gwho

Definitely. I did that on medium.com I just copy-pasted for this forum. touche! well played sir. @WasatchMan I guess I reinvented the wheel. People try to break free from the shackles of logic. I really would have liked to have been born in a time when the emotional amygdala reactions overriding the prefrontal cortex had been selected against a lot more. 100% agree. but it's tricky when put into practice because if you validly disagree with it and voice it, people quickly say you're not open minded. It's as if you have to pretend it's a new idea to you, or that you haven't considered it many times in depth before. It's like asking an astrophysicist about your new hypothesis about the fate of the universe, and if he shuts it down in an instant (because what you're saying triggers a known violation of established theory), then it's like accusing that professor of being closed-minded. So sometimes, people declare you closed-minded based on the speed of your disagreement, and other times, for disagreeing at all. Also, it seems a lot of times people can't tell the difference between closed-minded declarations vs disagreeing as you cite you reasons why. "It's not like that because x y z." (This means, "please evaluate my arguments x y and z") But people take that to mean "it's not like that. PERIOD." It is this kind of jumping to conclusions and not-listening, combined with emotional attacking that really irritates the crap out of me. I get where you're coming from, but the very same people who may use that definition are very closed-minded when it comes to claiming 5+5=239. If it's a matter of social politeness, then that's a completely separate dimension from being open/closed-minded. You can be polite and open-minded, polite and closed-minded. willing to consider others' perspectives. That's covered by rationality, as pointed out in the essay. If you're rational, you're willing to consider things, and don't claim something is false without working through why, and being able to validly formulate why. Being willing to consider others' perspectives also doesn't preclude that you may have already considered them, worked out exactly the problems why it's not valid, and quickly being able to point out why. Things like "what are stars?" We don't seriously stay "open-minded" to the notion that they're angels. no, they're giant balls of matter moving through space. You can be super quick, super adamant, super conclusive about that, and it wouldn't make you closed-minded.. The consideration you put into preserving the other person's feelings is a completely separate matter. Also, when you say judgemental, do you mean socially judgemental, or logically judgemental? saying 3+3=6 is very logically judgemental. you're claiming an absolute, and implying something that contradicts that is false. But it's not socially judgmental, where you're making the other person feel bad intentionally. That's another great example of a term that has multiple meanings to people, and can cause confusion and explosions. I think being curious, and not quick to leap to emotional attacks while skipping the logic, and things you may not be aware of is key to any conversation. I'm not saying you are doing this, I just wanted to point out that general observation. What really annoys me in general is how people (again, not you) try to blur the lines between politeness and truth. When you work out a truth, build the logic, and deliver it for consideration, people start trying to say it's not true because you weren't nice about it (not so transparently though).

I've been applying the philosophical thinking to fuzzy terms, as Stefan often does in shows - like "inappropriate", I've been able to tease out and dissect one of these fuzzy specimen, and put it on display on medium. I'd love to get some feedback! “Open-minded” is a Redundant Word"You're not open-minded. You're closed-minded to logic and evidence." There is no open-mindedness. There is only rationality. Without rationality, open-mindedness lets in both truths and falsehoods. Without rationality, closed-mindedness keeps out dangerous lies as well as useful, life-changing, and life-saving ideas. Rationality is the semi-permeable membrane of your mind. If you’re rational, you’re open to new ideas. If you’re rational, you don’t close yourself off to new ideas. You weigh an idea through logic and evidence. You deem an idea an hypothesis when the means of confirmation are not within grasp. You deem an idea sophistry when it’s unfalsifiable. You deem an idea a theory if describes all known evidence well, with few major errors. Charlatans’ weapon of choice is to use open-mindedness as a Trojan horse to sneak in falsehoods past the semi-permeable walls of skepticism (AKA rationality), and wail that you’re not open-minded if you reject any falsehoods they try to pass off with shoddy reasoning if any at all. You can recognize sophistry and manipulation by two when logic is actively avoided and it is substituted by emotional or economic incentives, positive or negative. “Maybe you’re just not the type of person or good enough for X” (classic variant of PUA neg-ing). “If you ask ‘why’ one more time, I’m not taking you to the video game store.” Implied in the accusation of not being open-minded is that open-mindedness is a good thing (this is the widespread positive tone people have with the term today). Perhaps it is a good thing. But if so, then so is being closed-minded, strictly speaking. Being open-minded to the point of accepting falsehoods is problematic. So is being closed-minded to the point of rejecting sound logic. So you see, the virtue people are actually appealing to when they use terms like “open-minded” or “closed-minded” is actually rationality. Thus open-mindedness and closed-mindedness are redundant concepts because they‘re relative to rationality. Poorly defined terms confuse and erect barriers to conversation. Everyone has experienced conversations that go to the point of hostility based on terms that never get defined — and funny enough, often times no one recognizes the need to define terms even after nuclear disaster . The predictable outcome based on game theory analysis of incentives (or even without it) is that most people end up avoiding philosophy and voicing differing opinions altogether. What a sad state of affairs. I believe there is a ton of learning that gets cut short. In such a destitute philosophical ecosystem, charlatans rise as prey becomes more plentiful. Arm yourself with clear thinking (also, please don’t be the A-hole predator charlatan). Being open-minded is not the opposite of rejecting BS. Being open-minded is not even the opposite of being being skeptical. There’s a blatantly false dichotomy if one ever existed. If the terms “open-minded’ and “closed-minded” as we commonly understand them to mean, then a few corollaries follow: 1) When you’re skeptical, you put ideas through the grinder of epistemology — how you know what’s true. You’re open-minded to any idea in that you’re willing to put it through that filter. You’re ready to accept any idea that passes the tests, no matter how unsettling, provocative, or unprofitable it may be— arguably the defining quality to watch for in people claiming open-mindedness. 2) To insistently accept falsehoods is not open-minded, but actually closed-minded to consistent, sound epistemology — the gates that guard against endless hoards of unfalsifiable nonsense. But of course, charlatans sure do manipulate using the “open-mindedness” tactic. As with any win-lose predator, their target of choice are the logically weak, and emotionally vulnerable. Far too often this is kids. And their weapon of choice is overwhelmingly the use of positive and negative incentives. A charlatan’s job is as easy as claiming “racism”, and hurling emotional and social incentives as red herrings to actual facts and logic. A charlatan’s job is as easy as giving heaven and hell to a baby. Every single one of us were born with a wonderful dual-boot defense/exploration system. It got bribed or crushed out of us through conditioning and being forced to be around toxic people. It was “rediscovered” and put into practice by industrial giants such as Toyota, and nurtured Six Sigma, lean manufacturing, and Kaizen. It’s a marvelous jewel that got stitched into our DNA. It’s a single word that’s far more useful and potent than “open-mindedness”: “Why?”

Sick, everyone! keep em coming! "obstacles" <-> "objectivist goals" nice.

I've always had trouble with writing. The criteria for what's good or better were ambiguous, ungraspable, and inconsistent. But it turns out, if you have motivation, an interest, something to say, then it kind of just flows. I recently got inspired by Baba Brinkman who raps about unusual stuff like Canterbury tales and evolution. I thought I'd whip up a lot of my perspectives on various things, FDR style, and it turns out it's really not that hard, once you have something to say. __________________________ My family is comprised of memes, not genes. To me, it seems bias for relatives and nationalism is just a localized form of racism. Preference for kin is a stone throw's away from judging by color of skin. "You're Native American? Here's cash in your hand!" is just as race-based and external as saying "You're black? Sit in the back!" Positive or negative, the criterion is epidermal. Advocating affirmative action is straight up askin' to be chastised by the meme of King Jr's dream. Now sit, take a look How does some some nigga ass gook who shares but little more than my eye span stack up against a kind chap or wise man from Britain or Iran? Why should I favor representation of Asians over universalization of non-aggression? I'd rather have the forward-thinking people like Hawking and Dawkins do well, and give TED Talks in the limelight to rid the toxins of boxed-in unfalsifiable doctrines. Just walk in They'll put more than a chink in that armor of irrationalism with some scientific thinking. So I Invest in those without conflicts of interest. And yes, You can probably guess I shun dominance and conquest. Instead, aim to be the best like the rest of your fellow humans who compete peacefully in the markets to bring you the internet. If you're going to call cops to point guns at me, kindly exit stage left.

warriorforum

yup i understand all that.thx for the podcast.

makes sense.also for revenge, if there were casualties.language barriers, and beliefs of country, ethnic nobility, etc would also keep people staying.I suppose the more rational people are, the more mobile they will be as well, since they won't have as many reasons for being attached to a geography.More trade, more international commerce, will reduce language barriers, while also increasing travel capacity and affordability.

thanks for the sites.i dont' know anyone in therapy.i wish more therapists listed on yelp for free reviews. understandably, they are protecdtive and not trusting of reviews. kind of like how amazon board members had anxiety over allowing free reviews on all products.I really do want to find one. Perhaps stef and christina is really the best you can find, considering the whole appraoch taken with family, and empiricism. they really are a blessed combo for the world, aren't they?

There should be a thread of recommended therapists that people here have been to.I imagine most people who got interested in seeing a therapist through FDR will not really be aware or know good therapists. Therapists aren't cheap either.We can list therapists by name, website/yelp, phone, email, location.Is there already a big list already? If not, it will be immensely helpful and low-cost to people to list good therapists they've been to.

thx for the support. I'm actually working on a logic site. much more interactive and fun than typical text-only web 1.0 sites.

The idea of "country" is also what keeps freedom fighters fighting, rather than just moving and emigrating. Why fight militarily against governments when you can just move to another country? Sure there are costs, like having to learn another language, etc, but is it really worth dying or fighting? (For me personally, it's just not worth it. Just take your family and leave. You can't sway the outcome much, and there is huge personal risk. The potential prize is what, a better government for one country? If it was to rid of all governments, maybe I might think about it.)Why do freedom fighters fight? I'm sure a large part of their bag of reasons is nationalism, combined with ethnic pride. Having some moral and emotional stake in the geography inhabited by their own ethnicity that contains the traditions, culture, and maybe even physical monuments significant to history. The way I see it, they stand their ground and fight mainly because of the same lingering loyalty to their "country."So yes, the governments are bad, and they propagandize, cause wars, predate on their tax farms, etc. That's a given. I want to make a point beyond that, and shine my little light on the motivation of freedom fighters. If they didn't fight, then there would be no war (granted, it would be so much easier for governments, etc, but lets put that issue aside).As far as the motivation of rebel freedom fighters, the lingering idea and belief in "their country" is probably the biggest reason they stand and fight.

Besides here, what are some sites that you know of, that discuss logic and logical fallacies?

^ I always did have a knack for summarizing, organizing information, and getting to the core essence of things.I always did want to do waht Fredric Bastiat did, and I do do it all the time naturally - taking complex, muddled things, and putting it into an organized, easy to read, no fluff, CORE archives of information.

The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) clearly are against the majority and the state. So they will not get support.TZM also falters under serious scrutiny of logic. So they don't get any support from that camp either. They don't have any tangible solutions or pragmatic application, apart from having their system implemented in its entirety. So they can't even get support from the market for providing a practical, beneficial good or service.

^ Exactly.Of course they will use verbal acrobatics to never be direct and empirical about it like you said it. There are certain necessary implications of a premise. I find it entirely annoying when people avoid and tiptoe around what they know to be true, especially if they're being manipulative about it, rather than being in denial, which is understandable.

That thought definitely did cross my mind.Overall, I think it would detract from the impact, but I think there is a saving grace possibility.Stefan is indeed irreplaceable. I can't quite verbalize it right now, but there is a distinct overall value of he being the deliverer. I know he doesn't want it to be about that, but hey. He'd also be happy with the proliferation of the ideas, which is great too, but at the same time, i'd want to make sure i'm not severely cannibalizing / competing him away.The possibility i see is having an organized, summary of his points in a huge article, or ebook.Yea, actually, I don't see anything hugely problematic with doing my own response videos. I'd have to make sure my points and thoughts are up to quality. I am quite annoyed by talking youtube heads with mediocre substance and verbosity. Objectively speaking, it's probably not worth my time. actually it's definitely not worth my time. I gotta make money too.

hahathat being said, if anyone posts arguments, and reasons why, we're more than glad to respond to them directly.People may approach things from different paradigms. In that case, we should intermingle and figure out which one or which aspects supercedes the other.for instance, privileges vs state is violence. which one trumps? well, let's focus on the approach. privileges are the result of state violence. peopel use state violence to gain privileges unfairely, whereas in a marketplace, privileges are gained from supplying others with what they need most, and the most of what they need. therefore "state is violence" approach trumps the "privileges" approach, which is affected and a result of state violence.Thus we've focused the discussion around resolving different approaches, and talked about particular and core reasons why we should use some aspects over others to reach the truth. This is far more productive and outright intellectually superior to taking two irreconciliable paradigms and just clashing them without trying to integrate or examine them (kind of like using Islam and Christianity to analyze a situation. The first thing should be to resolve the two frameworks, not just bashing over and over "jesus died for your sins!!!!" and "you must pray 5 times a day to mecca!!!!" That gets us nowhere.)

That structural violence is cause by actual violence. The violence of the state printing, manipulating, granting monopolies to certain people over others, regulations, prohibition, licensure, legal system, etc.What you mentioned doesn't rule out voluntarism and insurance companies / DROs to provide peaceful, stable, game-theory compliant outcomes.

too many leaps of logic for me.

I just wanted to post that I feel for you. Sympathies.

laissez faire capitalism,statism is slaveryoccupy wall stare good fb pages i follow.

love the straight-up-ness!i don't think getting rid of the term "violence" does anything, and that it's not interchangeable, because at the heart of what Peter Joseph said IS violence. it boils down to coercion. we can discuss further of course. That's just my impression of the convo. he doesn't really mean structured as "orderly" more than as he does "systemic."

ah yea. i have android, and currently use ipp podcast player. it has a pretty solid tracking and sorting system, but no speed adjust.

yea indeed. some things aren't really that complicated to figure out how illogical it is. As i've learned through FDR, most of the resistance stems from the emotional, not he logical. And you might as well focus on people who can focus on the logical, i.e. young.

anything for mobile? i listen on phone mainly.