barn

Are you familiar with the expression (probably are, just making sure..) broken record tautology squirrel cage ... and I don't mean the content. That's pretty original. I can tell (89% certainty) it's not from a machine. You went back and re-read it didn't you? And it's still fragmented, right?(looks like a pre-, pre-, pre- draft) ... or (don't know if you've seen... & what you thought of the title I mentioned, RELATED)Ok. .Sure... , no obligation to pick up on a probable connection, let's proceed regardless. ... and 2x (twice... was it a dud?, haven't you noticed?, there's a meaning in the two colours I'm supposed to decipher?, you're still editing and using the forum as a word processor, it helps you in reducing the number of 'context switches'?...?/???) Ok. + after and the the lovely Norwegians... It made me laugh, so no worries just the transitioning is like a... ... (Ok.) At this point I kinda realised it's a monologue... I could go into the 'thought-rhymes' but, eh... to me it doesn't worth it, at this point. (Mel Gibson, Exodus, elemental curiosity... could have been nice, though) I was going to be more constructive than what I've been, but after reading through the second time I was like = "3 occurrences" - Jordan B. Peterson -

69. Floating Points - Arp3 70. Lars Danielsson - Melange Bleu

67. Dj Honda ft. De La Soul - Trouble in the water 68. Dj Shadow - Fixed income (Part 2. New Equilibrium)

It's very upsetting to see how few ripples can be observed in the wake. But again, people nowadays tend to be less outspoken, less conscious and don't follow through as much. Indifferent, unable to integrate this new strange world, seems everybody is in a constant state of distraction, 'the lights are on but nobody's at home'. (Or am I just projecting?) Barnsley

Thanks. I was going to ask too.

H. A. W. / 03 The Architex - Altitude Original

It reminded me a movie called 'Enemy of the State' link to the description of the movie Actual quote from the movie (released 1998,... huh, 20 yrs ago) [...] Dean: Oh, conspiracy theorists of the world, unite. Lyle: It's more than a theory with me. I'm a former conspirer. I used to work for the NSA. I was a communication analyst. Listen to international calls, calls from foreign nationalists. That GPS tracking device we found in your cellular telephone? I designed one of the first models in that series. Fort Meade has 18 acres of mainframe computers underground. You're talking on the phone and you use the word, "bomb," "president," "Allah," any of a hundred keywords, the computer recognizes it, automatically records it, red flags it for analysis; that was twenty years ago. You know the Hubble Telescope that looks up to the stars? They've got over a hundred spy satellites looking down at us. That's classified. In the old days, we actually had to tap a wire into your phone line. Now calls bouncin' around on satellite, they snatch right out of the air.[...] It doesn't matter what you do for 40 years, you ought to become somewhat good at it. (wiretapping) Barnsley

65. Troublemakers - Black City 66. Darren Tale - Dark Skies (Czech National Symphonic Orchestra version)

If I found the right one, it's this (from here) : Abstract IQ scores are volatile indices of global functional outcome, the final common path of an individual’s genes, biology, cognition, education, and experiences. In studying neurocognitive outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders, it is commonly assumed that IQ can and should be partialed out of statistical relations or used as a covariate for specific measures of cognitive outcome. We propose that it is misguided and generally unjustified to attempt to control for IQ differences by matching procedures or, more commonly, by using IQ scores as covariates. We offer logical, statistical, and methodological arguments, with examples from three neurodevelopmental disorders (spina bifida meningomyelocele, learning disabilities, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) that: (1) a historical reification of general intelligence, g, as a causal construct that measures aptitude and potential rather than achievement and performance has fostered the idea that IQ has special status and that in studying neurocognitive function in neurodevelopmental disorders; (2) IQ does not meet the requirements for a covariate; and (3) using IQ as a matching variable or covariate has produced overcorrected, anomalous, and counterintuitive findings about neurocognitive function. (JINS, 2009, 15, 331–343.) While here you can check out, Robert J. Sternberg's bio. (have a gander at his "Administrative Experience")

Hi thinkers and alike, Are you familiar with the name Tony Attwood? I hadn't been, until seeing a short, titled "Is Asperger's syndrome the next stage of human evolution? - Australian Story". This is me walking on an imaginary thin ice, because almost sure if this subject became a presentation material... there'd be more than just a few raised eyebrows in the wake... but nevertheless, say Stefan did delve into the history and implications of the story. Surely it would be one of the most explosive and 'edgy' ones that would echo throughout the scientific community, mainstream. I guess it's probably not the right time, seeing the current zeitgeist and the list of priorities 'n all, but still. Evidently there are far more important issues, plus he'd have to be 'extra careful', choosing precisely the entry delivery and timing (me thinks). Although, not necessarily. If he was to approach it from certain neutral angles until he could excavate just enough connections, (sorry for being too broad, don't want to imply anything unfair, I still could be wrong) doing so and attracting viewership/awareness, there could be some who'd point out the more controversial aspects later at which point a follow-up could be... etc., dunno. Anyhow, I don't want to be my past self who had had seen the short post red-pill, would have seen it in a com-PLETE-LY different light vs. me now highly suspicious of the doctor from the get go, feeling sorry for his son. Am I alone in my suspicion that he isn't able to practice what he preaches? That he just rationalised his failings (in the video where he draws into the air with his fingers while narrating the research progress, explaining away how he couldn't have seen it coming...) I don't know what to make of it but doesn't feel right.(feel=I have a few arguments too if the opportunity comes to discussing them) Barnsley p. s. {I'm open to moving the post under a different &/ better category, if necessary. Where to?}

H. A. W. / 02 Edward Oberon - Change Everything

What's 'karma' is perhaps the most valuable focus from my perspective, sorry for not being able to provide a concise followup on your proposed theory. From my short life I've concluded that there's no such thing as Karma (deterministic, equalised). From my short life I've also concluded that life isn't just 'not fair' but asymmetric, even more so in a random fashion. However. Consequences do exist. Probabilities do exist. Therefore the best upgrade I could offer you on 'karma' is to treat it as a quantum particle. (Bloody, does what it wishes to, generally... though at times neatly falling in line with the assessment of probabilities - string theory - ) What I'm trying to say is that once something is universally preferable, it has an endless amount of question marks behind it, but at the same time binary at the individual level. Awesome. Each and every person has the chance to discover the best suited answer, while also adding to the nearing of the most-likely-by-all-well-intended & least undesirable 'universally un-preferable'... dooh, language reach. Am I getting through? Barnsley p. s. I strongly believe that Stefan Molyneux' s UPB was solely designed for the purpose of an 'endless' conversation amongst sentient beings, incrementally advancing towards an ever increasing level of consciousness, awareness, internalisation of reality.

63. Ralph Myerz and the Jack Herren Band - Kill the habit 64. Radiohead - Just

Hi @RichardY Hopefully we can make some better connections, this time. (That would be awesome.) I think you would greatly enjoy a documentary called 'Dishonesty the Truth About Lies' or something along the lines... been ages, since I last saw it. It is a great introduction to system 1&2 among many other common social dynamics regarding the evaluation and processing of sense data. Have fun watching it! (given that humans haven't died out) 'There's a place for everything, everything has it's own place.' The sorting and experiencing of information is done by different agents that are all part of the same unity, hence my liking to the MEco system (Stefan Molyneux) analogy, even if I know that biological 'wirings' must be included too. It isn't a perfect system and far from understood(epigenetics), but it's (the state of evolution) what we've got to work with. I'm constantly amazed (even today) by each and every new discovery that only yields 'two more' additional questions about how the mind works so much in harmony with the body and vice versa. I'm here to ask and ask and observe and maybe ask some more when seeing something intriguing... I think we are only starting to scrape the surface of the mechanism that had been driving us here. (not enough efficiency at sorting, plenty of data... that's also why philosophy is soooo important) I don't have a clue other than the argument that child beating, being years on end treated with iron will does more harm on the long run than curiosity and nurturing behaviour would... that's me, I'm spent. Sorry, but I lack the proper historical depth to make a better argument. Allow me to take a shot at it. thinking (I don't care what's on the other side, sure as hell I might be anywhere else than here, there's only sweet, silent death... endless loops of stagnation that's what I see, here) ... Why not? Since neither is 'answerable' for me, lets call this 'my necessary experiment' to validate either of the questions. The road behind me is where I came from. I have seen that. What's on the other side is... , that's... What's there? True. But never had a recurring urge that just wouldn't fade no matter the time or the rationalisation I'd try to wrap it up in. Quite impressive, given solely how resistant it is. Awe inspiring, really. Thought it, but chose not to say. "Where was I? Ah, yes. The map... " Barnsley

Really good comment, because it demonstrates the lack of changed behaviour even when 'better' arguments are presented. (soooo prevalent in the current zeitgeist,... certain elements of western culture, demographic that rhymes with ' ? ' - boomers)

A few red flags... 1. the topic itself (negative focus) 2. you yourself haven't voted/professed, (quite reasonable to wonder, why not?) 3. your reputation (-19, could be bad luck?) *update below* 4. 'buy into' (i.e. - to be influenced by a large number of people) ... that's different from 'uphold', 'concluded', 'share virtues' Barnsley p. s. (I'm not going to vote, it looks like an insult to the community... Just my opinion) UPDATE - - - 30.09.2018 - - -UPDATE It's funny, looking back on this thread... I couldn't have imagined that 7 months later (member since 2016 july, currently 1770 posts) the reputation assigned to my handler on this forum would be influenced from a fairly good standing (around ~+30, sorry don't keep detailed specific records of that just roughly) to straight deep in the other end of the FDR scale (now at -48). All in 2 months time, by most likely through the dedication of a few individuals (1-3ppl) ... Hah. Since a couple days ago, the daily random downvotes have seemingly ceased, so I decided to add my thoughts here where I used 'reputation' in my arguing against someone's content ... Hah... My thoughts on this recently: I wonder... Has that been part of the calculated 'negative-following' of my contributions for the last 2months (only), or maybe as eluded to someone one day after-a-while, virtuously contemplating some difficult questions about their own probable bias (props for that detail btw, even if I suspect the same individual had been adding, among a 1-2 others, to what's been happening to the handler I've been using) references chronologically: and then this: Perhaps, you could be looking at some form of 'uncontrollable urge' an unchecked weakness? Neither (known bias or uncontrollable urge) makes it acceptable from reason&evidence perspective, definitely not when putting forth arguments. At the same time however, one is a mark of intentional wrongdoing, am I right?! (kinda trivial caveat, still important: no offence to genuine sufferers, in fact; I have been /actually think of this individual (link) and like him 'sky-high', please look into him, his achievements. Well worth of your time, I guarantee you that!!!) I also noticed all-round upvotes on my debate partners' contributions instead but no/scarcely any downvotes (simultaneously) on their content at various instances, in some threads where I debated someone in a meaningful and respectful fashion opposing their given take (ie. - to name a couple : in science / Uhh Attenborough thread or the first referenced thread below here) ... that made me question, how likely that they got voted for an actual better content (personally, most times I didn't/don't see any non-emotional reasons for it) ? What if the secret votes on the debate partners in fact served the purpose of trying to 'tip the scale' dishonestly as the anonymous voter couldn't make / find counter arguments to my contributions? Isn't that intended distortion of reality? Not good. I'm /will be against it & recommend to everyone to be strongly against for the sake of integrity and knowledge. Anyhow, I can't tell for certain.(.. not my job or interest to see behind the scenes). There's been a huge uptick of arrows lately from what I assume a few selected, cowardly individuals (IN THAT SCALE, FOR MY CONTRIBUTIONS ONLY, on this forum = approx -80 downvotes in two months, on random content, on a daily frequency), not one argument(1) with any proof whatsoever(2), compared to a year ago for example, if you were here and seen my posts you know that (<-link for both last ones <1,2>, in the first referenced post) That, I'm confident to assert ... Curious though, (doubly,) as the times we're living in, seemingly mirrors/ points to parallels in this specific topic. Maybe that's why I'm also extra glad I have never voted/don't vote but instead make arguments. Please remind me of this post the day when I get, choose to get the voting option. (Say something like: ' Howdy barn, what's your argument behind the arrows you're using? ' - and I'll know...) Lastly, I haven't been & I'm not looking for more arrows (be it either or a mixture of both) or any form of restoration. (Mentioning that, apart from slight annoyance there's been no meaningful harm done to my presence on the world's most awesome philosophy outlet on the whole-wide-internets:-p.) Maybe it's because I care for context and contents. The real harm I'm convinced, was self-inflicted by those individuals, to themselves and to a degree disheartening to others with less solid foundations than some of us. (giggled slightly as I remembered the... ) 'People's Liberation Front of Judea' ...don't know whether that's only bad actually (some people choosing to act cowardly). Maybe it's just is. I'm definitely no relativist, however seeing that individual mentioned earlier questioning things in the end makes me wonder if it was at least worth it for him/her/it (online anonymity) ... I dunno. I need to see things in a larger picture, with higher resolution to make my mind up about it. I'm starting rambling so let's end it here... (Thanks for reading) (there had been 2 green arrows at the time of writing this update... don't pay attention to them... that being said, it's really up to you )

61. Yoko Kanno - Tsukudajima Yaripannashi 62. Polyoctopus - One Less Thing

Hi @William Wyatt If you don't mind sharing... Can you give a rundown (original prior post link would be appreciated too) on your progress of looking for, evaluating and making progress or lack of (and whys) in the topic? I know you once suggested this, (why) it didn't work out for you? Barnsley

I can see, this isn't going to be very productive. Take it easy, Barnsley

~ hard at work... ~ H.A.W. / 00 - ... H.A.W. / 01. Cause 4 Concern - Develop

Can't argue with that, except if coerced. (I assume you didn't mean to say there was any. Free choice 'n all.)

Hi @Will 001 That's a short answer, it's hard for me to guess 'how my response to you actually landed'(to be honest, I don't know for sure). Hmm... 'sounded' implies that I misunderstood what was written/arbitrarily interpreted it differently, or perhaps you didn't say actually what you wanted... not sure now. I don't think what you had put forward was shallow. I think it was pro 'hide your true self' content, much worse than lacking depth or refinement (in which case perhaps your vocabulary greatly differs and we'd have to level at great lengths... but I doubt it. Still, could be, I was wrong many times before.) And yet, still there's stuff I'm at odds with again but want to be respectful and not be pushy about things. Things like and p. s. (Finding opportunities for socialising 'in your tribe' can be something that is painstakingly laborious for some, I feel for those who hunger...Good thing is that it's trainable. Thankfully.) Barnsley

Hi @Will 001 I have a major red flag - objection to your proposed suggestions, although it is easily recognisable that there's a genuine goodwill at play from your side. They're detrimental : ° to the likelihood of finding and signaling to virtuous individuals (not confused with 'virtue signaling' ) ° self-esteem ° to the development of correctly identifying motives and character in the present I'm saying it because there's a lot of effort & risk involved with playing the true vs. false self (link) based on outside incentives. Also, isn't it true that people who generally do that aren't genuine, therefore aim at manipulation? What do you think of an opponent in chess who let's you win? A fellow race competitor who gives you a headstart? A friend who doesn't tell you everything that is on his mind because he thinks you probably won't understand it? Now, regarding Trump it's different. He is in 'game mode, negotiation mindset, cold business' and isn't trying to get true friends. If you asked me, I'd say it's more important what he emphasises in his speeches, how he makes it appealing for people to see something he desires to communicate. Sure, he does it in an easily digestible fashion but I wouldn't say those who got the gist when he hadn't dumbed it down are too fond of his new style. They might see it as a necessary bad, trolling, sophisticated strategy partially aimed at making people think what he wanted. In virtuous relationships: What I would rather suggest is to be truthful as much as possible and to choose your battles carefully. Appropriate self-knowledge will give you enough certainty in your assessment of 'giftedness' or lack of, in order to see who's worth your treasures/well intended to be associated with. Treating people your very best, then according to how you're treated back has saved me many a 'headaches' and when not, caused many a 'heart-aches', disappointments.

LOL

59. Tycho - Send & Receive 60. Metaform - Sunday