luminescent

I found your analysis more interesting than quick barbs -- thank you for spending the time.

I like to look at how things are intertwined. As in, therapy for you would affect your brother as well. I find that often things feel better when I have them connected to each other, instead of in isolation. This probably is about me, more than about your situation though. Is it possible that you used "our youngest" in the past to mean "ownership" and now it's starting to mean "responsibility," and that's why you would have deliberately chosen it in your post? If your perspective has changed from ownership, then using an ownership term would have been off. But since it's an ambiguious term maybe it represents to you the psychological shift from one perspective to the other. A token from the past that is transformed into its opposite in the future. (I find it very interesting that you would state that you felt you chose it deliberately.) Yeah, I've had moments like this. I think that having a memory of those moments is sort of a gem... it's evidence to yourself that you weren't always like the "after" picture. It makes it easier to realize that it may be possible to back out of it, back into the "before" picture.I like your solution, I think it makes perfect sense. I'm not sure what you mean about "how much" for a savings plan though? I found all of your complicated, emotion-related stuff easy to understand, but here I'm at a loss :)Have you chosen a therapist for yourself yet?

Are you aware that by posting something like that in response, you *are* further engaging? (Also, "really manipulative" is not an argument, and doubled down is not an argument.) ------------edited to add: Why did someone give me a negative point for that? Everything I said was true.I'm not interested in defending the OP or defending some part of the topic with this post. What I don't understand is why baiting comments are used as often as they are on this message board. I thought that reason, evidence, and logic was supposed to be paramount. Also empathy and self-knowledge. Is there a valid use for these type of comments? I am open to the idea that with certain people "that's just how you have to handle them," or something like that, but I need someone to make the case for me.(I don't mean just you, RyanT. I see that you're fairly new to the board, so who I mostly mean is the people who have been here the longest, since they set the tone for the board.) ------------edited to add: And now I have two negative points, and yet no one will address my concerns. I do indeed find the "feedback" to be helpful information.

Please explain how? I do not understand. I do see how my post could have been offensive, but that seems to be where my understanding drops off. I have to say, I don't understand either. Why not tell philschneider what he's doing wrong? (In other words, "You're still doing it" is not an argument.)

Have you told him that therapy can help him with those things? I'd suggest emphasizing that (if you're not already doing it). That seems right, to me. Tell him the truth wherever possible, gently but consistently. Let him make his own choices but you don't have to agree with him. I think there are three possibilities that can come out of that:1. he becomes more agreeable to your point of view2. he stays the same3. he becomes more disagreeable to your point of view.If he becomes more disagreeable, then I would back off, because he's getting entrenched in his choice (and it is his choice). Maybe you should look at it like: Therapy for you might help you figure out what's best for you to do for him. I think therapy for either of you would be good for both of you. I have to say, this sounds especially warm to me. Maybe it's just an accident, but in english "our youngest" usually is used for "our youngest child" not "our youngest brother," so it comes across to me as though you feel as responsible for him as though he was your child too. It might have been just a slip of the keyboard, but that just feels to me particularly as if you really care. :)It sounds to me like you've got this right, deep down. Your actions and proposed actions reflect (in my opinion) your heart being in the right place. It's a good place to start.

I agree too with the basic idea. I wouldn't use the word non-violent however, because that already has baggage (for lack of a better word) attached to it too. I would try to talk about it only using plain language. That's pretty much what I do with most things. If you can tell where I got a concept from, then I'm not doing my job well.It also lets me know when I actually understand a concept rather than I just think that I do. If I can put it into my own words, I understand it, if I keep saying "capitalism" or whatever, I need to check myself to be sure that my meaning isn't going off target, due to my definition being different from the other person's definition. Also, it's good to make others define their terms, too. So, tell the person that you're talking with to that they can't use those terms either. In other words, ban anarchy.Wait, I don't think that means what I meant it to mean, really...

I think Stef has said that at the time he picked the name Free Domain Radio he hadn't realized that he would later make the site into something so big. If he could go back in time and change it he would, but other than that it is what it is. It's the same with his YouTube channel: "stefbot" is just what he had thought of at the time, not realizing how big he would try to make it in the future.Also the initials being FDR is a little unfortunate. :)The site's already got a reputation and changing it would lose a lot of people in the confusion, plus it would be a huge amount of work to change it everywhere, plus links on other people's sites would be outdated, etc. Once something's spread out on the internet it can't be controlled anymore, so for the rest of eternity (or thereabouts) people would be coming across the old name, written in articles and whatnot. It's not a bad name, just could be better, so changing it would end up being more trouble than it's worth. That's my understanding of it anyway.

I don't think there are any laws about it. I think it's something that the credit card companies are having the merchants do. The credit card companies either give an incentive to the merchant to do it, or they tell the merchant "you have to do this or you can't use our service."It's for internet and telephone transactions, and it's been around for a long time. Basically, when you order something online or by phone with a credit card, they ask you for your billing address. When you buy something in the store, they don't.I think all or almost all merchants in the US are doing it. I've never come across one that wasn't (although, I don't shop at a wide variety of places.) I think the reason that the Wikipedia article wasn't very complete is because this system has been around since before the internet.Does that help?

I think this has to be broken down into two questions: 1. does planned obsolence exist at all? and 2. if so how prevalent is it? Otherwise, everyone sort of works with a different definition of the question "is there planned obsolescence?"

My favorite was from the now defunct website anit-politics.ws: I couldn't find it for sale online anymore, but I think it would be cool to have a professionally done sign. Try searching "vote for nobody," a few variations come up.

child: What are you doing?dad: Reading.child: What are you ree-ding?dad: It's a secret.child: (thinking) Why is it a secret?dad: (turns page so she can see it) Can you read it?child: No.dad: That's why it's a secret.

In case you haven't seen this yet (it was posted after you started this thread), Ethan Glover wrote an article about the pros and cons of Liberty.me.This is the thread he started about it:https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40562-libertyme-a-scam/?hl=liberty.meIn there he links to his article. By the way, thanks for writing in so much detail about it, I'm finding it useful.

@PatrickCThank you very much! I appreciate it.@tasmlabI'm very glad you enjoyed it! You said:> I guess there's a donation convention on the Internet that's easy to grab on to. I can't imagine buying someone else's dinner just because I liked their behavior.I agree with that, one seems awkward and the other doesn't. So, why? Is it because when it's for content it seems okay, when it's for behavior it seems weird? Or because rewarding behavior seems "parental"? Or because the internet was new so it was easier to adopt a different convention? Or because content seems big and measureable and behavior seems small and negligible? Or something else? Do you have any feelings about about any of those? Or other thoughts as to why?> It would be interesting if everyone was in the habit of physically rewarding things that they liked.I agree. Interesting.> How about this twisted replacement for government: Instead of everyone having to ship 30% of their income to Washington, it's instead a law that everyone has to spend 30% of their income rewarding other people's good behavior?I think that would be VERY interesting. I wonder what kind of behavior modifications might come out of it...? I like the donation model for intellectual property very much. I also like when somebody is selling something physical, charging a minimum amount and accepting donations on top of that. I'm not sure about just "yay you're a good person, here's a quarter" though. Being good should be the norm for everybody. I think it gets rewarded at this period in tiime because it's rare. And I have NO problem with it being rewarded and with the recipient being totally satisfied to receive it. Because, oy, when you find someone who's doing the right thing, it can feel like an oasis in a desert! You want to cry and hug them, and you want to buy them a car! Eh, but dinner is about all you can swing. (Plus, you don't wanna appear creepy or anything. You know?)I'm repeating:> How about this twisted replacement for governmentto add: It's more like some un-twisting of government, I'd say.

I just clipped this picture yesterday: This is another example that I think is related to the same basic subliminal theme of men-are-bad, women-are-oppressed, and it's also about college. Instead of me saying why I think that though, I'm wondering if anyone else has an opinion on what subliminals are going on in this ad? It's on the splash page for Outlook (hotmail).Okay, how can I make the ad big instead of clickable? --------------------------(I go to all of the trouble to write punchy text and then the site pulls my punch... grumble, grumble.)edited for: humor that's so mild it's hardly there and a partially aborted attempt at greater accuracy

I didn't watch the ad (bandwidth issues) but I did read the article, plus the first article linked within it.Yuck.Just one example, from the first sentence:"66 percent of 4th grade girls say they like science and math, but only 18 percent of all college engineering majors are female."So, what percentage like science and math *best*? 30 %? 18%? 0%, but 18% go into engineering anyway? What percent of boys go into interior design, fashion design, etc.? (Shouldn't they push more engineering boys into fashion design to free up more space for girls to go into engineering?) Some quotes about statistics:“Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are pliable.” ― Mark Twain“There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”"Statistics are like a bikini. They show so much, but they hide the most important parts.”If you feel irked by the article, it's because the article is trying to manipulate your perception subliminally. Oh, and it's not being manipulated about who's going to college for what, that's just the means to get there. The destination is the men-are-bad, women-are-oppressed paradigm. My guess would be that men are wising up to the fact that college is in a bubble, and women not so much. So colleges are advertising to women. This article could just be a subliminal advertizing piece for colleges, consciously written as that by the author. The best advertizing works subliminally, provoking unconscious desires (or revulsions), and many women are carrying around the men-are-bad, women-are-oppressed thing, and it feels good to them to have it reinforced subliminally. As irksome as it feels to you, I suspect it can feel equally as good to some of them.It doesn't matter how conscious the paradigm is to the women, however, what matters is how subliminal the reinforcement of that paradigm is in the advertizing. If it's subliminal, it can be a very powerful force.It's also possible that the subliminals of the article were sub-conscious for the author, or that it's somewhere in between conscious and subconscious. My opinion is that it was fully conscious, because the article's just too focused and a little heavy-handed. Anyway, just my thoughts.----edited to remove erroneous info and add clarity

Following are my answers to> Some questions:> - Are there just some weird generous people in the world doing random acts of kindness?I suspect that people who do random acts of kindness may have some possibility of also being weird, sure. However, what your anonymous benefactor did wasn't random. You, I'm afraid, were very precisely targeted for this act of kindness. (I'm sorry but you'll just have to face facts.)> - I'm a peaceful parenter, but for all this guy knows maybe I beat them into submission.I suggest that there's a big difference between well-behaved because they're well-treated, and "well-behaved" because they're mis-treated. I don't think the latter even sort-of exists, except if the child is nearly comatose with anxiety, otherwise, "mis-behavior" keeps showing through. Part of the answer is in the question. They're not submissive (I feel confident in stating), therefore it's obvious that you haven't beat them into submission. A word to the wise: You'll have to multiply your beatings schedule pronto, because you're failing so miserably. Let's see, maybe quadruple would be good... So 0 beatings times 4 equals... well... Okay I think you're destined to be a failure at the submission thing. (I'm sorry to have to be the one to tell you about that.)So, the question might become, did the benefactor gift you with dinner because 1. your children were well-treated well-behaved, or 2. because they were quiet, irrespective of how they got that way. Well, I think the first one is more likely to become an anonymous benefactor than the second one. Can't prove it, but I'm going to say it's true anyway.> - Are my kids that awesome? They were mostly playing with the ipad.Relative to the rest of the population, awesome is probably the right word. Hm, I see this question as suggesting more proof that your benefactor is the first type of person... a person who has the ability to see true awesomeness where it exists (even if it's mostly playing with an ipad) and be pleased to find it. And then want to express appreciation for it.> - How awful are all of the other kids he sees eating at restaurants?Well... You might have noticed... The awful ones just happen to stand out a bit more than the mediocre ones. Therefore, by contrast making the awesome ones look extra-awesome. So you got a boon there, I'll grant you that. Here's a quote about it: "In a world devoid of awesomeness, even the tiniest bit of awesome can appear extra-awesome." (Heh, I just made that up.)> - Did he do anything creepy like follow us home?Of course not. That's why he left before you did, so that there wouldn't be that awkward moment where your eyes meet and everybody thinks "hey I think this is supposed to feel creepy..." Which, I think it feels creepy mostly because in this society people usually only do something generous if they want something in return or have already gotten something in return. Oh. I could have said that shorter by saying (like Stef points out), that people run a personal cost-benefit analysis. Showing appreciation to strangers seems... well, pointless. I mean, what's in it for me?There is the fact however, that he could have walked up to your table and just told you what he thought, and that would likely have been acceptable to eveybody, and if he had done it well you would have left pleased and not questioning creepiness. My guess there is that he felt uncomfortable doing that and so resorted to money, the (currently) universal representation of appreciation.> And...> - In a truly free society, would people buy each other dinner without a government?Ok, I know it's not a real question, but I want to answer anyway.Heck YEAH! I think a lot more transactions will be the equivalent of people buying strangers dinner... but not because their children are well-behaved. When everybody's children are awesome, awesome children will be unremarkable. So to explain, I think that's what the donation model is about -- pay what you want, pay what it's worth to you. So, you donate to Stef. His stuff is out there for free. You are gifting him a donation because you appreciate what he's doing for you, WITHOUT there being a fixed-price, "x has been determined as its value" at this fixed point in time sort of measure and trade. Instead of having to pin eveything to a single point in time, concrete, tit-for-tat model (clumsy description), you're acting within the web-like, cooperative, aware of diffuse benefits that stretch forward in time model (another clumsy description.) A more evolved model, a newer psychoclass, more complex.Now, granted, Stef asks for the donations. But he'd far rather not have to ask, and that makes perfect sense to me. Much better (more free?) if everybody automatically thinks about whether it's worth anything to them, how much it's worth, etc. and then acts on that and donates accordingly without being prompted. It doesn't feel like people care about your birthday if you have to ask them to buy you a present.So, a question back to you: If you went back in time and ran across Stef's stuff all over again, while knowing all the things you know now, but he DIDN'T prompt for donations, could you imagine yourself being inspired to want to send him something, if only he would accept it, and if only it wouldn't feel too creepy to do so?Yah, same thing! You just bought some stranger dinner! LOL!Anyway, that's a rough view of my perspective. I enjoyed answering this-- thank you so much for posting it as a big list of questions. Answering them has helped clarify a few things for me, which I really appreciate. Keep up the good work parenting-wise, and kudos on your acheivement.

A podcast that might be helpful: #1561 Restitution and the Future. (A listener convo about similar circumstances.)

"Never" "Always" (Although I wouldn't say I never use them...) A very interesting question which I will probably be thinking about for the next few weeks. I have alway... uh, for as long as I can remember, I've worked at being increasingly more precise. Been a little bit lax in some areas, it would seem, in recent years.

I didn't mean to say that it isn't at all statist, just that it's less so. But yes there are a lot of other problems, as you are pointing out. I thought it was worth noting that the characters are at least realizing that the state could be affecting things in a way that is more than just the obvious one. So I liked seeing that in the clip. As in, some understanding is better than nothing. (Or is it? Ron Paul anyone?)I'm going to spend some time thinking about the other things you mentioned. Thx for the clarification.

@LovePrevails regarding the Futurama video:I think it's in the definition of identical. If there are two "identical" universes, and then something happens differently in one of them, then, they are no longer identical. "Identical" is just a word that describes the property of identicalness. In two identical universes, everything would happen identically -- by definition. Once something happens differently in one of them, they can no longer be described as identical. And therefore they no longer fit a question starting with a premise of "two identical universes."In other words, I think it's a fake question.So, to the original question, is it possible to predict my own decision? If I predict my own decision in advance, then I'm actually just making the decision earlier, which means I'm not "predicting" anything. I'm just deciding faster. So again it's in the definition of the word. My act of predicting ends up being negated by my prediction. Or something like that.Therefore, it's determinism UNTIL freewill. Looking back it's determinisim, looking forward it's freewill. Looking backward in time, you can compare two universes and decide whether they're identical or not, but looking forward... who knows? We can't know for sure until the future becomes the past and then we can look back and find out. Similarly, looking backward in time, it can be obvious what decision I was going to make. Looking forward, not so much. Not until the future becomes the past and I can look backward at it, can it again seem obvious.

From the video: "A tax enforced on tea grants a boon to smugglers.""I'll wager the same men who levy the taxes are selling the tea."It's less statist than it appears at first.

Unable to predict your own decisions beforehand, eh? :D :D

I think the text is strong, but has a few flaws. Here are the notes I made:- I like your emphasis on the word HAPPY in the first paragraph.- I would capitalize "Positive Communication Coach" to make it sound more official- For greater impact I would change "For example, there are 6 main reasons why people communicate, can you name them?" to "For example: There are 6 main reasons why people communicate. Can you name them?"- Uncapitalize "themselves" and move the "To" up a line. In other words: "And with a little help anyone can learn:" "- To Assert Themselves better " becomes "And with a little help anyone can learn to:" "- Assert themselves better " (That way it reads "anyone can learn to:" "- Assert, - Listen, - Ask, - Say, etc.")- Regarding "Listen in the way that is most helpful to the person talking (not always the same!)" I'm unclear as to what the "not always the same" refers to?- "or like they're pressure anyone" should be "pressuring"- "Connect with other peoples feelings" should be "people's"- "Have the maximum opportunity of resolving conflicts" I would change to "Have the maximum opportunity to resolve conflicts" or "Have the maximum potential to resolve conflicts" or "Have the best chance to resolve conflicts"- Add "..." in front of "and even start teaching these skills to their friends" (it then becomes "...and even start")- I would omit the extra blank lines before and after the bullet list. I think it will read fine without the extra lines. - "I am confident that with 4 sessions anyone can see massive positive changes in their social life, family life, romantic life or work life." I would remove the word "massive." No need to over-promise. - Keep the blank line before the endorsements -- very effective.- The endorsements themselves are a nice touch.There might be a few other things I would change to make it flow more smoothly, but otherwise I think it's a strong ad -- the structure of it is good, and I found the message to be compelling.(Let me know if you have any questions.)

Well, it is possible that if she's not eating, there's a logical reason for it. You mentioned that she has constipation -- so you might want to try to solve that problem first. It might be that not eating feels right to her because it actually is a "better" choice for her in some way. I'm not any kind of professional nutritionist, doctor, etc., but is she taking any probiotic supplements? Or eating any fermented foods like yogurt, kefir, or naturally fermented sauerkraut or pickles? If not, then that would be the first thing I would try. Is her doctor aware of the constipation and has he/she suggested anything for it? If not, probiotics would be a great place to start. If you're unsure whether it's okay or not, just ask her doctor if there's any reason that she can't take a probiotic or eat yogurt, etc. I don't think they would charge for that.It's easy for someone in modern society to have imbalanced gut flora -- antibiotics, chlorine in drinking water, eating too much sugar and processed foods (like cereal), for example, can all reduce the populations of "good" gut bacteria. Probiotics in capsules can be opened up and stirred into food, btw, so you wouldn't even have to get her to swallow pills. If she's already good with probiotics, then I would look into other causes of constipation.But that's where I would start if I were you. Don't assume that the adults know for sure how things should be. Rather, consider that for anything she does, there will be a reason, and then observe and deduce until you figure out what the reason might be. Then do some empirical testing of the theory. It seems to me that you already hit on a pretty strong possibility, now you just need to test it.Good luck and If you want some help with food choices or more information, just let me know and I'll try to get you some useful links.

You pinpointed one of the most bizarre things -- I didn't even know that I was going to lunge at him. In the dream I seem to have thoughts that are mine, but the dream me is ignoring them and taking actions that have nothing to do with what I'm thinking. If I hadn't chased him, is a question I hadn't contemplated before -- interesting. I was focused on wondering what would have happened if I had caught him. What would I want with a seven-foot tall empty red suit, haha. I guess the more accurate question is, what was I expecting to acomplish? Only I know that for sure... and I don't know! This is one of those times when I wish it was a movie clip that I could watch again to see if I missed anything. Thank you for your thoughts.