May 17, 2012
Posted by on
Book’s at the very bottom of the page.
I find that certain fields require more time to get warmed up, and then need longer periods of focus. But this is a good starting point for time management
May 16, 2012
Posted by on
Differences: The classic philosophers like Aristotle and Locke — while brilliant and enlightened men — did not understand women. They appealed to conceptual ethics like fairness, honesty, loyalty, and truth. This is how men think and operate; these notions are what men use to make decisions. Men need to get that women don’t operate that way. Women are biologically and genetically programmed to go with the bigger-better-deal.
Bonding and attachment occur to both the Dominant and the submissive, though the intensity appears to be stronger on the part of the submissive in most cases. In many ways the Dominant penetrates the light shielding of the submissive. This occurs often with the willful aid of the submissive. A submissive ‘seeking’ a Dominant partner will frequently ‘open’ or lower their outer barriers or shields in the necessary effort to ‘align’ with the potential mate. To some extent there appears to be a period of time where the Dominant and submissive attempt to ‘match frequencies’, rather like a radio signal.
This relinquishing of barriers on the part of the submissive is not without risk. In most cases if the submissive encounters a Dominant that is not a good match for them then the submissive will not ‘hear’ or ‘tune in’ to that Dominant’s voice. Being a good match does not mean that the Dominant that they ‘hear’ is a good person. It merely means that component’s inside both people align well.
For a submissive to ‘detach’ from a strong Dominant is quite difficult even when both submissive and Dominant willfully agree to separate. They must be able to blockade the ‘Voice’. This is generally impossible if the submissive remains in physical proximity to the Dominant. Severance of contact, physical or phone, may be necessary for a considerable time frame for the ‘programming’ to dissipate and the shielding or buffers of the submissive to be reinstated. That submissive will continue to be susceptible to the Dominant as those access corridors may continue to exist over the duration of that submissive’s life. However, when the submissive attaches to a new Dominant, that new Dominant’s voice will form a shield which makes it virtually impossible for the submissive to ‘hear’ other Dominant voices in the same way. In a sense the submissive would have to ‘hear through’ the filtered shielding of their Dominant. The submissive will continue to be aware of or recognize other Dominant’s by their emoting presence but will in most cases not be vulnerable to being effected by them.
However, it is possible for a submissive who is bonded and attached to be taken by a Dominant who is stronger than their Dominant.
May 15, 2012
Posted by on
1. Write the problem out and then read it aloud. Sometime’s it’s easier to make sense of something if you hear it. 2. Create pictures of what you are thinking about, if you need to be creative link them with other images you already have (IE Roman Room Method). A lot of people have a hard time picturing things vividly, so you have to work up to being able to really use the technique properly.
May 12, 2012
Posted by on
At the macro scale, societal overreactions to terrorism are founded on the misperception of risk and undertainty, which has deep psychological roots. At the micro scale, more and more crimes involve deception; as security engineering gets better, it’s easier to mislead people than to hack computers or hack through walls. Many systems also fail because of usability problems: the designers have different mental models of threats and protection mechanisms from users. Wrong assumptions about users can lead systems to discriminate against women, the less educated and the elderly. And misperceptions cause security markets to fail: many users buy snake oil, while others distrust quite serviceable mechanisms. Security is both a feeling and a reality, and they’re different. The gap gets ever wider, and ever more important. Link
May 11, 2012
Posted by on
The theory might have to be updated to accommodate young women – they nearly always choose steal. I wonder if zero sum thinking correlates higher with females, particularly young ones? It might explain some of Feminism’s ideas and policies.
In this case a man turns the dilemma on it’s head by saying he will steal the money, and share it after the show:
This paper presents a laboratory collective resistance (CR) game to study how different forms of non-binding communication among subordinates can help coordinate their collective resistance against a leader who transgresses against their rights. Contrary to the predictions of analysis based on purely self-regarding preferences, we find that non-binding communication about intended resistance increases the incidence of no transgression even in the one-shot laboratory CR game. In particular, we find that the incidence of no transgression increases from 7 percent with no communication to 16-37 percent depending on whether communication occurs before or after the leader’s transgression decision. Subordinates messages are different when the leaders can observe them, and the leaders also appear to use the observed messages to target specific subordinates for transgression Link
Jaynes’s theory can be broken down into four independent hypotheses:
1. Consciousness — as he carefully defines it — is a learned process based on metaphorical language.
2. That preceding the development of consciousness there was a different mentality based on verbal hallucinations called the bicameral (‘two-chambered’) mind.
3. Dating the development of consciousness to around the end of the second millennium B.C. in Greece and Mesopotamia. The transition occurred at different times in other parts of the world.
4. The neurological model for the bicameral mind.
De-escalation is the step when force is imminent (how’s that for ‘soft’ language- more real: if you don’t do something now the fight will be on in a few seconds). It is “talking ’em down”. It ranges from sympathy to weird non-sequitors to treating a threat like a thoughtful question to pure intimidation. It is a skill, and a more varied and more versatile skill than anything physical. But it is a skill, not an answer.
Some memorable successes:
“Turn your head to the side.”
“Why, mother fucker?” He glared hard.
“Cause you look like you’re thinking about fighting and you seem like a nice guy, so if you do start to fight and I smash you into the wall right there, if you turn your face to the side you won’t break any teeth.”
His glare changed to something more puzzled.
“It’s just a courtesy. You seem like a nice guy and you don’t need any dental bills. Just turn your head to the side.”
“I won’t be any trouble.”
“I appreciate that.”
“What’s your goal today, partner?” This is one of my universals. Most of the people who want to fight are unhappy, without really thinking about why, and want to do something, without really thinking about what. Once they put into words what they want , e.g.”I wanna go home” they often clearly see how fighting is not a step in that direction.
Fabius Maximus was a Roman general who knew better than to risk everything and engage Hannibal in open battle.
But his fellow Romans would have none of it. They called him, Cunctator, the delayer, the wimp, and had him removed from command.
The military disaster of Cannae followed: 80,000 Romans slaughtered. Among their number was a sizeable fraction of the entire class of nobles who had laughed at Fabius Maximus. History drips with irony.
Fabian Strategy: Wearing Down the Enemy(i.e. modern warfare)
Alternatehistory.com: Fabius keeps his command, no Cannae
April 30, 2012
Posted by on
The thing that gets me about peace activists is that peace is not a thing. It is the absence of another thing. Depending on how you define it, the absence of war or violence or conflict. Depending on how you define those, ‘peace’ ranges from a difficult improbability to an absurd impossibility. In any case where you are looking at an absence, you must look at the thing you want to remove.
You can’t effectively work for peace without taking a good hard look at war or violence or conflict (or all three, depending on your definition). And not a knee-jerk, disapproving look, either. A good hard look at why, if something is so bad, it is so prevalent. Why, if something must be fixed, it is so endemic in the natural world. Link