KarlJay

Just wondering where the "-T" came from and what's the difference from an INTP

Thank You, I'll be looking into that.

Yes, but I was concerned that there would be tons of them out there and I would have trouble finding which ones are good and which aren't. I would guess Stefan's books/videos (If he has some on the subject) would be good. If you know of some good authors, I'd be interested in a link.

I thought that Stefan mentioned long ago in some of his videos that he had some self esteem books. I've never seen these books, but I've seen a number of his calls that dealt with this topic. I'd like to find some of Stefan's work or other work in this area. Thanks.

I was going to point out that being able to determine something to be right or wrong is a very, very important skill. You didn't invent the wheel, yet you benefit from the wheel. You don't have to understand hydraulic coupling in order to operate a car. Knowing that you don't understand it, is a very important thing to understand. You can learn a LOT of very usable skills, including social interaction. I'm in STEM and we have motivating leaders that don't "write the code" but have great insight into what code needs to be written.

At first I saw that people might try for the results that they wanted. In other words, it could be like questions about how often do you workout and eat well. Some might answer with what they should do or wish they did, instead of what they actually do. In other words, it's kinda like the "most Americans think they are above average" problem. However, I took the test several times and did further research. I was thrown off by part of the answer, but spot on with other parts. I ended up with the "INTP" which is spot on, except the entrepreneur part. From what I understand, an INTP wouldn't be very much of a entrepreneur, yet I am. The introverted logical thinker was spot on. Not wanted to be among groups of people, etc... What was great is that I can dismiss the "you need to come out of your bubble" mindset. Point: not everyone is the same, you aren't abnormal because you don't love to be the life of the party. Most people have the "you should be like me" problem, instead of seeing that there are many different types of people. I thought it was like a horoscope or a "reader" that gives very general things, I watched a number of videos and found that I was very much as described. It's VERY refreshing to not think you need to change to become the popular life of the party type. We need all types of people.

So I'm watching this video after watching some others about "what is reality". This one digs into the brain and self awareness. I'd like to know if this is just BS or if what he says is true. Esp about the how the brain works and the self awareness part. Thanks for any input.

Ok, looks like I might have found part of the answer, just in case someone wants to learn more about this: Looks like it works like a stored procedure with compiled coded inside the blockchain.

I'm a software dev and I've had an interest in blockchain and it's uses. I think I have a basic understanding but I watched a video and don't understand part of it. She talks about uncertainty and how blockchain can be used to remove that. IIRC, one example was creditability and being able to use blockchain to reveal creditability without knowing who the person is. I'm guess this would be thru transaction history almost like a YELP or eBay ratings type thing. What I'm trying to do is have a system where you have access to certainty without giving up your ID. This would be for something like contractual agreement enforcement. So two people enter into a contract and they need assurance that each will live up to their side of the agreement. I understand that a public ledger can be rolled back, so if there isn't an agreement, a transaction can be rolled back, but I don't know that this is what she means by blockchain providing certainty as this would be no different than an eBay feedback system. I can't seem to find any way to contact her, she had a Twitter and a LinkedIn, but I'm not sure that posting a cold question would be a good idea as it would be seen as spam. I tried a Reddit sub for blockchain, but no response and other forums seem to have died off. With all the activity, there has to be some dev group somewhere that discusses how these things work. Thanks for any direction.

I'm trying to confirm a claim made on Friday Aug 5, 2016 concerning the job numbers report. The Tom Sullivan show (http://radio.foxnews.com/fox-news-talk/tom-sullivan/), claimed that if we didn't seasonally adjust the numbers, we'd be at zero job growth. I did a search and came across this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/04/21/if-the-facts-dont-fit-change-the-facts-how-the-obama-administration-undercuts-public-confidence-in-government-statistics/#2dd103d72531 About how Obama has been playing with the numbers. What Tom Sullivan said during his 3rd hour was that if the numbers were NOT seasonally adjusted, we'd have no job growth. I know the GDP is very slow, but I thought we were at least creating jobs. Q. Can someone explain in simple terms what effect seasonally adjusting the numbers means? Thank You, KarlJay.

If you plan on staying in that country, I would look at the needs of the people around you and find something that requires a skill that isn't so easy to obtain and easy to go underground with. One of the basics of economic is doing something that improves the market value of something. Your ability to make gains is based on your ability to produce more value than you consume. Market value is in part based on supply/demand and how hard it would be for someone else to do the same thing you are doing. If the taxes and regulations are high, look for things that are taxed and find a way to avoid consuming them. If it's food, grow your own, etc... Look for things that might be common now and short later. Find a way to store those things or and alternative to them. The way I like to think of things is to think of the start of America. We started without much of an economy (if any). Think of the people that packed up and headed West. They just went out and made things happen. Wasn't much need (if any) to have a government. Humans have been doing these things for a very long time. Some times a highly specialized skill is of great value, sometimes general skills are best, you can have both.

I've seen many of Stefan's videos on economics. When he 'debated' with Peter Joseph I noticed something not talked about by either. I've seen Peter's solution and notice that he's been at it for a number of years, seems like about 8 or more years and doesn't seem to have a plan to implement the solution that would work without removing the current system. Note that this is aside of the validity of the system, and only focuses on the implementation of the plan. I also can't seem to find one for Stefan's stateless solution. Best guess is that it's to raise awareness of the solution and get the people to act on that. Q. Is there any detailed implementation plan for the stateless solution? Q. Does it involve waiting for a crash and implement at that point? Q. Is there any coordination of efforts on this? Thanks, KarlJay.

True, but the taxable event might be. In other words, if the state charges you tax on a product, you might have a choice to buy it. That doesn't mean that you can avoid all taxable events, but that some you can choose not to take part in. Example: a business can choose where to build a factory. If the factory is in the US, the taxes will be X, if it's in Mexico that US tax might be less. The goal would be to leverage this. This seems be underway as more companies leave and the state comes to terms (if it does) with the fact that America needs some businesses.

According the the r/K selection theory, this should be an argument you can't win. IIRC, it has to do with the development of the frontal lobe of the brain and it doesn't change. Someone plz corrected me where I'm wrong, but the rabbits really don't understand the consequences of debt. They are the ones that will consume all the corn and have no seeds to plant for next season. It's the wolves that understand why you have to limit consumption in order to survive. Isn't it the case that you'll never convince the rabbit to conserve? In addition, isn't it true that you can take away an entitlement from a rabbit without them feeling that you have stolen from them? The debt is seen by them as an income stream to be spent. I've had this discussion many times, on what might be consider less 'thoughtful' message boards, and I've found no way to convince these people of the dangers of debt. Some have simply stated, "as long as we can print money... we're fine..." IMO, this is why some systems have to crash in order for some people to realize that they can crash. TBH, if they can't see the danger of the debt without an argument, they'll never see it.

Ok, that was a bad choice of words. I said "businesses create taxes" when I meant to say "businesses create events that the state then taxes" or "businesses create what is then taxed" So if the business didn't engage in the taxable event, the tax wouldn't be paid to the State. So the State has a relationship with the business, if the business shut down, the State doesn't get the tax it would have gotten because the taxable event doesn't take place. So, as long as a businesses has the freedom to choose, it can choose to engage in the taxable event or not. It's to the States benefit to have as many taxable events and/or as high a tax rate as they can. It's generally in the interest of the business to maximize the benefit from the taxable event, which may include avoiding the taxable event all together. Another way of looking at this balance is with Carrier Air closing down and leaving the US. If the US asks (forces) Carrier to pay too much to conduct business in the US, Carrier can leave the US. Once gone, the US gets no jobs from them (or at least fewer jobs). Sorry for the mis-worded response and thanks for pointing out the goof. One of the points that I wanted to show was the balance between the two. In the case of Carrier, the balance was upset and the US lost some jobs. The larger point was trying to figure out how to "keep the rabbits at bay" so that the wolves will be less of a hostage. IMO, the wolves are being held in a form of slavery. They don't get the full benefit from their work because the state forces them to pay (fees, taxes, ...). The wolves don't want to give up their dreams, the state doesn't want to give up it's control. As the state continues to increase their debt, the amount of taxes they'll want will increase. They'll turn to the wolves for more taxes and the system will continue to go down hill. Finding a balance point, doesn't make the state go away, and as I learned above, waiting for it to fail, doesn't make the rabbits go away.

Why is it important here to imagine a solution that isn't the abolition of the immoral institution that is the state? Because the solution I have in mind includes a second balance between the Ks and the State. I wanted to know if there must always be a balance between rabbits and wolves or if rabbits can ever become wolves. I've already accounted for a balance between the State and the wolves. The reason for the balance between the State and the wolves is that this system doesn't replace the State, it doesn't replace the whole system. I watched the 'debate' between Stefan and Joseph concerning a new replacement system. I noticed a few flaws aside from the 'debate' 'logic' being used. Background: I'm a systems analyst and understand well that the problem with solutions to problems is the implementation of the solution. Best I can figure, Joseph's solution is not compatible with our mixed capitalism/socialism system and will most likely never be in place. It's also not scalable, it seems to require full implementation or it fails. The point of bringing this up, is that I contend that any solution that is not scaleable and requires removal of our current system will fail to be implemented without force and will likely fail. Therefore, I've concluded that the only solution that works with the current system, must not require replacement of the current system and must be scalable (the scalable part is because most people require proof of flight before they board the plane). I've put these implementation specifications (compatible and scalable) into the problem specifications and solved that part of the problem and it works. I needed to know if the rabbits will convert to wolves or not because if not, they'll require constant regulation. Ok, I'm new here and I'm not sure about extending the original topic, but I'll give it a shot... If the rabbits will never become wolves and if the State gets it's power from both the rabbits and wolves, and if the wolves don't really need much (if any) State, then how can any system get the State to regulate the rabbits. In other words, I can create a workable balance between the wolves and the State. The problem is finding a way to get the State to control the rabbits or at least find a balance. One direction that I can see for this to take place is the threat that the wolves will leave. Consider: if the rabbits are dependent on things like taxes and jobs, and the wolves run the businesses that create taxes (directly and indirectly via jobs), then the businesses start to leave (directly or indirectly) then the State will realize the wolves have a choice. This could be used to cause the State to find a balance for the rabbits as well as the wolves, but the wolves would have the upper hand. What I see is a three way balance. The State needs the wolves and the rabbits, the rabbits need the State and the wolves, the wolves need neither but have both. The wolves actually need the state as long as the state is making the laws. If the wolves leverage the power they have, the threat of the wolves not paying indirect taxes thru jobs, the State would be forced to find a balance that would reduce the states power over the wolves and they would be forced to balance with the rabbits. The end choice is do the wolves leave or force the State to balance the rabbits? Leaving seems that it'll likely end in war, staying seems to only buy more time. (that seems like what life is, just buying time)

Hello all. I have what has become an important question and I'd like the correct answer and some kind of proof. Rabbits and Wolves came to me from Stefan's videos on r/K selection theory. The question is about the part where things change and the rabbits realize things are going to crash. The reason for the importance of this is that many believe that the crash will happen pretty soon as we reach the limits of our economic system. In one video I thought I heard it said that the rabbits will run to the protection of the wolves as soon as the system crashes. However, I thought that I heard they will never change their views. The reason this is important is that some will never change their views on something, while others seem to learn and change their views. Given that the nature of the rabbits is an under developed frontal lobe, it might be the case that they can't change their views no matter what. If this is the case that they can't change their views, they'll either fake it to get along and change back as soon as things change again, or they'll feel violated forever. If I'm not mistaken, Stefan has said that some people will always have a view and if you take away a 'crutch' they'll feel violated and that will never change. This comes from the discussion about blaming someone/something that isn't actually the cause. Things like White privilege being blamed for something that it didn't cause. So, off to the question: Once the system crashes, if the rabbits change their views on economics will their views retreat back to their original views once the crash is over. The reason this is important is that many have come up with solutions to the upcoming crash. Some solutions delay things, others fix some parts and not others, while others want to replace the system with something else like complete government control. So imagine that someone had a solution that actually worked without crashing the system, without replacing the system and without more government control. If that person did this before the crash, the rabbits would remain rabbits and never change their views. However, if that person waits until after the crash, the rabbits would change their views and at least behave more like the wolves. The difference (economically speaking) is that there would be more "like mindedness" in the new system. However, if the rabbits after the crash are just going to feel caged forever and resort to some kind of White privilege, false causation, the new system will have some of the same problems as the old system. If anyone has any proof of a rabbit being happy as a wolf or changing into a wolf, I'd like to see that. Thank You, KarlJay.