Kevin Beal

I've watched probably 40 different videos of soldiers coming home from overseas earlier than expected to surprise their children on camera, and there's a consistent formula to it all that makes me cry, almost without fail, even despite all the patriotic nonsense. Often there's an elaborate set up involving school administrators who introduce the dad, then the camera focuses on the child who suddenly realizes that their dad is home early, then they rush to each other's arms, and often they cry bitter sweet tears. What is so painfully clear is just how hungry these children are for their father's presence. I doubt these are the best fathers in the world, leaving their children voluntarily for a year to participate in murder, but even still, their children are absolutely desperate to have them in their lives. News reporters are desperate also for these stories, and I'm not sure how I feel about filming it, but at least I get to witness such a powerful moment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2mk_zZCZVE

It's a lot easier to calculate and manipulate over text. It's generally advised that you meet in person as quickly as possible to avoid projection. Part of the reason for that is the profile and messages are designed to present a particular side of yourself, obviously, since you are trying to get a date. But people are much more interesting than their profiles and profiles can set you up to expect something which is not the reality.

I take that as a compliment

But if someone feels the need to defy authorities deemed unjust, does that not imply that your ability to function as a fully expressed human being is being suppressed by said authority? The "disorder" distinction puts the onus on the child as much as the "oppositional defiant" label, doesn't it? And it seems obvious to me that this would, of course, be diagnosed for children, who are forced to comply with the consequences of that diagnosis. The weird part, to me, is that with this diagnosis, the standard treatment is: Individual and family therapy. ... Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT). ... Cognitive problem-solving training. ... Social skills training. ... Parent training. This makes me wonder if it's not the worst thing in the world to be diagnosed with. At least they aren't being drugged. And some focus is put on the parents. But then again, maybe it's just a smidge of crazy thinking that makes us able to see past the propaganda.

No. "A is A" doesn't require justification because it is true by definition. Any argument against it would require it to be true. This is not the case for a proposition like "men have larger brains on average than women" or the proposition "15,485,863 is a prime number". Certain epistemic standards for proof would be used to verify the veracity of these claims. Okay. But I wasn't saying that "A is A" is a first principle because it does not require language to be true. You were the one who said that it was based on operators, and the semantics and syntax of language. You used that as an argument to say that "A is A" needs to be justified just like any other proposition. But I provided a counter argument which hasn't been addressed yet. As far as I know, I've proved the case logically that it is a first principle. I mean, all you have to do is provide a necessary premise that is required in order to justify it. Saying that you could (but don't) take issue with it and ask me to justify it is not the same thing as actually being a proposition that requires justification. This would make what constitutes a first principle subjective and arbitrary: it is what people think it is. That would mean that a premise that both people accept that is actually wrong is a first principle, which is the opposite of the whole point of starting from first principles: so that you form valid conclusions from things you can know are true. I think the very smart ProfessionalTeabagger's definition needs a little tweaking, and may be where you got this relativistic perception of what first principles are. It's true that Stef doesn't start out each of his arguments with "A is A", then to non-contradiction, excluded middle and so on until he concludes that taxation is theft. And so there is a reasonable misunderstanding that one could make that this is the same thing as "philosophizing mid-stream", that is, starting from premises that aren't themselves based on first principles. But there is an obvious difference between someone who makes up explanations after the fact as many people are wont to do, and a person who, when trying to come to a conclusion goes back to the premises which have been established from an analysis from first principles. A person who prays that god will heal his child may come to find that his child has become well again, and conclude that god did in fact heal his child. This is in contrast to a researcher who goes back to epistemically-based scientific principles and performs double blind tests on prayer or studies the child's medical treatment and the reasons that treatment has been shown to work, and whatever other rigorous scientific type research goes into that sort of thing. He doesn't need to go about proving the veracity of the scientific method every time he does his research, but that doesn't make it the same thing as the man who believes prayer heals. So, a better definition would be something like what Wikipedia says: In philosophy "First principles" is often somewhat interchangeable and synonymous with a priori, datum and axiom or axiomatic reasoning/method. If you have to accept the truth of a proposition in order to argue against it, that is an example of a principle which is axiomatic: a first principle. I like what Elon Musk says about first principles: I think its important to reason from first principles rather than by analogy…The normal way we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy… We are doing this because it’s like something else that was done..or it is like what other people are doing…slight iterations on a theme… “First principles” is a physics way of looking at the world…what that really means is that you boil things down to the most fundamental truths…and then reason up from there…that takes a lot more mental energy… Someone could –and people do — say battery packs are really expensive and that’s just the way they will always be because that’s the way they have been in the past… They would say it’s going to cost, historically it cost $600 KW/hour. It’s not going to be much better that in the future… So first principles..we say what are the material constituents of the batteries. What is the spot market value of the material constituents? It has carbon, nickel, aluminum, and some polymers for separation, and a steel can..break that down on a material basis, if we bought that on a London Metal Exchange, what would each of these things cost. oh geez…It’s $80 KW/hour. Clearly, you need to think of clever ways to take those materials and combine them into the shape of a battery cell, and you can have batteries that are much cheaper than anyone realizes.

Again, just my limited understanding, but I think the condition is the dual standards of logical consistency and universality. "Not murder" is required in order to satisfy both those standards. If we want to act morally (or aesthetically positive), it is required that our behavior be universally preferable. If it's moral / immoral, it's enforceable using violence. (e.x. violence is justified in preventing murder). APA's can be performed at all times without contradiction, but that's not to say that they can be performed by all people. I think that's really the line between APA and morality, but I am a little fuzzy on APA, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Premise: things can be similar or different, equivalent Conclusion: therefore, A is A "A is A" is not a conclusion based on the premises you provided. When looking at "A is A" as a sentence with a structure, you can describe it in reducible terms, but as a proposition with a truth value, it is not based on those premises. At least, I don't understand how it is, if it is. The sentence and the principle itself are two different things.

How is the proposition "A = A" based logically on language and symbols? I'm pretty sure that it would be a true proposition in any other syntax or without any language at all.

I wrote this script several days ago. My next video will be about how wrong you were in that post Just kidding You did great! I'm still a bit fuzzy on how to distinguish ontology and epistemology when it concerns objective claims about the knowledge we have of objects. Like, what do we focus on in the sentence itself? "This iPod is smaller than the toy" can be evaluated to be true through independently verifiable means, but it also describes the property of the object: its size. I think the distinction is when there is any methodology shown in the claim. Like "2 + 2 = 4" has clear logical operations in the claim itself, as does the epistemic claim you made in blue, above. But the red claims are talking about the manner in which those objects exist. So, I think you are entirely correct. But someone more familiar with ontology can correct me if this is wrong. Thanks!

Hey, I made a video. It's got some interesting stuff in there, I think. Some funny stuff, some bad words, my opinion of Deepak Chopra and some other stuff. It's my first video, so I welcome feedback about the content as well as the production. I'm pretty much a n00b. Let me know what you think! (It might take a while to process)

I feel a bit embarrassed. I don't usually feel stung by that sort of thing. I think it might have been because I was already in a crap mood. I have no idea if she was playing hard to get, but the more I'm reading up on "game" and "shit tests" the more I think I already sort of do that stuff. Not that I'm some super suave guy or anything, I'm actually kinda bashful and clumsy around women I find hot, but I enjoy the sort of tests that see how I react to questions or comments, like "I bet you say that to all the girls", haha. Playing hard to get, less so, because it confuses me. But I didn't want to give the impression that I've got no game, since that would make me appear unmasculine. I swear I am! Please believe me!!!

As in "playing hard to get"? Like they are interested but pretending not to be? I don't understand that dynamic at all, so I couldn't tell you. But apparently, there is a "shit test" that looks like that, I just looked up. Which is interesting. I guess I failed, haha. I really don't understand women :S

I've been told that very attractive women in the 8, 9 and 10 area are hit on so often that they feel they need to adopt an indifferent, aloof attitude. Not all, but many. It's almost as if talking to guys who they don't find hot is tedious, like they resent most guys talking to them. It seems to happen less frequently with women under 25. (Or maybe that's just because I appeal more to that demographic? ) I've noticed this a lot. It could have nothing to do with dissuading me from flirting with them the way I suspect, but it bothers me. I get this crappy attitude from women occasionally, I suspect for this reason, where they won't even make eye contact and speak in a monotone. It works. I am very put off by it. But it's like I'm getting punished for the actions of some guys which she doesn't find attractive flirting with her. And maybe it's a lack of empathy on my part, but who gives a fuck?! When women who I am not interested flirt with me, I don't resent them for it. The opposite is true. I am flattered, and I talk to them respectfully without flirting back so as not to lead them on. It's not really any problem for me. But for some women it is apparently pretty awful. I don't understand it. Some guys have told me that women are inclined to think that any guy that hits on them but who she finds unattractive is automatically considered a "creep". That sounds like dangerous territory, since a creep would certainly love to tell himself/herself that, I would want to hear more details before I conclude anything. But at the same time, it does seem to point to a difference between men and women, generally. How one girl put it was that if a guy who is 2 or 3 points less attractive than she perceives herself to be, then it's like an insult. Like "how dare you think that I'm in your league". And if her ex boyfriend dates a girl who she thinks is 2 or 3 points again below where she estimates herself, then that's similarly insulting. Maybe it's not a lot of women who think that sort of thing, but I have noticed it only in women, so far. So, when I hear that men are shallow pigs who only care about T n' A and blonde hair and whatever, I wonder if that's really just projection. Some of the most shallow people I've ever come across have been women, but that could be my social circles. But if you can't tell, I resent this dynamic. I honestly feel a little stung when I perceive that's what's going on and I'm being told implicitly that I'm not worthy of being allowed to flirt with her, much less date her. Maybe I'm overreacting, and probably I am, but it happened again today while I was ordering a sandwich. The guy in front of me who I perceived to be "cooler" got smiles and pleasantness and not that I had any interest in flirting with this gal, but I didn't even get eye contact. It was monotonal tedious crappiness. It was so strange and in contrast that it was clear that she didn't want to talk to me. Again, maybe it had nothing to do with me, most people love talking to me, but if I perceived rightly that I was caught in that position, then fuck. What a bunch of bullshit! Am I crazy? Have you noticed this before? How do you feel about people less physically attractive than you flirting with you?

The longest running study meant to measure IQ vs later success in life is the Terman Study of the Gifted. It shows a clear positive correlation. And it would stand to reason that this would be the case if IQ measured general intelligence (multiple intelligences theory is BS), everything else being equal, this is obviously going to give a person more opportunities since things requiring more intelligence would be more accessible. This seems painfully obvious to me. Of course people who work the hardest are going to yield better results, but IQ is going to play a key role.

Awesome idea for a group call, btw. Haha. I hope it doesn't take what it took me to get the podcast player up! After asking if I could do it for free repeatedly for two years with working prototypes working and multiple revisions, Mike made it an early priority when he became operations manager, which was great. (Many of the features and design decisions actually came from him). And then JamesP helped me a lot get it up. I would suggest talking to Mike about it. It might require some lower level configuration / file editing, in which case JamesP would probably be needed (he was the one who migrated the old boards to the new boards). Mike would know if that's necessary. The most complicated part of it would probably be how it's managed, who's events get posted, who their submitted to, that sort of thing. Do you let anyone and everyone post? If it needs to be moderated, that's extra time the staff is spending on it, so you'd probably want to make some kind of value proposition, or find some way of figuring out what the demand for that is. You could poll the facebook group? I think it's a cool idea and would be willing to lend some support, but I'm pretty busy at the moment and so I'm not going to be championing is. I hope you or someone else will, though.

Volatile as compared to the U.S. dollar. Valuable for the reason you stated, as compared to other currencies with different properties. Bitcoin has particular properties which make it frictionless, near infinitely divisible and provides an entirely new paradigm for the security of value. I'm sorry, I don't understand. You are mixing objective and subjective standards here and talking about them as if they are the same: Subjective: "money's utility comes from the perception (the confidence) that it can always be exchanged for other things of value" and "To me, bitcoin's value increased when there were more stores that accepted it as currency, but decreased when it was clear that most stores were immediately cashing it out." Objective: "One thing that really undermines bitcoins value is the volatility of its value" and "If, instead, a chain of businesses were exchanging bitcoins during the progress of a product from raw materials to finished product and other currencies were completely left out of it, that would justify more confidence in bitcoins as a medium of exchange" And this is precisely my problem with this argument that it needs non-monetary utility in order to "justify" something. The value of money as a metaphysical property of money exists subjectively, that is, in a manner which is observer relative. It only has value because that's how we perceive it. There is no value objectively in nature. The standards we accept collectively for determining what should qualify as value can be bad, good, asinine, or whatever, but by definition, if we value something, it has value.

You can't know for sure about these things, but there is an enormous selling pressure since the feds are selling the 100k bitcoins they stole from Ulbricht and silk road 2.0 people. Also there was $5 million stolen from one of the exchanges recently (BitInstant?). Thefts like that make people lose confidence and sell. The price has fallen low enough that a lot of miners won't turn on their machines because they won't make enough in rewards. Alan is referring to the Regression theorem, originally conceived by Mises. I'm not an expert, but this is supposed to solve a supposed infinite regression problem about where the value of money originates. "Money is valuable because it's money" being a non-answer. I don't see how this jives with the fact that the value of goods is subjective (also Mises). It's got to be valuable because it's backed by gold and other commodities, say the austrians. Gold is valuable as jewelry and in industrial applications, for example. I've never heard how this argument is supposed to work beyond what I've already told you. As far as I can tell, people simply assert that there is an infinite regression and that having non-monetary utility solves that problem. I'm very skeptical of both claims myself, but perhaps Alan can enlighten us. Also, bitcoin has many non-monetary applications as well. Austrians don't tend to understand that. I'm holding all my bitcoin, personally. I don't think it's going anywhere. Bitcoin has survived worse things.

It is also technically possible that women could be the emotionally stable one in the relationship, the one who takes charge and goes downstairs when you hear a noise that could be a burglar. It's technically possible that each sex could bring what the other does (except in a minority of physiological differences: e.x. pregnancy). But I think the generalities are important and prevalent enough to warrant description. Men can also bring pleasantness and happiness, making the only virtue you say that women bring down to zero, right? That's the logic, isn't it? If the other sex can provide it, it no longer counts? This is an important distinction to make for me, because I want to be able to say that men offer emotional stability and the other virtues I mentioned to relationships, and obviously that is generally true to a large enough degree to warrant description. But I can't say that if women are capable of those things, if I've understood you correctly. It's a double edge sword when you unsheath that standard. This is not a logical proof, of course. Maybe we shouldn't say that men bring X and women bring Y unless it's impossible for the other sex to provide it. I'm just saying that I don't like the implications of it.

I think this a super fascinating topic and I also have some trouble answering it, but that may be due to my lack of romantic experience as well. (I suspect that's a very big reason for it). I was reading an article today actually about this subject. It's really hard to find anything with the search term "what women love about men". It's usually shallow as hell, or ironic in how anti-male it is. But there is an article on PsychologyToday with that title, and here's what women said: I really wish I'd heard that last one from any woman in my life. I deeply resent that this is such a secret. I might squirm in the hot seat if a date asked me straight up what I value about women, but the benefit of the written word is that I can ponder on it a while and rewrite things, so here goes: I value the awareness women tend to have around maintaining relationships and appearances. If it weren't for the women in my life, I'd be wearing sweat pants everywhere and socks with sandals. I'd also be neglecting positive relationships more. I value the fact that women understand other women and can help me avoid toxic female nastiness out there, or defend me against it. I don't know how to combat it, really. I value the deep intimacy that women could provide me. There are certain touchy subjects that I don't have any desire to discuss with my male friends, or I'd rather talk about it with someone I'm in love with and who I share my life with. Women seem to be able to talk about any intimate subjects with their girlfriends, but it doesn't seem to be nearly the case for guys with their "boyfriends". The fact that it's awkward to describe myself as having "boyfriends" is testament to that fact, I think. I value women's desire to have a nice living environment and have nice things. It's not something I would spend too much time thinking about without women being involved in the calculation, but it is definitely a big plus to have a nice living environment and nice atmosphere.

Yea, I've noticed that too. If I've got votes left over, I usually try and cancel it out. I don't understand it... is it a politically correct thing? Like "zomg! He made a generalization about women!"

I did find myself acting spitefully about things I know will make me feel better, like what the fuck is the point of feeling better, anyway? I feel like a tool, like depression is the only thing that is true, and the only reason everyone else isn't depressed like me is either they secretly are, or they are naive tools, like the world wants me to be. That's slightly dramatized, but it describes pretty much my entire personal mythology from my late teens to early twenties. I'm completely convinced nihilists are severely depressed people, like I was. For me depression was like the dark world from Zelda: Link to the Past, and the rest of the time I was in the light world. Like living a dual life that were at odds with each other. I felt like I was a completely different person with an entirely different set of beliefs about the world and about myself. In the dark world, I was shit, but everyone else was worse because they couldn't see the truth of the dark world. Whenever I shifted from one to the other, it was as if that's the way things had always been, like a strange amnesia making forget how much enjoyment I got out of simple things on the one hand, and on the other I forgot just how much simple things bothered me. For me, depression is more irritating than sad, but that's different for different people. Yes, you are stopping it. It's not surprising to me that you can't cry. Crying, for men, is often harder than feeling the emotions which prompt it. I find it almost impossible to do, myself. That is, unless it's the part in any movie where there is a last ditch heroic effort. That will make me cry every time. I'm still not entirely sure why, but it provokes a powerful, chest heaving, convulsive cry which will even happen in the theaters. But if it's my own suffering, my eyes are dry as sand, since I was trained to deny my own suffering. What you're describing does sound familiar to me, but I didn't catch what the ambivalence was, or what thoughts precede the deep sorrow. I have a very clear picture of what your experience is, but not so much what the conflict or wound is, exactly.

I love front-end work, the industry, the innovation, the low barrier to entry & competition, being customer focused, etc. And I like to format posts that I write that are long, that I really really want people to read because it's more inviting that way, rather than looking at a giant block of text. And yea, it comes from my front-end work, although I am likely going to start blogging/vlogging soon. Thanks for asking When I think of depression, I think of being numb emotionally. I'll probably be irritable and cynical, or occasionally feeling despair, but mostly it's numbness. Does that fit your experience? Maybe I'm only talking about myself, but I find that it's overwhelming feelings that cause me to get depressed. Feelings around being all alone in the world, about how much I've compromised myself and am not self expressed. Alice Miller talks about depression as a defense against emotional pain, numbing all emotional experience (since you can't just numb one emotion). When I was just starting therapy, I had such little experience with being vulnerable, expressing and articulating my own hurt. It was incredibly exhausting, actually. And I would feel a release and go numb and be able to relax. My therapist said something which has stuck with me about it, which is that these feelings don't really ever go away (at least not completely), you will always have grief, and despair and hurt as constants in your life, but you can build your tolerance to them so that they don't become so overwhelming. I think that's a hell of a lot easier to do when you have people to support you when it gets tough, to have your back and your interests in mind. There's a lot of added security in that. I think that necessity is important, too. Connecting with the fact that you need to get yourself some help and taking some of these first steps is an important thing to be aware of, and not forget. If you lose sight of that need, and become numb and therefore content with where you are, that's a problem that is almost impossible to solve, usually until you hit another bottom and hopefully don't repeat that cycle. Most things I do that are hard, I do because I need to do it. I get my work done before the (loose) deadlines and work on projects which aren't as enjoyable as other projects I could otherwise work on because I need to do those things to get paid. I do creative writing, audio journaling and other types of self work because I need to avoid regressing. I eat healthy foods and avoid all kinds of things I'd rather eat because I need to stay healthy for a healthy brain and body. These are needs I try not to lose sight of, and take care of myself the ways I never was as a child. I know it's a public forum and you might want to maintain a level of privacy, but I'd like to know what this big life change is, and what is the thought content of the grief and sorrow. It sounds terrible, and I'm really sorry about that Take care of yourself out there!

I think that's a great idea. The forums software actually has a (currently disabled) calendar to post events to and it would be even cooler to have meetups listed there, as well as group skype calls, Philosophy Film Club events, etc all in one place so people can easily find events to get involved with and make the community even stronger. It could also make the tacky hero unit at the top (containing upcoming events) unnecessary.

I'm very sorry to hear that you are in a bad place right now. I can't recommend anybody in particular, but I did end up going through the same search myself in 2010, for the same reasons. My Search I searched Psychology Today's listings and found someone who listed their areas of most focus being treating depression, family issues, and they said that the therapeutic relationship itself was a bigger factor for success in therapy than their Jungian analysis background. Those were the three things I wanted most, and so I gave her a call with the intention of just trusting my gut (as per Stef's advice) and I said something like "maybe a stupid question, but..." and she interrupted me assertively and made it very clear that she didn't think there were stupid questions, and I thought that was really cool and a skill I wanted, so I scheduled an initial in-person interview session. The questions I asked during the first session were something like: Do you regard forgiveness as a healthy and necessary part of overcoming past abuse in the family? What do you think about blarping? How do you define "success" in therapy? and some more I've forgotten... The answers she gave to these questions weren't what I was expecting, and I wasn't sure what to make of them, but I did notice that her answers revealed a lot of nuance to these issues that I wasn't aware of before, which piqued my interest. So, I decided to do a few more sessions with her to see how I felt later. Testing the Waters I spent those first few sessions laying out the position I was in, that I was strongly considering never talking to my mother again, and taking a break from my siblings, that I had all sort of insecurities around women and dating, that I was constantly anxious in social situations, and all of the things I never felt safe to tell old friends or my siblings. Partly I wanted to get that boulder off my chest, but also I wanted to do the RTR approach of being vulnerable and testing to see if that vulnerability would be exploited or attacked, and it wasn't, it was honored. A few more sessions in and I remember asking her what she thought about my trouble with distinguishing between depression and sorrow, and she told me that she thinks I've been depressed a very long time (since I was a young child) and expressed sympathy for that, since it's like the fish who doesn't know what water is, because it's everywhere. That blew my mind and at that point I did whatever I could to pay for more sessions. Being unemployed at the time, that meant getting any side job I conceivably could and finally getting a full time job. Necessity is the mother of invention, and I needed to get a job in order to get my shit together. It took several months, but I ended up getting a job that I love (front-end development) that I don't think I could have got without Stef's interviewing advice and the confidence I was gaining in therapy. Preparation I think like Stef has advised about finding love, being efficient as possible is important, by expressing what exactly you are looking for, being vulnerable and listening to your gut. I think that advice applies generally and not just to dating. I get the impression talking to people that folks in this community perceive good therapists as being extraordinarily rare, but I don't think that's necessarily true. I lucked out with the first one I interviewed. I think having a very clear picture of what you are looking for and being efficient, like I mentioned, helps a lot. I did a bunch of research, made all sorts of lists and journaled about it a lot to prepare myself for the search and that's the way it should be, I think. This person is hopefully going to be spending a lot of time with you, getting to know all your deep dark secrets, is going to have a hell of a lot of authority in your mind. Not preparing for that is like going out on dates with random people. It's probably going to be painful, to say the least. Resources Alice Miller's advice on finding someone good Daniel Mackler's critique of psychotherapy Three Differences Between Therapy & Friendship by Daniel Mackler Three Differences Between Therapists & Parents by Daniel Mackler FDR1927 How to Find a Great Therapist! I hope this is helpful. Take care, my friend.

Welcome to the boards, Lisa! I checked up on magnesium rich foods and it looks like I have too few of them in my diet, because I also have some of the symptoms mentioned in the wiki for magnesium deficiency. The thoughts you present here and in the article are interesting. I'll have to do more research and buy some leafy greens and beans. Thanks for the heads up! Also, your writing voice is funny: