the problem.Note that the initial framing of the problem is not necessarily wrong. Installing a new lift would probably work. The point of reframing is not to find the “real” problem but, rather, to see if there is a better one to solve. In fact, the very idea that a single root problem exists may be misleading; problems are typically multicausal and can be addressed in many ways. The elevator issue, for example, could be reframed as a peak demand problem—too many people need the lift at the same time—leading to a solution that focuses on spreading out the demand, such as by staggering people’s lunch breaks.But how do we actually reframe the problem? It's great in theory, but difficult to implement.1. Get simple definitions of the problems in writing from B and Me. Maybe we are thinking of it differently. It will lead to a broader and fresher perspective.2. Ask what's missing? Invert, invert, invert..3. Put the problem or issue into a Category--ie Is this a Money problem? A usability issue, etc.4. Think about similar situations in the past where you nailed it and came up with a solution to a problem or issue similar to the one at hand.CONCLUSIONPowerful as reframing can be, it takes time and practice to get good at it. One senior executive from the defense industry told me, “I was shocked by how difficult it is to reframe problems, but also how effective it is.” As you start to work more with the method, urge your team to trust the process, and be prepared for it to feel messy and confusing at times.

Answer 40

DescriptionWhen we do a person a favor, we tend to like them more as a result. This is because we justify our actions to ourselves that we did them a favor because we liked them.Benjamin Franklin himself said, "He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged."The reverse effect is also true, and we come to hate our victims, which helps to explain wartime atrocities. We de-humanize the enemy, which decrease the dissonance of killing and other things in which we would never normally indulge.ResearchJecker and Landy (1969) involved students in an intellectual contest where they could win significant money. Afterwards: A: 1/3 were approached by the researcher and asked to return money as he had been using his own funds and was running short. B: 1/3 were approached by a secretary and asked to return money as it was from the psychology department and funds were low. C: 1/3 were not approached.Then all were surveyed to see how much they liked the researcher. Group B rated him lower than Group C (so impersonal request for a favor decreases liking). Group A rated him higher than group C (so personal request for a favor increases liking).So what?Using itAsk people to do you a small favor. Don’t return it immediately.DefendingWhen people ask you for favors, watch out for feeling better about them.

Answer 41

Weak-manning is a lot like straw-manning, except that instead of debating a fake, implausibly stupid opponent, you’re debating a real, unrepresentatively stupid opponent. For example, “Religious people say that you should kill all gays. But this is evil. Therefore, religion is wrong and barbaric. Therefore we should all be atheists.” There are certainly religious people who think that you should kill all gays, but they’re a small fraction of all religious people and probably not the ones an unbiased observer would hold up as the best that religion has to offer.If you’re debating the Pope or something, then when you weak-man, you’re unfairly replacing a strong position (the Pope’s) with a weak position (that of the guy who wants to kill gays) to make it more attackable.

Answer 42

We live in a culture that reveres self-confidence and self-assuredness, but as it turns out, there may be a better approach to success and personal development: self-compassion. While self-confidence makes you feel better about your abilities, it can also lead you to vastly overestimate those abilities.Our culture often promotes faking confidence without considering these drawbacks. Namely, when you fake it, you may start to believe your own lie, which can lead to disastrous outcomes. Because confidence feels good “we often don’t notice when it creeps across the line to overconfidence,” Mr. Barker said. This is better known as the Dunning-Kruger effect: a cognitive bias in which you overestimate your ability in something. But this isn’t to say you have to go around feeling inadequate. Dr. Kristin Neff, an associate professor of educational psychology at the University of Texas, suggests a solution to the problem of overconfidence: self-compassion. “Self-compassion is treating yourself with the same kindness, care and concern you show a loved one,” Dr. Neff said. “We need to frame it in terms of humanity.That’s what makes self-compassion so different: ‘I’m an imperfect human being living an imperfect life.’” By that definition, self-compassion is the opposite of overconfidence. Admitting we have flaws just like anyone else keeps us connected to others, Dr. Neff said, and also keeps us from exaggerating our flaws or strengths. Unlike overconfidence, which attempts to hide self-doubt and other pessimistic shortcomings, self-compassion accepts them. Self-compassion, Mr. Barker writes, includes the benefits of confidence without the downside of delusion. “A lot of people think self-compassion is weak, but it’s just the opposite,” Dr. Neff said. “When you’re in the trenches, do you want an enemy or an ally?” Whereas confidence is aimed at feeling adequate and powerful despite how adequate and powerful you actually are, self-compassion encourages you to accept a more objective reality.For example, a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology asked people to describe themselves while being recorded on video. Those subjects were then told they would be rated on how likable, friendly and intelligent they seemed in the video. Subjects who had high levels of self-compassion had generally the same emotional reaction no matter how they were rated. By contrast, people with high levels of self-esteem had negative emotional reactions if the feedback was simply neutral and not exceptional. They were also more likely to blame unexceptional ratings on outside factors.

Answer 43

Salami tactics, also known as the salami-slice strategy, is a divide and conquer process of threats and alliances used to overcome opposition. With it, an aggressor can influence and eventually dominate a landscape, typically political, piece by piece. In this fashion, the opposition is eliminated "slice by slice" until one realizes (too late) that it is gone in its entirety. In some cases it includes the creation of several factions within the opposing political party and then dismantling that party from the inside, without causing the 'sliced' sides to protest. Salami tactics are most likely to succeed when the perpetrators keep their true long-term motives hidden and maintain a posture of cooperativeness and helpfulness while engaged in the intended gradual subversion.Contents 1 Origins 1.1 Piecemeal strategy 2 See also 3 References 4 Further readingOriginsThe term Salami tactics (Hungarian: szalámitaktika) was coined in the late 1940s by the orthodox communist leader Mátyás Rákosi to describe the actions of the Hungarian Communist Party.[1][2] Rákosi claimed he destroyed the non-Communist parties by "cutting them off like slices of salami."[2] By portraying his opponents as fascists (or at the very least fascist sympathizers), he was able to get the opposition to slice off its right wing, then its centrists, then the more courageous left wingers, until only those fellow travelers willing to collaborate with the Communists remained in power.[2][3]Piecemeal strategyThe term is also known as a "piecemeal strategy". It was used by the Nazi Party (which used the term Gleichschaltung) to achieve absolute power in Germany, beginning in the early months of 1933. The Reichstag fire of February 27 rattled the German population and led to the Reichstag Fire Decree, leading to the suspension of many civil liberties and outlawing of the Communist Party and the Social Democrat parties. An estimated 10,000 people were arrested in two weeks. An Enabling Act soon followed on March 24. The act gave Hitler plenary power, which allowed him to bypass the Reichstag and consolidate power. Hitler and the Nazis then eliminated such potential opposition as trade unions and rival political parties. They established organizations with mandatory membership, such as the Hitler Youth, Bund Deutscher Mädel and Arbeitsdienst. The Enabling Act was renewed in 1937 and 1941.On April 26, 1942, the Reichstag passed a law making Hitler the oberster Gerichtsherr or the supreme judge of the land, giving him the power of life and death over every citizen, which effectively extended the Enabling Act for the rest of the war.[4] This gradual process of amassing power is today lumped in as Salamitaktik (salami tactics).

Answer 44

One of the single greatest puzzles about the human brain is how the damn thing works at all when most neurons fire 10-20 times per second, or 200Hz tops. Can you imagine having to program using 100Hz CPUs, no matter how many of them you had? You'd also need a hundred billion processors just to get anything done in realtime.If you did need to write realtime programs for a hundred billion 100Hz processors, one trick you'd use as heavily as possible is caching. That's when you store the results of previous operations and look them up next time, instead of recomputing them from scratch. And it's a very neural idiom—recognition, association, completing the pattern.It's a good guess that the actual majority of human cognition consists of cache lookups.And it's not just our own cached thoughts. More often than not, we simply rely on the conclusions of others (ie someone else's cached thinking). This makes sense---because if someone else has already thought an idea through, you can save on computing power by caching their conclusion—right? Quite often we can rely on these conclusions--assuming they come from a trustworthy source.All of this leads to an overall efficiency and effectiveness of thought. It would be impossible to survice in a modern society without cached thought. BUT, unfortunately, it can also lead to laziness as we outsource our thinking to others. If I think through a process or concept on my own, I am more apt to examine my ideas more critically. In modern civilization particularly, no one can think fast enough to think their own thoughts. If I'd been abandoned in the woods as an infant, raised by wolves or silent robots, I would scarcely be recognizable as human. No one can think fast enough to recapitulate the wisdom of a hunter-gatherer tribe in one lifetime, starting from scratch. As for the wisdom of a literate civilization, forget it.But the flip side of this is that I continually see people who aspire to critical thinking, repeating back cached thoughts which were not invented by critical thinkers.What patterns are being completed, inside your mind, that you never chose to be there?Rationality: complete the pattern: "Love isn't rational."If this idea had suddenly occurred to you personally, as an entirely new thought, how would you examine it critically? I know what I would say, but what would you? It can be hard to see with fresh eyes. Try to keep your mind from completing the pattern in the standard, unsurprising, already-known way. It may be that there is no better answer than the standard one, but you can't think about the answer until you can stop your brain from filling in the answer automatically.Don't let your mind complete the pattern! Think!

Answer 45

Establish Adwords --actually, marketing in general based on the following:1. Your niche is growing 10 percent per year or more2. Your company is number one in its niche3. If you are not number one, create a sub-niche and appoint yourself number one.Opportunities that match these criteria are worth your time. They’re the ones that are going to grow. You get an exponential return on your time and money with Star Principle companies.

Answer 46

Mirroring, also called isopraxism, is essentially imitation. It’s another neurobehavior humans (and other animals) display in which we copy each other to comfort each other. It can be done with speech patterns, body language, vocabulary, tempo, and tone of voice. It’s generally an unconscious behavior—we are rarely aware of it when it’s happening—but it’s a sign that people are bonding, in sync, and establishing the kind of rapport that leads to trust. It’s a phenomenon (and now technique) that follows a very basic but profound biological principle: We fear what’s different and are drawn to what’s similar. As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together. Mirroring, then, when practiced consciously, is the art of insinuating similarity. “Trust me,” a mirror signals to another’s unconscious, “You and I—we’re alike.” Once you’re attuned to the dynamic, you’ll see it everywhere: couples walking on the street with their steps in perfect synchrony; friends in conversation at a park, both nodding their heads and crossing the legs at about the same time. These people are, in a word, connected.It’s almost laughably simple: for the FBI, a “mirror” is when you repeat the last three words (or the critical one to three words) of what someone has just said. Of the entirety of the FBI’s hostage negotiation skill set, mirroring is the closest one gets to a Jedi mind trick. Simple, and yet uncannily effective. By repeating back what people say, you trigger this mirroring instinct and your counterpart will inevitably elaborate on what was just said and sustain the process of connecting. Psychologist Richard Wiseman created a study using waiters to identify what was the more effective method of creating a connection with strangers: mirroring or positive reinforcement. One group of waiters, using positive reinforcement, lavished praise and encouragement on patrons using words such as “great,” “no problem,” and “sure” in response to each order. The other group of waiters mirrored their customers simply by repeating their orders back to them. The results were stunning: the average tip of the waiters who mirrored was 70 percent more than of those who used positive reinforcement.

Answer 47

How questions ask your counterpart for help.The implication of any well-designed calibrated question is that you want what the other guy wants but you need his intelligence to overcome the problem. This really appeals to very aggressive or egotistical counterparts. You’ve not only implicitly asked for help—triggering goodwill and less defensiveness—but you’ve engineered a situation in which your formerly recalcitrant counterpart is now using his mental and emotional resources to overcome your challenges. It is the first step in your counterpart internalizing your way—and the obstacles in it—as his own. And that guides the other party toward designing a solution.Your solution.

Answer 48

The Lucifer Principle, a book by Howard Bloom, sees social groups, not individuals, as the primary "unit of selection" on genes and human psychological development. It states that both competition between groups and competition between individuals shape the evolution of the genome. The Lucifer Principle "explores the intricate relationships among genetics, human behavior, and culture" and argues that "evil is a by-product of nature's strategies for creation and that it is woven into our most basic biological fabric".[1] It sees selection (i.e. through violent competition) as central to the creation of the 'superorganism'[2] of society. It also focuses on competition between individuals for position in the 'pecking order' and competition between groups for standing in pecking orders of groups. The Lucifer Principle shows how ideas are vital in creating cohesion and cooperation in these pecking order battles. Says The Lucifer Principle: "Super organism, ideas and the pecking order...these are the primary forces behind much of human creativity and earthly good.

Answer 49

I reject the Theory of Evolution because it's heteronormative. Science needs to replace the Theory of Evolution with something more inclusive'

Answer 50

The phrase "white male" is used as a pejorative and an invective by everyone from school teachers to A-list celebrities to national politicians, and I'm supposed to get all animated about making sure everyone ELSE experiences public lives free of "microaggressions"? How about no.

Answer 51

"Watch your thoughts, for they will become actions. Watch your actions, for they’ll become...habits. Watch your habits for they will forge your character. Watch your character, for it will make your destiny." — Margaret Thatcher

Answer 52

- **First-Principles Thinking Defined**: A method of problem-solving that involves breaking down complex problems into their most basic elements and then reconstructing them from the ground up. This approach encourages deep understanding and innovative solutions. - **Historical and Modern Use**: Originally utilized by Aristotle, this method is now applied by notable figures like Elon Musk and Charlie Munger to navigate through complex problems by focusing on fundamental truths rather than by analogy or convention. - **Distinction from Conventional Thinking**: Unlike traditional reasoning that relies on analogy or established practices, first-principles thinking demands questioning and deeply understanding the foundational aspects of a problem. - **Applications in Various Fields**: This approach is not only pivotal in philosophy and innovation but also in strategic decision-making in business, sports coaching, and more, where it enables individuals to identify opportunities and solutions that are not apparent through surface-level analysis. - **Socratic Questioning and Exploration**: Employing a systematic inquiry to drill down to the core assumptions and truths, akin to the Socratic method, allows for a structured dismantling and rebuilding of understanding and solutions. - **Overcoming Limiting Beliefs**: First-principles thinking helps challenge and surpass common limiting beliefs by reevaluating what's truly possible beyond conventional wisdom or historical precedents. - **Creativity and Learning**: Contrary to the belief that creativity is innate and fixed, first-principles thinking can unlock creative potential by encouraging a foundational understanding of concepts and problems. - **Real-World Examples**: From Elon Musk’s approach to reducing the cost of space travel with SpaceX by questioning the fundamental costs of rocket components to Derek Sivers’ focus on customer satisfaction in building CD Baby, first-principles thinking showcases how questioning the status quo can lead to groundbreaking results. - **Conclusion and Advice**: Emphasizing the importance of understanding basic principles before delving into details, and suggesting that most people are capable of learning and achieving more than they think by applying first-principles thinking to dismantle and understand complex problems fundamentally.

Answer 53

Chiaroscuro (English: /kiˌɑːrəˈskjʊəroʊ/; Italian: [ˌkjaroˈskuːro]; Italian for light-dark), in art, is the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition. It is also a technical term used by artists and art historians for the use of contrasts of light to achieve a sense of volume in modelling three-dimensional objects and figures.[1] Similar effects in cinema and photography also are called chiaroscuro.Further specialized uses of the term include chiaroscuro woodcut for coloured woodcuts printed with different blocks, each using a different coloured ink; and chiaroscuro drawing for drawings on coloured paper in a dark medium with white highlighting. Chiaroscuro is a mainstay of black and white photography.The underlying principle is that solidity of form is best achieved by the light falling against it. Artists known for developing the technique include Leonardo da Vinci, Caravaggio and Rembrandt. It is a mainstay of black and white and low-key photography. It is one of the four canonical painting modes of Renaissance art (alongside cangiante, sfumato and unione).

Answer 54

Have you cleaned up your life? If the answer is no, here’s something to try: Start to stop doing what you know to be wrong. Start stopping today. Don’t waste time questioning how you know that what you’re doing is wrong, if you are certain that it is.Don’t reorganize the state until you have ordered your own experience. Have some humility. If you cannot bring peace to your household, how dare you try to rule a city?

Answer 55

1. Vandalism2. Lists3. Irony4. ListsS. Repetitionf. Inconsistency

Answer 56

- **Definition and Universality**: The second law of thermodynamics posits that the entropy, or disorder, of an isolated system will always increase over time. Entropy is a fundamental measure of the universe's tendency toward disorder and chaos, observable in everything from cellular decay to societal changes. - **Historical Discovery**: The concept of entropy was formulated by Rudolf Clausius in the 19th century, building upon the earlier work of Sadi Carnot. Clausius's studies on the conversion of heat into work led to the realization that energy tends to disperse, and systems dissolve into chaos, highlighting a universal principle of increasing entropy. - **Entropy and Time**: Entropy provides evidence for the existence of time through the "Arrow of Time," which suggests that time is asymmetrical and flows in only one direction: forward. This concept illustrates the irreversible nature of entropy increase. - **Implications for Business and Economics**: In the context of business, entropy explains why most enterprises fail; without constant input of energy (effort, innovation, maintenance), businesses tend towards disorder and eventual bankruptcy. Successful businesses actively manage entropy through continuous improvement and adaptation. - **Social Entropy**: Societies, without maintenance and regulation, also trend towards disorder. The concept of "social entropy" indicates that stable governance, law enforcement, and infrastructure are necessary to counteract societal chaos. - **Everyday Observations**: Entropy is evident in daily life through natural aging, the deterioration of objects, and the gradual decline of organized states. Everything requires effort to maintain order against the natural inclination towards disorder. - **Philosophical and Practical Reflections**: While entropy might seem to render efforts futile, it actually underscores the importance of continuous effort and innovation to maintain order and progress. The recognition of entropy's inevitability prompts a proactive attitude towards life and challenges. - **Curbing Entropy**: Though entropy cannot be prevented, understanding its mechanisms allows us to mitigate its effects through vigilant effort, organization, and creative problem-solving. The battle against entropy motivates progress and innovation, making it a crucial concept for navigating the complexities of the universe.

Answer 57

The difference between past and future is based only in our perception.If we were able to look at the world on a molecular basis, we wouldn’t see any particular difference between the arrangement of the past and the arrangement of the present. The understanding of past and present, the increase in entropy, is due to our own particularity—the way we believe things are ordered. In reality, a random ordering of a deck of cards is equally as disordered as when you first opened the pack. The only difference is your belief that this particular arrangement is more ordered than any other arrangement. The almost infinite arrangements other than what you believe to be “ordered” are blurred together in your perception as a general state of disorder. It is this blurring that allows for certain orders to appear particular to you. This argument is central to Rovelli’s concept of the human concept of time. Our understanding of time can only be seen through this lens of what we believe to be a “particular” arrangement of things in contrast to the blurring together of all possible disorders.The Order Of Time.

Answer 58

“It is not enough to be busy so are the ants. The question is: What are we busy about?”

Answer 59

Mistakes are bad, no doubt, but not learning from them is worse. The key to learning from mistakes is to admit them without excuses or defensiveness, rub your nose in them a little, and make the changes you need to make to grow going forward. If you can’t admit your mistakes, you won’t grow.“I like people admitting they were complete stupid horses’ asses.I know I’ll perform better if I rub my nose in my mistakes. This is a wonderful trick to learn.”— Charlie Munger“Forgetting your mistakes is a terrible error if you are trying to improve your cognition…Why not celebrate stupidities!”— Charlie Munger“If anyone can refute me – show me I’m making a mistake or looking at things fromthe wrong perspective — I’ll gladly change.It’s the truth I’m after and the truth never harmed anyone.What harms us is to persist in self-deceit and ignorance.”— Marcus Aurelius

Answer 60

“You will become way less concerned with what other people think of you when you realize how seldom they do.” ― David Foster Wallace

Answer 61

While authoritarian parents characteristically impose many limits and expect strict obedience without giving children explanations, authoritative parents set limits but are considerably more flexible, providing their children with explanations and lots of warmth.

Answer 62

VolentiVolenti non fit iniuria (or injuria) (Latin: "to a willing person, injury is not done") is a common law doctrine which states that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they are not able to bring a claim against the other party in tort or delict. Volenti applies only to the risk which a reasonable person would consider them as having assumed by their actions; thus a boxer consents to being hit, and to the injuries that might be expected from being hit, but does not consent to (for example) his opponent striking him with an iron bar, or punching him outside the usual terms of boxing. Volenti is also known as a "voluntary assumption of risk".Volenti is sometimes described as the plaintiff "consenting to run a risk". In this context, volenti can be distinguished from legal consent in that the latter can prevent some torts arising in the first place. For example, consent to a medical procedure prevents the procedure from being a trespass to the person, or consenting to a person visiting one's land prevents them from being a trespasser.

Answer 63

In its most basic form, empathy is the ability to feel what anoher person is feeling. [It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that.]

Answer 64

I truly enjoy these disjointed pseudo-philosophical emanations we regularly get here from op-eds. They’re almost always self-absorbed, insistently demanding of respect, and rife with self-contradiction. Truly a pleasure, if you’re perverse about these things, as I am.

Answer 65

- **Core Principle**: The key to success lies in forming the habit of doing things that failures avoid, such as tasks that are challenging, uncomfortable, or unenjoyable. - **Universality and Simplicity**: This principle is straightforward and universally applicable across different areas of life and work, emphasizing action over inclination. - **Historical Context**: The concept has been recognized and articulated over time, highlighting that successful individuals often undertake tasks despite their natural dislikes or discomforts. - **Success vs. Failure**: Success is achieved by those who push beyond their comfort zones and embrace tasks that are necessary for achieving their goals, regardless of their personal preferences. - **Purpose and Motivation**: Having a strong, emotional, or sentimental purpose can drive individuals to persist in doing challenging tasks, surpassing the mere satisfaction of needs. - **Habit Formation**: Success habits, particularly in professional settings like life insurance sales mentioned in the text, are crucial. These include prospecting, calling, selling, and working habits that successful individuals develop over time. - **Impact of Purpose**: A practical, emotionally driven purpose is more motivating than logical needs. It propels individuals to achieve more for themselves and others, highlighting the emotional over the logical in driving success. - **Surrender to Purpose**: True success and the fulfillment of one’s potential are tied to the willingness to surrender to a greater purpose, which involves consistently doing things outside one’s comfort zone. - **Personal Transformation**: Adopting success habits and aligning with a meaningful purpose can lead to personal growth and a significant transformation in one’s approach to challenges and opportunities.

Answer 66

When going over study material, there is an important distinction between two approaches, known as knowledge-telling and knowledge-building, that we can use in our own learning or promote in those that we teach: Knowledge-telling is an approach to learning and teaching that involves relatively shallow engagement with the study material, which consists primarily of simply going over it, with little analysis or reflection. A common example of knowledge-telling in the context of learning is reading material again and again until we memorize it, while a common example of knowledge-telling in the context of teaching is a lecture where students are expected to do nothing but listen and write down what they’re told. Knowledge-building is an approach to learning and teaching that involves relatively deep engagement with the study material, which consists of analyzing it in-depth and examining it from various angles. Knowledge-building can be promoted by the use of various techniques, such as highlighting key points in the material, drawing connections between different parts of the material, and asking open-ended questions about the material.How to promote knowledge-building in your learningTo promote knowledge-building in your learning, you want to actively engage with the study material, rather than just passively consume it. You can achieve this by using various techniques, such as: Identifying and highlighting key points in the material. Reorganizing the material in order to improve its structure. Drawing connections between different parts of the material.To better understand how such techniques can be used, consider the technique of actively asking yourself questions about the material, which is one of the best ways to promote knowledge-building, since it encourages you to analyze it thoroughly and consider it from angles that you haven’t considered it before.You can use this technique if you’re learning, for example, about mitochondria (which are cellular organelles responsible for energy production), in which case you might start by asking yourself basic questions on the topic, such as: What is the main function of mitochondria? How are mitochondria structured? Where can mitochondria be found?Furthermore, to make sure that you’re not just asking questions that require nothing more than memorizing basic information and repeating it, which is closer to knowledge-telling than knowledge-building, you can improve your understanding of the topic by asking questions that prompt you to consider this information from different angles, such as: What would happen if all the mitochondria in a cell suddenly stopped working? How would you explain the role of mitochondria to a 5-year-old? What journey do the basic substances that mitochondria consume and produce go through as they enter and leave the mitochondria?Asking this sort of questions promotes knowledge-building because it encourages you to truly think through the material and expand on the basic information that you’re given, by doing more than just memorizing it verbatim.Note: a good way to improve your understanding of study material is to teach it to others, a phenomenon known as the protégé effect. If you do this, you should encourage your students to ask you any questions that they think of, in order to help both of you learn the material better. When it comes to your own learning, a notable advantage of this approach is that other people might ask questions that prompt you to think about the material from new angles, that you haven’t considered yourself, which will improve your ability to engage in knowledge-building.

Answer 67

“An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field

Answer 68

- **Definition and Examples**: A permutation is an arrangement of objects in a specific order. The examples provided include arranging letters (a, b, c, d) in different sequences, showcasing the concept of permutations in combinatorics. - **Importance in Mathematics**: Permutations play a crucial role in counting problems where order matters, and they are used in various mathematical areas, including defining determinants. - **Permutations of Distinct Objects**: The number of permutations of a set of distinct objects is determined by factorial notation (n!), representing the product of all positive integers up to n. This formula calculates the total arrangements possible when all objects need to be arranged. - **Circular Table Arrangement**: A problem involving seating arrangements at a circular table illustrates permutations with restrictions, such as ensuring no two women sit adjacent, demonstrating the complexity added by specific constraints. - **Permutations with Repetition**: This concept deals with arrangements where objects can be repeated, significantly affecting the total number of permutations due to the indistinguishability of repeated elements. - **Subset Permutations**: When arranging a subset of distinct objects from a larger set, the formula changes to n!/(n-k)!, where k is the number of objects being arranged. This addresses scenarios where not all objects are used in each arrangement. - **Security Example**: The example of choosing a secure passcode highlights permutations with restrictions, illustrating how permutations apply in practical scenarios requiring a minimum number of arrangements for security purposes. - **Practical Applications**: Permutations are applied in real-life situations, such as determining the number of ways to arrange ornaments, create passwords, or solve seating arrangements, showcasing the practical relevance of combinatorial principles. - **Problem-Solving Approach**: To solve permutation problems, one must first identify the nature of the objects (distinct or repeated) and any restrictions on the arrangements, guiding the choice of the appropriate permutation formula or technique. - **Complexity and Growth**: The factorial function (n!) grows rapidly, underscoring the exponential increase in permutations as the number of objects increases, demonstrating the vast number of possible arrangements even for relatively small sets of objects.

Answer 69

A precedential slippery slope is an argument that suggests that if we set the precedent of treating something relatively minor a certain way now, then we will have to treat something relatively major the same way later on. For example, a precedential slippery slope could involve arguing that if we legalize a relatively harmless drug now, then we will also have to legalize a much more harmful drug later.The basic structure of a precedential slippery slope is: “If we treat [relatively minor thing now] a certain way now, then we will set a precedent which will force us to treat [relatively major thing] the same way later.”As such, the precedential slippery slopes are based on the need to treat similar cases in a consistent manner.Note: the precedential slippery slope is sometimes also referred to as the fallacy of slippery precedents, in cases where its use is fallacious.As a fallacy---When it comes to precedential slippery slopes, a proposed slope is generally fallacious because it ignores our ability to treat future cases differently than present cases, despite the precedent that the present cases set.In this regard, precedential slippery slopes generally involve a false dichotomy, where only two options are presented (either refuse to set a certain precedent or set it and be forced us to treat other cases similarly in the future), while ignoring a third possibility, and namely the fact that we can set a precedent now, and still be able to treat other cases in a different manner in the future.For example, consider the following formulation of a precedential slippery slope : “If we legalize [relatively mild thing] now, then we will be forced to legalize [relatively negative thing] later.”This slippery slope can be fallacious if it will be possible for us to avoid legalizing the [relatively negative thing] later, in spite of having set a certain precedent by legalizing the [relatively mild thing] in the present, since the argument fails to properly acknowledge this possibility.

Answer 70

Aging scientists who study people over 100 often find a confounding mix of differences. Some smoke, some drink, some are a little over-weight, etc. [Not extremes obviously, but enough to make it difficult to find a pattern.]But the one thing people over 100 have in common is that at some level they don't give a shit. They don't let stuff bother them, or get them down. They are resilient. They don't have the adrenelin and hormone spikes that destroy our bodies

Answer 71

Habit #1: He uses a story gap.Gets the person interested by telling them what to expect without telling them outright. It piques curiosity. But create the story gam with impactful, high emotional (often comical) words. Don't say, "I got mad when the company took my money". Instead, say--"I called BofA, and got SO screwed!" [Pause}Habit #2: He inhabits the character/action that he is talking about.Habit #3: Tom uses dynamics. Change the pace. Use inflection and different tones.Habit #4: Tom includes everyone in the group.

Answer 72

De dicto vs. de re: Distinction used in philosophy, particularly in metaphysical and language contexts. Literal Meanings: "De dicto" translates as "about what is said," and "de re" as "about the thing." Example in Thought Context: De dicto: General belief without specifying an entity (e.g., Peter's unspecific paranoia about someone). De re: Specific belief about an identified entity (e.g., Peter believing a specific person is out to get him). Example in Desire Context: De dicto: Desire directed at a situation or concept (e.g., Jana wanting to marry "the tallest man in Fulsom County"). De re: Desire directed at a specific individual (e.g., Jana wanting to marry a man who is the tallest in Fulsom County). Change in Desire: Interpretation shifts based on whether Jana's desire changes with the arrival of a taller man. Example in Modality Context: De dicto: Necessity or impossibility of a concept (e.g., "The number of chemical elements is necessarily greater than 100"). De re: Necessity or impossibility regarding a specific entity (e.g., "George Bush could not have been Al Gore").

Answer 73

Duration. Path. Outcome.Duration is associated with acetylcholine. Acetylocholine is the chemical that helps give the calm focus.Path is asscoaited with dopamine. Dopamine is the chemical released in our brain, not just for pleasure, but when a person feels like he's "on the right path". And dopamine is released from humor.Outcome is associated with adrenelin. Adrenelin is what gives us urgency for action.

Answer 74

Urgency--a sense that what you're trying to do is important.Focus--the ability to slow down and work with the process. Kind of zen.Restoration. Must rejuvenate through deep sleep, relaxation, fun, and TV.

Answer 75

When you feel yourself triggered, follow this simple framework.Recognize how you're feeling.Acknowledge you are responsible for how you feel.Allow yourself to feel without blame. Don't suppress how you feel. Don't feel guilty about feeling.Take yourself out of your mind and into your body. Ask yourself where you're feeling it in your body?You're not a prisoner of your feelings. When we suppress how we feel, our emotions become a negatively coiled spring waiting to pounce. The smallest disturbance can set the off without warning. When you rehash what happened, you only coil them more. When you blame other people for how you feel, you absolve yourself from something you are responsible for.Instead feel without guilt or shame. It's ok to feel. Feel it in your body fully and it will pass quickly.

Answer 76

The Lottery Paradox and the de dicto/de re distinction in philosophy, while addressing different aspects of epistemology and language, share a connection through their exploration of belief, probability, and the complexities of language interpretation. The Lottery Paradox, formulated by philosopher Kyburg, arises from the conflict between the high probability of losing a single lottery ticket and the seemingly rational belief that a particular ticket won't win. It challenges our understanding of rational belief in the context of probabilities. In a typical lottery, while it is rational to believe that any single ticket will lose (given the low probability of winning), it's also acknowledged that one ticket will win, leading to a paradoxical situation where a set of individually rational beliefs leads to a collectively irrational conclusion. The de dicto/de re distinction, on the other hand, deals with the way statements are framed and understood. "De dicto" refers to statements about what is said (the literal or "dicto" meaning of the words), while "de re" refers to statements about the thing (referring to the actual object or "re" the statement is about). This distinction is crucial in understanding the meaning and truth of statements within intensional contexts (like belief, desire, knowledge, etc.), where the same statement can have different meanings and truth values depending on whether it is interpreted de dicto or de re. The connection between these two philosophical concepts lies in the way we interpret and rationalize beliefs and statements. In the Lottery Paradox, we are confronted with the challenge of reconciling a set of beliefs that are individually rational but collectively irrational. Similarly, the de dicto/de re distinction requires us to carefully consider how the meaning of a statement can change based on its interpretative context. Both concepts highlight the subtleties and complexities involved in the analysis of belief and truth, emphasizing the need for careful consideration of context, probability, and the nuances of language in philosophical inquiry.

Answer 77

Periphrasis is the act of using a certain expression in place of a shorter one (that’s often a name). For example, periphrasis can involve saying “the Evening Star” instead of “Venus”. In addition, in the context of rhetoric, the terms “circumlocution” and “periphrasis” are sometimes used interchangeably. Finally, in the context of grammar, periphrasis refers to the use of separate words to express a grammatical relationship that can be expressed by a single word (e.g. saying “more good” instead of “better”).

Answer 78

A tautology involves saying something twice using different words, generally unnecessarily. For example, the statement “you need to do this again and repeat it” is a tautology.

Answer 79

The biggest generator of long term results is learning to do things when you don't feel like doing them.Discipline is more reliable than motivation.

Answer 80

The brown M&M’s principle is the idea that small details can sometimes serve as useful indicators of big issues.This principle is named after a rock band (Van Halen), who had a “brown M&M’s clause” in their contracts with event organizers, stipulating that the organizers must provide M&M’s in the backstage area, but that there must be no brown M&M’s available. This small clause gave the band an easy way to check whether organizers actually paid attention to all the details in the contract, which was important given how complicated and potentially dangerous the band’s production was.The brown M&M’s principle can be useful to understand and implement, in a variety of contexts. As such, in the following article you will learn more about this principle, and see how to implement it yourself, as well as how to account for its use by others.

Answer 81

Men…think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

Answer 82

To abuse someone and feel morally superior at the same time. It explains all the pile-ons we see online.

Answer 83

Another form is called the Reverse Tinkerbell effect, a term coined by David Post in 2003. It stipulates that the more you believe in something the more likely it is to vanish. For example, as more people believe that driving is safe, more people will drive carelessly, in turn making driving less safe.

Answer 84

Psychosis is a failure to communicate. The “reality” the psychotic person is experiencing (i.e., constructing) cannot be communicated to anyone. Our reality is no less a fiction than theirs, but it is a fiction we all share, whereas the psychotic person exists alone, utterly alone, in their solitary (paranoid) “reality.” If they could just us to see what they see, think the way they think, and speak their language, they wouldn’t be psychotic, and neither would we. We would all be normal. Their “reality” would be reality.

Answer 85

It all relates to the Tinkerbell Effect. So much of our reality is a fiction... a fiction that we all agree to believe in. But that doesn’t make it any less real. On the contrary, it is absolutely real, and absolutely necessary. It is an absolutely necessary fiction. It is what makes communication and cooperation possible. It is what makes all human society possible. As long as we forget that it is a fiction. As long as we don’t perceive it as a fiction. What happens when you become psychotic is, you lose your ability to participate in “reality.” It’s like being in a country where you don’t speak the language. Or trying to play a game that everyone else is playing when you don’t know the rules, or the point of the game, and no one will tell you. See, normally, “reality” is just, well, reality. It doesn’t take scare quotes. It’s just “the way it is.” But it isn’t--especially since so much of our reality is manufactured via Tinkerbell Effect. And it's also why what is “real” has changed throughout history. (Of course, those earlier versions of reality were wrong, and our current reality is right, and future generations will never look back on our reality as we look back on the reality of people in Medieval Europe, or ancient Rome, or Mesopotamia.) Which is the problem for psychotic (or “schizophrenic”) individuals. They are unable to not perceive reality as a fiction, a work of ontological fiction in progress. They have forgotten to forget that it’s all made up — which is the price of admission to our communal “reality” — so they desperately try to interpret everything … literally everything, everything that we don’t have to interpret and just take for granted. For example, if ask you how your car is running (assuming that you have a car), you will not have to wonder what I mean. You’ll trust that I am referring to your actual car, the physical automotive vehicle. But when you ask a schizo how their car is running, they may not know what you mean by “car.” Do you really mean their brain? Or the material “vehicle” in which their immaterial spirit is traveling? And why are you asking? Who are you? What are you? A “car mechanic”? Are you from “The Factory”? Or a Cosmic Repo-man? They can’t be certain. Their mind is working to assemble a “reality,” alone — it does not get more alone — with the pieces of the old (i.e., our) “reality,” which no longer works as reality for them, because they watched it disintegrate into pieces, because they took way too much LSD, or had a psychotic breakdown due to a chemical imbalance, or inserted metal hooks into their pectoral muscles and were hoisted into the the air and hung there until the veil of maya finally dissolved … or whatever it was they did or suffered that obliterated reality for them. Now, I don’t mean to denigrate obliterating reality. Such experiences can be enlightening, in moderation. But psychosis is a horse of a different color. The biggest danger, when reality is obliterated, is if you freak out and desperately try to impose a new reality on the obliterated reality, which it is nearly impossible not to do if reality remains obliterated for too long. The human mind can handle brief sojourns beyond the veil of maya, but it cannot live there. If it cannot return to our reality, it starts making up its own “reality” … a “reality” that it cannot describe to us, or even get us to acknowledge the existence of, because it is talking to us in a foreign language, which no one but the psychotic person understands.

Answer 86

See, what capitalism does, if you turn it loose, when it isn’t restrained in any real way by any sort of dominant value system — e.g., a religious, or cultural, or social value system — what it does is, it transforms societies into markets, and turns everything and everyone within them into commodities. It strips societies of all other values — i.e., impediments to the free flow of capital — until nothing remains but the marketplace, where exchange value is the only value and nothing has any real value in itself, or any real meaning in itself. And the kicker is, what capitalism does next, when it’s allowed to go hog-wild on society, is it sells the desiccated husks of people’s values back to them as lifestyle commodities. Identities, religions, political parties, sexual orientations, left, right, capitalist, anti-capitalist, whatever. They are all just interchangeable commodities. Consumer products. Leisure activities. If they aren’t, if you attempt to actually live your life according to non-global-capitalist values (like, just for example, Islam, or Christianity, or communism, or any other values that impede the unbridled flows of capital), you will quickly find yourself branded an “extremist.” Go ahead, those of you who call yourselves Christians, try this … give everything you have to the poor, chase the money-changers out of your churches. See how fast you are branded “terrorists.” We've taken our hands off the reigns of society, and let global capitalism run society for us. What happens is, capitalism disintegrates our values, all of our values, not just the ones you don’t like. We end up living in a global market, a global market where there are no values, and nothing means anything, because anything means anything. We end up with societal psychosis. We end up ruled by a schizotocracy. Our reality changes from day to day, as does who we thought were our allies and adversaries, depending on the fluctuations of the market. The ideological market. The “reality” market. One day we’re all “free-speech” champions, and the next we’re screeching for censorship of speech. One day people are demonizing “the Unvaccinated,” and the next they are screeching that they are being demonized. Comparing anything to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, until it isn’t, and wasn’t, until it was, and then wasn’t again. Trump is Hitler. Putin is Hitler. Hamas is Hitler. Netanyahu is Hitler. Anyone who calls anyone Hitler is Hitler. Men are women. Women are Hitler. The Hamas terrorists are worse than the Nazis. Israel is worse than the Nazis. Masks work, and they don’t. Stand with Ukraine. Stand with Israel. Stand with Whatever. Listerine kills the germs that brushing can’t. Have it your way. You’re in good hands. Fly the friendly skies. And so on. Nothing and no one can be trusted. No one has any values or principles, so we’re just shrieking gibberish and slogans at each other, like corporations advertising their products on a television network that no one is watching. And, of course, just like the psychotic individual, who desperately attempts to impose a new “reality” on the terrifying chaos of the obliterated reality from which they have been exiled, many folks are going full-blown fascist and trying to ram their “truth” down everyone else’s throat in an attempt to reestablish something, anything, resembling a functional reality … a reality that isn’t up for grabs. Other people are switching off, and withdrawing from society, overwhelmed by it all. Others are searching for someone to tell them what is really going on and what to do about it. “Leaders” are coming out of the woodwork, delivering speeches and holding seminars, explaining the problem, and who “our enemy” is.

Answer 87

1. The thing doesn’t happen. There’s no evidence! It’s just a conspiracy theory. 2. It might’ve happened once or twice, but it’s super rare, so basically doesn't happen. 3. It’s not rare. It’s normal. Scientists always said it happens and it’s nothing to worry about. 4. So it happens a lot. It’s good that it’s happening!

Answer 88

Too often, much of their supposed knowledge...ie "prestigious academic knowledge” that they produce is actually just simple or nonsensical concepts cloaked in elaborate rhetoric [language] that makes their points appear to be something much more impressive.

Answer 89

A Guardian of Decay can be anyone. They might be credentialed, institutional, or self-appointed. Their role isn't assigned; it's performed, often without self-awareness. What unites them is this: when a system begins to fail, they respond not by seeking the truth of its condition but by trying to silence the discomfort of exposure. They don't ask if the structure should fall. They ask how long they can keep others from noticing. The Guardians of Decay appear in schools, hospitals, newsrooms, governments, therapy offices, and online forums. They are not part of any one profession. They appear wherever systems that once conferred identity, security, or status are now being questioned. Their loyalty is not to reality but to the system that gave them meaning. The Tactical Patterns of the Guardian of Decay Guardians of Decay do not make rational cases for preservation. They use patterns, repeated, often unconscious moves, that suppress inquiry and short-circuit thought. The most common is emotional coercion. Guardians of Decay often flood the space with fear, guilt, and manufactured fatigue. They try to make questioning feel shameful, dangerous, or exhausting. The goal is to associate critical thought with social disruption as if asking what's true is itself the problem. Next is the relentless use of logical fallacies. Rather than engaging directly, they redirect. Guardians of Decay exaggerate your position into something absurd, then argue against that version. They declare neutrality while smuggling in the outdated assumptions of the system they are protecting. They rely on circular reasoning, where the system's authority is proof of its truth. They load their attacks with logical fallacies until the original question is buried. They also invoke credentialism. Guardians of Decay often rely on titles, degrees, and affiliations to demand submission and obedience. They insist you trust their status, not their reasoning. Their message is clear: do not think, defer. This tactic thrives on the cultural habit of outsourcing judgment to "experts," even when they cannot explain or defend their positions in plain terms, with even the most elementary logic. Another core pattern is the suppression of inquiry. Serious, good-faith questions are recast as negativity, division, or even violence. Guardians of Decay shift the frame from "What's true?" to "Why are you asking that?" They imply that the very act of noticing failure is an act of betrayal. Then there is guilt shaming. Guardians of Decay target those who have energy, actual skin in the game, and clarity and try to drag them into surrender. They suggest that asking for change is selfish or unkind and that raising hard truths is inconsiderate to those who want stability. They reframe discomfort as harm and insist that your insistence on truth is hurting the group. This leads to a false appeal to unity. Guardians of Decay say that "healing" or "community" is needed now, which often means suppressing conflict instead of resolving it. They redefine loyalty to people as loyalty to the institutions that claim to represent them. Questioning becomes disloyalty. Reform becomes an attack. Another frequent tactic is tribal signaling masked as neutrality. They pretend to speak as neutral observers, yet their assumptions align perfectly with the dominant institutions, often academic, political, medical or corporate. They invoke broad values like "science," "compassion," or "civility," but only in ways that defend the status quo. Their projections of "objectivity" are a delusion. Finally, they work overtime to delegitimize reformers. Guardians of Decay rarely engage reformers' actual arguments. Instead, they move to question their character, stability, or motives. They don't want to debate ideas; they want to mark the reformer as dangerous, broken, or ungrateful—someone whose voice doesn't deserve to be heard.

Answer 90

The most crucial move is to recognize their patterns. Don't get caught in personal disputes. See the system operating through the person. Once you see the pattern, you can break its hold. Remember, and we say this all the time here on The Whirl of Reorientation: Once you see it, you can’t unsee it! Stay rooted in inquiry. Never apologize for asking real questions. Don't let emotional manipulation blur the line between discomfort and harm. Refuse false choices between truth and unity. You are not required to choose between honesty and belonging. Guard your stamina. Guardians of Decay aim to exhaust. They want you to walk away not because you were wrong but because you're tired. That's how they win. But if you keep your composure and hold your frame, their tactics collapse. They expose themselves by what they try to silence. The Guardian of Decay cannot stand in the light of sustained clarity. You don't have to attack them. You have to outlast the illusion.

superMemo1 Flashcards

learn (114 cards)