TheRobin

Wow, Greenpeace go even more batshit these days it seems Though I gotta ask, I might've missed something, but does this relate to the topic in the OP somehow (other than being related to something happening in the climate science/political scene)?

Yeah, I know. It's hard to find scientists that can be trusted in that area, as there's lots of examples of exaggeration and hyperbole or just outright lying. I don't think that you can generalize the claim of "governments go on a crusade" though, as from what I can see it's more the leftist parties that use it as an excuse for a government power grab (but then again, they use about every issue as an excuse for more government power anyway), but when you look at other countries you can also see the opposite (i.e. governments calling it a hoax (like Putin for instance)). Which is kinda why I think it's important to get at least some firm basis right in whatever facts one can find and trust. As the real enemy is not the warming but people using it as an excuse for more government power and imo that's the thing to focus on and not whether or not it's happening and all (which again seems fairly well established). And last but not least, the problem with your argument about CO2 and warmth being naturally correlated as a result of evaporation is that then the correlation would be weaker and weaker the more CO2 we added to the atmosphere, but this has not been the case, thus suggesting that CO2 does indeed add to the warming. (To make it a bit more clear (and to use a completely arbitrary example in terms of numbers) if for every 1C of natural warming you would get 5% more total CO2 in the atmosphere as a result of evaporation and we use that as the baseline for the correlation, that adding another 10% of total CO2 to the atmosphere (and not getting any additional warming) would mean that the correlation moves from 1C per 5% CO2 increase to 1C per 15% CO2 increase and the more humans would add to the atmosphere the more the correlation would weaken, but this has not been the case, and if the correlation doesn't change, then either the temperature has randomly increased and just accidentally matches the CO2 emmissions, or CO2 is indeed partially causing the warming)

The thing you quoted and responded to was hes claim that "We as individuals are a part of a collective." And you responded with "...this is an assertion, and it is false". Now you're changing it to "You can't take from a collective as it can't own anything" (which might be true, but wasn't the point I contested). Also I don't see how it's relevant whether a thing changes (or not) if it is part of a larger aggregate (or collective). But to be clear, I didn't make that case, so I don't know why you respond as if I did either. The reason I used atoms and molecules is because it's an easy way to show that for the we reject the idea that individual things can't be part of larger group in other contexts, so it's a good an easy example to work with to establish some basic principles (which we can then use in other context). I don't quite understand the argument about cohesion, as it doesn't explain why aggregates don't exist. It might be a good principle to distinguish between an aggregate and an individual, but why does it impact the existence of the thing we're talking about? To put it as simply as possible, if 1 tree exists, why don't 2 trees exist? Like, if you have 2 things (of which each have the characteristic of existence), then how comes they lose that very same characteristic if we simply talk about them in a different way (i.e. caling them "2 trees" instead of "a tree and another tree")? Wouldn't that be a good example of what you said about bananas changing fundamentally by being in an aggregate? If you go from existence to non-existence because we use different language for the same thing? Sorry, I just realized there's way too many questions here. Feel free to pick one or two that you think are the most relevant to answer of course. Also, given that the OP has a) started a new threat with the same post and b) has written mostly nonsensical BS without any reference to how it's important in a practical way I doubt the threat will be much disturbed by our conversation anyway

I'm only 10 minutes in, but so far he basically does the same as the alarmists, except in reverse. He doesn't even criticize the methodology, or the data, or the model, but uses adjectives to deride the position instead. Also, he doesn't seem to understand the difference between a model describing a multi-decade trend and a single decade worth of data. Same later, when he quotes the warmest and coldest Greenland years (which are kinda irrelevant for a statistical average) I mean it's great that he shows how some of the untrue hysteria is, well, untrue(like the tornado stuff). And there's definitely a lot of merrit to question the narrative of "every warming is negative", but I'm not quite sure what exactly he's trying to proof false (or maybe that's just cause the title of the video has "Global Warming Hoax" in it which was probably not the name of the presentation he gave.)

So an atom can't be part of a molecule then? (Assuming molecules even exist, since they're aggregate of atoms)

You're right that correlation obviously does not necessarily mean causation, however, as he says in the talks, it was the only variable they could find that actually correlates to the increase (and they tested quite a bunch). I mean, if it was that easy, you'd think someone would have found another variable that they could correlate the temperature with by now (especially among the skeptics). But so far it's the ONLY one that worked (that I know of). And yes, I think he also talks about the natural effects on climate that they know of (which are also included in the models), but they still don't seem to explain the increase in the latest 70-80 years (number from memory, probably not exactly accurate but should be approximately right anyway). I'd say, if it was JUST the natural variation then by now you'd expect someone coming up with a working model, but I wouldn't have seen one that works with the data (obviously correct me if I'm wrong here). Another problem, I think, with the "natural variation" is that people (and I don't mean you in particular) sometimes use it to mean the same as "unknown elements that add uncertainty" and the problem with that is that it's not really a hypothesis that one can test, there's no way to falsify it. Like, there's no way to proof that there are NOT some large amount of random elements that we don't understand and just give this particular increase by chance. In that sense it's not a scientific hypothesis anymore and can not be used as a way to disproof the CO2 hypothesis either, I think.

(Yeah I know "converted" is a bad way of putting it, but you know what I mean) So, I just found an interesting guy. Physicist and climate skeptic who heavily criticizes the politication and misuse of science for the sake of alarming people without (or despite) facts. After finding that the important climate data has been tampered with (i.e. the climategate scandal) he founded his own research group with an open information policy to go over the data and do the calculations again. He still found a clear warming trend and correlation between CO2 and the warming trend. Unfortunately there aren't that many videos of him on youtube, but those that are there are very worthwhile watching for any skeptic as he addresses a lot of the commonly raised points. I know a lot of people on this board are just as skeptic about the whole thing as I am (or was I guess), so, I think you'll find these presentations very much worth your time and well argued. Let me know what you think (also I think he'd make a great guest for an interview either way)

I think this might be one of the best (but certainly one o f the better) talks about climate I've seen so far

I think the answer might be really basic: If it doesn't feel wrong, there's no trigger that makes one investigate. Also the whole dream environment (i.e. the other people there) usually don't stare at you in confusion and wonder once you start hovering around, so there's also no social cue that would indicate that something weird is going on.

So, apparently even the IPCCs own statisticians reject the model the other devisions use to claim that "significant" temperature increase. All in all a great read, as it also explains the core problems of statistical models in general (which is a problem in a lot of fields of science today). Very enlightening. Enjoy http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf

I don't want to sound like a dick here, but it seems to me that half of you don't know what game theory is about and why someone would use it in the argument as it is. Let me quote from the wiki a bit here: "As a method of applied mathematics, game theory has been used to study a wide variety of human and animal behaviors. It was initially developed in economics to understand a large collection of economic behaviors, including behaviors of firms, markets, and consumers. The first use of game-theoretic analysis was by Antoine Augustin Cournot in 1838 with his solution of the Cournot duopoly. The use of game theory in the social sciences has expanded, and game theory has been applied to political, sociological, and psychological behaviors as well. Although pre-twentieth century naturalists such as Charles Darwin made game-theoretic kinds of statements, the use of game-theoretic analysis in biology began with Ronald Fisher's studies of animal behavior during the 1930s. This work predates the name "game theory", but it shares many important features with this field. The developments in economics were later applied to biology largely by John Maynard Smith in his book Evolution and the Theory of Games.[citation needed] In addition to being used to describe, predict, and explain behavior, game theory has also been used to develop theories of ethical or normative behavior and to prescribe such behavior.[5] In economics and philosophy, scholars have applied game theory to help in the understanding of good or proper behavior. Game-theoretic arguments of this type can be found as far back as Plato.[6]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

What strategy is best, depends entirely on the parameters of the "game". Unless the person can elaborate on this (and proof how this is necessarily true for all parameters) the premise is already flawed. That being said, I would be curious as to the reasoning behind that premise, so feel free to post it here, should you ever be given the reason.

The data point is actually this study here https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201212/are-porn-actresses-damaged-goods Nothing to do with what you just claimed it to be.

Thanks so much for the kind feedback. I appreciate it And yeah, it was pretty much the same for me when I discovered the material. Hope it gets spread more in the next decade or two. That would certainly help a lot of people

Well, to be fair, using utalitarian ethics isn't what we should be ending up, just because it works in our favour for once. I mean, assuming the assumption is correct, and people would lose their homes cause of an increase in ocean levels and if you can directly trace that increase to CO2 increase, then I think it's a good point to make, that you can't just say "greatest good for the greatest number" and ignore the destruction of people's houses property and possibly lives. In the same way that you can't just tear down houses to build a highway, even if it meant that every else profits from it.

Ha, as a regular boardgame player that was pretty much exactly what I was thinking of Yes, so? Are you suggesting that the only or main reason for that is the fact that they are flexible and make alliances among themselves sometimes?

It might seem that way in the short term, but all that means is that even among alliances no one really trusts each other and has to spend recources planning for that eventuality.

In addition to what everyone else already said: It might also be that you made some bad judgements about how much money to spend on certain things. If that happens on a more or less regular basis it could be worth to just keep that in mind before the next purchase and then just wait a few days, to see if you still feel the buy is worth it. I started doing that for certain things and it definitely safe me some money, cause some times I would just see some new game and feel like I could really get into it, but then would just drop it after a day or two, but usually when I wait a day or two (while maybe watch one or two reviews or gameplay videos during that time) I get quite a good grasp if it's something that's worth my time and money or not.

The whole topic of determinism/free will is actually banned here (see board rules). Reason being that it never leads anywhere productive and just takes up space (short version). Anyway, if you desperately want to discuss it, feel free to do so in the chat. I'm happy to give you some thoughts on it should I be there by chance

Reminded me of this podcast.

http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Emotional-Brain-Eliminating-Reconsolidation/dp/0415897173/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1437409086&sr=8-1&keywords=unlocking+the+emotional+brain&pebp=1437409088489&perid=1D8PX6XESXTMFM741QS2 Hey everyone, this book has so far been the most interesting and informative thing in Therapy and Psychology I've read, so I wanted to put out a recommendation and overview here, as I'm sure a lot of you would find it very interesting as well. The book starts by providing an overview of the research that was going on over the last two decades, both in analysing psychotherapy in detail and neuroscientific findings about how emotional learning works and can be changed or erased (which was something that was thought to be impossible only ten years ago). After that the author explains the steps that are now known to be necessary to produce that change and then goes to show a lot of examples of how that worked in therapy. The main focus is on therapists using Coherence therapy, however, since there are quite a few therapies that unknowingly use that same steps to create changes, they also show how the same things looks like in some other therapy forms. The steps themselves are fairly simple in principle: (Re-)trigger the emotional learning to access its contents, then juxtapose/mismatch that content in order to erase the original learning. Obviously, in practice that can require quite some work, as the content of the learning is all subconscious and has to be unearthed first. The author is clear that there is no one single best technique to do any of those steps, which means, you can use the whole plethora of available techniques and see what works best for you (or your patient, if you're a therapist). However the steps themselves can be found one way or another in different therapies, although often without the explicit knowledge of the therapist about them, which makes it sometimes more a game of chance whether or not that patient can be helped effectively. Also it is important to note that so far this is the only process we know of that can actually change emotional learning. This works regardless of how deeply rooted the emotion or symptom is, or how intense or long it has been going on. This still relatively knew knowledge alone is quite a big breakthrough for Psychotherapy and anyone interested in self-knowledge/self-therapy, as it essentially changes the discipline like the atomic model changed Alchemy (trial and error) to Chemistry (an underlying explanatory model for how and why the process works). Anyway, I'm kinda bad at writing summaries and overviews for an audience, so I hope this gives you a good overview, but obviously ask if there's stuff you're curious about where I wasn't clear or if you have more questions about the content. Either way, I hope you're gonna check it out, it's really a great book with great content.

Very broadly and generally speaking it's the behaviour which causes you harm or problems. An example I remember from a book I'm currently reading was a guy who always feared of speaking up during meetings, even though his work and expertise was immense. So the symptom in that case was the anxiety or fear he felt that lead him to not speak up. Symptom deprivation would then be to vividly imagine himself speaking up confidently in a meeting and seeing what comes up. What usually happens is that the emotion (in this case the fear) would increase accordingly, which makes it easy to access and figure out what the fear is about, so that he could understand what the fear is trying to protect him from (in IFS that obviously would be a protector part). In IFS (and in regards to your description of angry parts) I'd say just stay curious about what they're trying to accomplish and why, without fighting them or caving in. Personally I find the IFS way to do this way more difficult, as the idea is to stay in "the self" while communicating with a part in order to understand that parts motivations and thoughts and feelings. However I find it a lot easier to just merge with the part and write down my feelings and thoughts from an "I"-perspective than trying to externalize the feeling to a part that's not my "self" and whom I'd have to communicate with from the outside. (To use IFS terms and concepts to a degree here) Of course to each his own, but if you're having trouble staying detached from a part due to the intensity, you might wanna give that a try and see how it goes.

I've done IFS self-therapy for over a year, but I gotta say, the main thing that makes it useful is imo the fact that it takes a stance of curiosity towards your won thoughts and feelings, which is needed for any real change. You can't change what you don't know or understand so listening is a crucial and important first step to anything. However the whole idea of parts as a sort of mini-person inside of one's self is more problematic than helpful, not least because it's obviously not true, as there are no tens of "mini"-brains inside our own that generate tens of mini-people inside of us, so treating our own emotions and thoughts as if they are people can become problematic, especially because the IFS stance is to basically reparent your own inner parts, which is something that people who come from abusive homes aren't really good at anyways, so it can be overwhelming, especially if done alone and without a therapist. From earlier podcasts I remember Stef taking more of a Socratic approach with the parts, meaning, listening but also questioning when the reasoning wasn't sound and showing contradictory evidence or invalid logic, where it was present. Incidentaly this is also the only known method for undoing emotional learning: Retriggering the emotional experience/learning and juxtaposing it to contradictory evidence. IFS does this by first listening to the part and then relive the scene while being there as the "self" and such creating a different situation that's at odds with the memory. However any technique will do that performs these steps and I found the IFS approach of talking to parts to be one of the lesser useful ones. The most direct approach that I know so far is probably a combination of what is called "symptom deprivation" and "sentence completion exercises". Symptom deprivation is basically imagining yourself without the symptom and then seeing what comes up. The idea is that, whatever emotional learning creates the symptom will be triggered strongly by it's absence and thus it's content easy to access. Usually you can just dive right in and see what thoughts come up, sometimes it can help to do sentence completion too though. Either way, if you stick to it you should get clear overview of what is actually triggering the emotion. To put that into IFS terms would be understanding the protector parts and understand the emotions/actions from their view, without trying to fight them or change them. Regardles of how you arrive at the knowledge of the motivations and thoughts behind it, it's usually helpful to just stick to it a few days without trying to change it, just be aware of why that symptom/emotion shows up and really integrate that knowledge. Last but not least, because our brains do have their own mismatch detection, so if you're conscious of your beliefs and they are indeed false, sooner or later you'll find something that contradicts them, be that either from past experience or just by plain reasoning, which is what then will nullify the original learning. Of course, the more overarching a learning is (i.e. the more different areas it plays into) the more you might to find mismatches in each area and so on, but generally that's how it works. Sorry, if it isn't an answer purely based on IFS, but I hope it's helpful none the less

Freud was a narcissistic cocaine user who ostracized anyone from his psychology club who even slightly disagreed with his theories. The theories themselves are unfounded and unfalsifiable, even with the perfect data (which he also fabricated himself for the most part) the theories fail to show anything but his own prejudice. Imo it's safe to say, that the psychological community would've been better off had this guy never made a name for himself and the further you can distance yourself from his beliefs the better you're off.

Can't find the podcast, link just goes to the general page.