Wuzzums

The analogy has the effect of making people believe they understand quantum theory in the same way the Sun's size has the effect of making people believe the Earth is flat.

Go with the path that will yield the most resources. If you decide one or the other, either way you'll need resources.

In my view whether or not r/K has no genetic basis for it it doesn't mean it's not a valid evolutionary stratagem for humans. Language has no genetic basis to it but it's quintessential for the human experience. Knowing which person is r or K is like knowing which person speaks what language. r and K don't get along because they're speaking two different languages. They might be able to understand each other but once you're K for instance you'll always be K even if you can also speak r. You can't unlearn a language.

Genotype refers to the genetic code, phenotype refers to the appearance of the animal that results from that genetic code. The distinction is necessary because not all creatures that look the same are the same, and not all creatures that look different are different. So for instance, fish don't really exist from a genetic standpoint. Fish are phenotypically similar however their genetic codes are far more different from each other than the genetic codes of mammals. Conversely, a pug and a greyhound don't look like they're part of the same species however from a genetic standpoint they're virtually identical. That's just the theory of evolution. "Theory" as in the scientific use of the word "theory". Colloquially it should be referred to by as the fact of evolution. Nature does not erase information, it builds on top. We still hold genes in us that date back from when we were worms. These 2 theories are not contradictory nor do they try to explain the same aspect of life. The first one (evolution) explains the process of life, the other (genetics/epigenetics) explains the underlying mechanism. You can have evolution without genes and genes without the pressures of evolution. We live on Earth and every Earth-type lifeform is DNA/RNA-based therefore evolution and genetics are linked.

I have always been fascinated by stories and storytelling. I have devoured more movies, games, comics, tv shows than I care to count however I didn't really have any empirical proof of the value of such things aside from entertainment. Though I have my own theories/beliefs on the values of stories I always remained skeptical of the veracity of my theories/beliefs and shrugged of repeating patterns as coincidence. Stefan was the first person that expressed a similar view on these works of art. I remember a podcast when he was arguing against the criticism of him reading bible stories to his child, the gist of his response being something like "these stories withstood the test of time so of course they hold value". This is very similar to what Jordan Peterson says in his lectures whether on the bible stories or Pinocchio. Now knowing what I know I'm a firm believer in the value and importance of such stories. Watching his "Stranger Things" review I'm really curious of his take on several other pieces of storytelling that I hold dear. I'm writing this to show my support of such content and I hope there are a lot of people out there who feel the same because I want more. MORE.

Why not go with the Patreon/YouTube route? There are a lot of teenagers who want to learn how to play an instrument so there's certainly a market for it. The trick is getting to that market and now it's far easier to do that than it ever was. As far as changing career paths, there are 2 phrases that pop to mind: (1) Do what you love and you'll never have to work a day in your life... because nobody will pay you. (2) Do what you love because if you don't you'll never work hard at it and there's no such thing as success without hard work. The latter is a Dan Pena (businessman) mindset. His key to success is just do it. Work 20h a day and you'll make it but you won't be able to work 20h a day unless it's something you love. I'm in my late 20s and changed career paths. I'm not successful but I'm still at it because going back is not an option for me. I can go back but I won't. I simply can't picture myself living that life again. Even if I were paid 100x more I would probably go back, work for 1 year, then quit and do what I'm doing now. You also mentioned having a family. In my situation the person that I was working a typical job was way different than the person I am now doing what I love and I have to say that the former is not someone that would have a happy marriage/family. I learned it the hard way but there are objective ways to test if an accounting job is a good fit for you for example. Things like big 5 personality traits, and the creativity test are what pop into mind.

Math, being a fundamentally useless profession, needs to be exalted to the rank of science by those who seek huge sums of welfare for pursuing their hobbies.

I see. You're talking to yourself. Carry on.

No it's not. I explained what science is. I explained what math is. Saying math is science is like saying a motor is a car. Science is purposeful and math is methodological if you want to use those terms. 1+1=2 is math. Using 1+1=2 to explain something about reality is science. Richard Feynman (mathematician extraordinaire) explained this in depth at his lectures and the reason why he's referred to as a "scientist". His passion was always math and the moment he reached a dead end with the subject and decided to put his math into practice he became a scientist. Each time someone removes the realm of reality from science you're in the realm of bullshit. Science cannot possibly be "ABOUT ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY, MEASUREMENT" because a measurement is a human construct meaning a measurement can be made within and outside of reality.

Oh c'mon. Math is not science. Measurement is not science. Facts are not science. Theories are not science. Science is the process of testing theory against reality. Math, measurement, facts, and theories are all parts of science. They're necessary but not sufficient in order for one to engage in science.

Nope. Stefan says that all the time. He goes into it in depth in his Introduction to Philosophy series.

There are none. No studies have been done, nor any studies could have been done under a communist regime that would be critical of the state, nor any studies can be done now because no data was recorded at the time to do the sort of study you're looking for. What is known for sure from people working there was that they were (a) understaffed, (b) overcrowded with orphans, (c) babies don't thrive when deprived of human touch, and (d) adopted kids from those orphanages exhibited psychopathic behavior as reported by the adoptive parents. To make an analogy, what you're asking here is for a state-funded study that shows that women are unhappy in Saudi Arabia and they desire equal rights to men. Just put 2 and 2 together.

You are simply not getting what science is or are refusing to understand. A theory that contradicts a theory VALIDATES SCIENCE, it does not disprove it. Science is a methodology, not a goal, not a belief system, NOT A CONCEPT. You need science in order to disprove a scientific theory. Science will NEVER be superseded by a superior methodology because, like I said before, you cannot set your goal post further than reality and reality and science go hand in hand. You can't have such a thing as science in a world where reality is subjective. People don't "believe" in science in the same way people don't "believe" in truth or reality. Saying that Pluto used to be a planet has nothing to do with science. A planet is a concept. A concept has a definition. Science determined that Pluto's characteristics weren't in line with the definition. Therefore Pluto does not fall under the concept of planet anymore. I propose another theory: When a person denies reality it either comes from a position of stupidity or malice. There is no 3rd option.

-1 for changing the subject while pretending to make a counterargument You barely understand the principles of science or reality and expect me to enter a debate with you over newtonian and einsteinian physics? (rhetorical question) EDIT: Quantum computers are not feasible because the whole informatic infrastructure of the entire planet is based on a binary system. A quantum computer relies on a ternary system which might give some advantages regarding data storage and speed to number of transistors ratio but practically it can't do anything that a regular computer can't. Again, you just heard the word "quantum" and assumed it's somehow relevant to the discussion when in fact it's an engineering problem not a scientific problem.

Once a theory has been proven to be in accordance with reality it is rarely superseded. The theory of natural selection will never change. The Earth is a globe will never change. The standard model will never change. Planck's constant will never change. Up is up and down is down will never change. Theory of relativity will never change. Postmodernists are incapable of understanding science will never change.

Theory tested against reality.

Theory: Empirical data: !(((SCIENCE)))!

What I have noticed is that everybody who has a critique of science, be they postmodernists or religious people, invariably have NO IDEA what science is. His arguments about science being wrong because centuries/millennia ago people believed it was flat is absurd because there was no such thing as science prior to the 19th century. I'm a little disappointed Stefan didn't have him define his terms straight up. It would've made for a much shorter conversation. I don't understand why it's so hard for "the anointed" to learn that science is just theory tested against reality. Simplest definition I can possibly come up with. No. Science is used to make truth statements about reality. The goalpost is reality. You cannot "move the goal post" further than reality. It's ridiculous. No. Again, Stefan should've asked him to define his terms. Up is defined away from the ground, down is defined towards the ground. Up is up and down is down regardless where you are on the planet. Simple. What I have learned from the conversation is that these people have such a tenuous grasp on basic notions that everything they say should be instantly regarded as nonsense. Nothing good has ever come out of people that negate reality. At their very best postmodernists are a waste of time, and at their worst... well... just remember what the nazis said: "If reality contradicts our ideology then that's bad news for reality".

What works for me is simple one-phrase pieces of wisdom. An example worthy of mentioning here is by Mike Cernovich (or at least he's the one I heard it from): If you won't write your own story someone else will write it for you.

I'm currently working on Vox Day's comics project Al*Hero, which is being crowdfunded on freestartr. I wanted to give a heads-up to any comics lovers on the board. Now all that's left is for someone to start a movie production company and we'll get a pretty solid foundation in the culture wars.

Ostracism is the way to go. You're under the impression that Stefan's threshold of when we should ostracize someone is very low. He never once said to ostracize people because they disagree with you.

-1 for #4 -1 for #5

I downvoted the post. Unfortunately for OP I read Rules for Radicals too.

For the past year we've all been watching some really odd and sometimes wretched behavior from what we commonly refer to as "the left". With this whole Hollywood scandal I now realized that there might not be such a thing as "left-wing propaganda". Every movie, every tv-show, every song, every comic, every book that espouse the leftist-agenda has been tainted (I'm not implying the right is innocent). What did J.K. Rowling have to do in order to get published? Or get movies done? What Did Emma Watson have to do in order to get to speak in from of the UN? What did Kimmel do in order to get a late-night show? Meryl Streep? We can go on and on and on with examples. These people have all gave a part of themselves in order to get where they are, they metaphorically sold their soul to the devil (perhaps in some cases not that metaphorically). What would that do to a person? How would a person act towards the innocent knowing deep down that they themselves are wretched? I think it's simple. In their minds they can never be the bad guy so when they see someone that forces them to realize they're evil they will play a sophist trick on themselves and others: they will start changing definitions. Redefining evil as good and good as evil is how these people are able to live with themselves. So leftist propaganda is not for us but ultimately for them. It's an imaginary world of their own making where they're seen as the good, as rebels, as moral pillars, as superheroes. What we have witnessed all this time is their pathology masked in a pretty package. When Roman Polanski won an Oscar, look at Harrison's Ford face as he reads his name. Doesn't it suddenly make sense now why he's so miserable and cynical? People have always complained how he seems to ruin every movie he's in now because he plays each role as the "I really don't wanna be here" guy. Knowing what he knows we would probably be the same. Marina Sirtis (from Star Trek TNG) once broke down at a panel and thanked the fans for giving her the life she has now. After watching Electric Boogaloo you'll know of the other path her career might have taken her. Furthermore look at Patrick Stewart's face at the Emoji movie premiere. Why is Ben Affleck a drunken mess in most of his interviews? What demons is he trying to drown out? Adam Sandler is notorious for making what can be loosely called "movies" and turning a profit every single time. When Al Pacino degraded himself in one of those "movies" people wondered what the hell is wrong with him to willingly take such a plunge? When the top in Hollywood is nothing but a sewer, doing a humiliating Dunkin' Donuts commercial seems pretty clean to me. Mark Millar is as successful of a comic book writer as one can get. In his comic WANTED, also a major Hollywood movie, the main character is an average Joe that's privy to how the world actually works and fully accepts it. It's a superhero comic without any superheroes, it's a world where everything is run by villains and every protagonists is a villain. The main character joins the elite, the high ranking society, and at some point even rapes an A-list celebrity without any consequence. In the Hollywood version of the story everything is turned upside down. They're not villains but assassins (ends justify the means kinda mentality) and the main protagonist is not a villain but a hero. Again, they can't be the villains so they have to put a spin on it. Robin Williams killed himself to avoid to work in that industry. Or what about Leonardo diCaprio? How much does one have to sin in order to feel like you have to save the entire planet in order to atone for them? Even ComicCon makes sense now. I always wondered why would these celebrities and creative types go to such a chaotic place where people pay them to touch them. I'm guessing that taking money directly from fans and cutting out the Weinstein-ish middleman is a breath of fresh air. I wish things were different but ultimately I'm glad I'm finally seeing how the hamburger is made.

I think God err in NOT making Adam ruler over Eve! [bdum-tsss]