wyattstorch

"I'm a professor of psychology and picked up this book to consider for my incoming PhD students. Don't waste your money... [...]" "Not an argument..." heh.

Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference by Michael J. Hurd https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005EJATDU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

"Cellular precursor lives matter..."

See also "Crow epistemology."

Dylan, thanks for sharing your experiences on this. I think it's pretty helpful on quite a few levels. Especially in the specifics, which were not just similar, but oddly so. It's made me see that these people all share something in common, and if others can see that, it makes being objective about them that much easier. "The result: my mother and my grandmother's reactions proved I was right." Ironically, your grandmother and mother's reactions do nothing to defend themselves; they only go to confirm what has been said about malignant narcissist's tendency to downplay their actions, shift responsibility, and play the victim card (among many other things...). What's that saying about not interrupting one's enemy when they are defeating themselves? Happy new year.

Nope, that was right to the point. And that is the point of it all, isn't it?

"P.S. : You should remind me if I forgot or didn't respond to something you hoped I was going to." Nothing specific, just taking in what insights people have to offer on the topic.

Hi, Barn. Thanks for sharing that. I've only a few minutes to respond to all this...but your question: "Allow me to ask you why are you seeking answers? Would I be wrong by guessing you are after the boundaries / limitations?" I could probably write a book on that topic...

Ah, no, that wasn't me; I don't use "Wyatt's Torch" as my music project's name.

I actually did hear that podcast with the musician, thanks...I certainly did relate to his situation. Rock music, especially, has always leaned more leftist. (It's probably why I gravitated more towards metal, for a while, though that came with its own set of, shall we say, challenges, ideologically.) But I've long-focused on composing instrumental music, anyway, which I can do solo. Ah...Philadelphia...let's just say that I'm over it. (Do I have to hear any more about "Meek Mill", already?) Already moved to the outskirts of the county, away from the Center City area, and looking to probably leave the state. I've been considering New Hampshire, for the Free State Project, but I'm looking at other options, too, along similar lines. I think I get you re: negative experiences. Sometimes you just gotta dive in, and learn from experience. And I certainly get you re: working in liberal places; it's why I'm "over" Philadelphia...

Oh, going on the idea of Jung, tricksters, and r/K selection theory: Stephan M mentions, in one of his presentations, that he didn't think that "r"'s were all bad, because they can introduce innovations and variations that are sometimes needed. I agree with that sentiment, but here, I'd propose an alternative explanation: that if humans are actually a "K" species, then the Trickster archetype, as a bringer of conceptual paradigm shifts, offers the same desired result, as a result of creative integration, and relies less on a genetic theory and more on a conceptual capability.

Heh. Well, in the case of a truly skilled technician, craftsperson, tradesperson, what have you, is it still a Dunning-Kruger effect, as much as it is a mistaken notion that excellence in one aspect would automatically transfer into another?...but maybe you're right, I guess it still is "Dunning-Kruger" if one is skilled in one area but not in another, and moves into that area, anyway. (At least, I can sympathize with a skilled worker taking offense at poor management.) But yeah, it's really insulting when it's a not-so-skilled or lazy worker asserting the same... "Since you mentioned business and artist(ry?) , would you say that artists often forget that marketing and sales is over 80% when considering running a successful art-related venture? " I'd agree, if I thought that that most artists ever knew that, let alone forgot it. I hate to over-generalize, but in this case...I'm a "black sheep" artist/musician, in that I'm not a socialist/Marxist looking to sustain myself on liberal arts grants, or even adverse to the idea of art and commerce being compatible. (That's the Objectivist in me.) Most artists and musicians I've met (not so much "commercial" artists, though there's still some of that) still subscribe to that dichotomy, so much so that I've had to go solo as a musician out of a lack of compatible musicians, philosophically. But that's Philadelphia, for ya... (Speaking of marketing and sales: My own problems with the business side of things was not a lack of business knowledge, but the extroversion required to make the sales pitch for my own work. That's when I learned Gerber's point that exercising skills like baking puts one in the business of bakking, not necessarily running the bakery. I've since come to appreciate the role of an manager or agent to do the job of promotion...) "Do you also consider yourself high in openness and relatively lower in disagreeableness?" Artistically? I'm open to new ideas and experimentation as a artist...but I can be highly disagreeable, when needed. It really depends on the context. (In that sense, I'd say I'm a romantic realist.) I'm not a Howard Roark-hard ass when it comes to group projects. But in those cases, in a disagreement, I tend to be the mediator towards the group/project's goal or idea, using THAT as the arbiter, the defining principle. (To the extent that the others involved are also committed to the same.) And I try to avoid groups or work that violate my principles or values, but having met that criteria, I'm open to ideas.

You're welcome, Barn. I wish I had read those two books in reverse, myself! My initial personal venture as an artist was premature, as I had a lot to learn about the entrepreneurial mindset before. (That distinction I learned from E-MYTH, i.e., if you're a baker, you're in the business of baking, not necessarily in the business of the bakery...his example of the skilled practioner complaining that they could run the business better, but trying to approach that from as a craftsperson, not necessarily as an entrepreneur...rings true, to me.) And I do agree that the "rich dad" is valuable as an abstraction.

I found some helpful ideas in RDPD, even if the existence of the "Rich Dad" himself was called into question. But there are reasons why some people are employees, and some people aren't. So if I were to recommend the book, I'd also counter-balance that recommendation with Michael Gerber's THE E-MYTH REVISITED: WHY MOST SMALL BUSINESSES DON'T WORK AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Revisited-Small-Businesses-About-ebook/dp/B000RO9VJK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1511896445&sr=1-1&keywords=e-+myth+revisited

I did a quick google search, thinking it was like the "100th monkey" anecdote (the one where the monkey washes the clams found on a beach in the water, and by the 100th monkey does it, the rest of the monkeys follow suit without having to be taught, or something like that...) This looks kinda, sorta, like that, but different... http://www.wisdompills.com/2014/05/28/the-famous-social-experiment-5-monkeys-a-ladder/ I don't know enough about epigenetics, personally, to say if there's a a cause and effect here, or causation-correlation (I'm at the stage of learning the controversy, not the science, myself, and I tend towards "if-then" logic in the absence of full knowledge.) But it does look like the 5 monkeys story is disputed, however. http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=55731 http://www.throwcase.com/2014/12/21/that-five-monkeys-and-a-banana-story-is-rubbish/ (Which is my concern about epigenetic and r/K claims, in general. Not that I think r/K theory itself is a problem, but the applications beyond its original scope call for scrutiny. And I'm always on the lookout for reification. For example, it's my understanding that the person who developed the "alpha male" theory has since debunked that theory, based on faulty observation about wolves. According to a wiki entry: "Researcher L. David Mech, one of the primary creators of the Alpha male hypothesis for wolves, later found additional evidence that the concept of an Alpha male may have been an erroneous interpretation of incomplete data and formally disavowed this terminology in 1999. He explained that it was heavily based on the behavior of captive packs consisting of unrelated individuals, an error reflecting the once prevailing view that wild pack formation occurred in winter among independent gray wolves. Later research on wild gray wolves revealed that the pack is usually a family consisting of a breeding pair and its offspring of the previous 1–3 years.[16] Mech, L. David. (1999). "Alpha status, dominance, and division of labor in wolf packs". Canadian Journal of Zoology. 77 (8): 1196–1203. doi:10.1139/z99-099. Archived from the original on 2005-12-14.

Hi, Barn. No, I haven't heard of it...care to share?

I'm still learning about this concept, myself, but my over-simplified understanding is that humans are considered to be "k" species, but some are more "k" than others. This is crucial for my idea, at the end of this... Is there a "point of no return?" Well, that's the tricky question, and why I bring up Koestler...my Objectivish leanings, with the emphasis on free will and choice, say that adaption is possible, depending on the context. I do believe in free will. That said, there's something to be said about that Jesuit "Give me the child for his first seven years, and I'll give you the man." ( I think Molyneux has said something about the first 5 years, recently, on the Manson podcast.) Changable, but not infinitely so. That's where, for me, Koestler meets Jung (Jung did influence Koestler, re synchronicity. Here, I'll add that I personally find value in both of them, but reject the more "woo" explanations of Jung, as well as his Kantian influences...again, me being Objectivish...). Psychological complexes develop that shape an outlook, far more than genetics, in my view. Stanton Samenow talks about this, in regards to criminals, malignant narcissists, etc, in INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND, about how certain thought patterns and mindsets become so entrenched that it is not genetics per se, but those defense mechanisms, that make certain people resistant to change. (And they have to WANT to change, to begin with.) Usually, he says, in order for that to happen, they have to become so disgusted with themselves, but that it's also rare, that they would rather fight to the death to protect their view of themselves than change. (Along the lines of the "first 5-7 years" idea, Samenow also urges early intervention for troubled children BEFORE their thought patterns can crystallize to the point of no return...) But back to the r/K idea, which scientifically is about breeding and such, there's the idea that environmental factors can force change, i.e, resources drying up, etc. But we are more than animals, depending on the chance of nature providing; we are conceptual, and can recreate and guide conditions via farming, agriculture, etc. And it makes us not just a "predator" or "prey" species, but a "trader" species. (Not just being objectivish here, though I certainly am, but also pointing to something like Jane Jacob's so-callled "guardian" and "trader" syndromes (so-called, because she uses syndrome in a different sense than the common negative connotation). But if we are traders, we can also interfere, for better or for worse, with Darwinian progress via social programs, welfare statism, etc... That conceptual factor is demonstrated with the idea of the trickster. (To invoke Jung again, who wrote about such characters...) Tricksters often advanced change, often by accident, by emulating different animals, and adapting their traits and behaviors, to various effects. There is where I think the r/K theory, scientifically, interacts with the metaphorical social application of the theory to humans (if we truly are a "k" species, with some being more K than others...) And biologically, women can only have so many children at a time, compared to reptiles, which can birth hundreds, and generally are required to raise them, unlike reptiles, which are born ready-to-go. And yet, in the cases where r/K theory is applied to humans, we have women who have as many children as they can, for various purposes, and sometimes abandon them. It's not just the genetic component, but the conceptual adaptation of other species behaviors (perhaps based on environmental choices or limitations faced similar to those of "r" species animals, that makes it SEEM as if some people are "r" and some are "K"...And that's where the Koestler "triune" brain idea intercepts, because we do have those more primitive brain structures that all animals share, but with the mammalian and cortex in addition. So the conceptual adaption of "r" behaviors in a "K" species becomes a unique phenomenon, and that's where the metaphor/comparison breaks down and humans, and becomes something more... That's my theory.

Re: Childhood abuse and diminishing of "free will" : Seems like a good book to introduce to this topic. Not so much that criminals don't have free will, but that their thought patterns lead them away from WANTING to change. (Much of this applies to non-criminals like malignant narcissists, abusive parents, etc, as well...) INSIDE THE CRIMINAL MIND by Stanton Samenow https://www.amazon.com/Inside-Criminal-Mind-Revised-Updated/dp/140004619X#reader_140004619X

I haven't seen I, ROBOT...is that a speech directly addressed Koestler's GHOST IN THE MACHINE?

Thanks for the explanation. Followed it for the most part. Do you have any thoughts as to how this all might relate to the r/K selection topic I've been seeing so much about, lately, as that r/K theory is being applied to current sociological issues? Thanks, Joe

"Mammals don't pass on epigenetic infromation. " Forgive me if I suggested it. (I'm not sure if I did or not, actually.) I'm couldn't say for certain, one way or the other. My understanding of genetics is somewhat-educated layman; still learning. I'm aware that evolution is through species, not individuals, but still fuzzy on phenotypes vs genotypes, etc. I'm more aware of the controversies vs the actual science (i.e., tabula rasa vs inherited ideas, changes through birth vs. changes in individuals, etc.), not being a scientist, myself. The controversy surrounding epigenetics is interesting, to me, though. Relatedly, I'm really interested in the whole controversy because of the idea (that I inherited from Ayn Rand) that ideas are more important drivers of history than physical changes. Because of the claims I've been reading about environmental effects on the individual genetics (like say, child abuse having a genetic effect), and the idea that if individuals don't change their ideas after a certain point, then what is needed is to have more children to affect long-term change, I've been thinking about the ideas vs physical changes even more. So the modal brain, neocortex/ideas vs primal brain and genes seems to be of importance in that discussion.

Good afternoon. I was wondering if Stefan might be interested in taking up the topic of Arthur Koestler's GHOST IN THE MACHINE, as it may relate or dispute the r/K selection theory and the genotype/phenotype distincion, in relation. In a nutshell: Koestler put forth the thesis of the "triunal brain" (reptilian, mammalian, and neo-cortex), and that the way these evolved together was something like nature "slapping" the neocortex onto the existing structures in such a way as to cause problems in communication and control between the three parts ("flight or flight" response as a result of previous experience, or even inherited experience, "amygdala hijacks", etc.) I'm wondering if this theory may be of more value than an epigenetic explanation, since it explains the problem debating "nature vs. nature" in this competing brain structures, and highlights the problem of conceptual abilty (or lack of, or of a refusal to think, etc) vs. more "primal" involuntary responses (the latter probably resulting from a genetic basis.). Koestler's book is a bit older, and some of the science is in question, by today's standards and findings, but it seems that the triunal brain theory is still accepted, with modifications. Assuming its validity, would this be seen as a competing theory to genetic r/K selection, or complimentary? Thanks in advance, Joe

Also, I'll add some advice that was given to me, regarding managing expectations and going forward: you can't act from, or act to achieve a negative. I was trying to figure out the best way to go "no contact" that would cause the least amount of hurt or damage, when I asked about how to do it (should I write a letter, say something in person, etc...). It was put to me this way: "for what value am I acting to keep?". And, that my framing of the question was off. I was asking how to achieve a negative value (how NOT to do/achieve something), and not a positive value. It was said that that approach blows my whole expectation of yourself and reality "out of the water" and resulted only made me anxious, depressed, fearful, obsessed, etc. Once I looked at the opposite approach, of trying to create a value, it didn't make it "easy", but it alleviate those conditions. Hope that helps.

Hi, Amos. As someone going through a similar situation, and still in the early stages of it, I know it's tough going. Hang in there, stay strong. Your letter is fine, in itself. I'd only advise that you keep in mind to temper your expectations of what you hope to achieve with it. If you need to send it, or if it's for your own benefit, and keep it to yourself, is your choice. But temper your expectations of what you expect from them, whether they will change, or react/respond, etc. Best to you.

Good morning. I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction. I just finished reading HOW NOT TO ACHIEVE FREEDOM, and was intrigued by the claim/criticism that libertarianism gets funding from Christians, mainly because, on the surface of it, I've seen much antagonism towards libertarianism from Christians, philosophically, though admittedly, I've seen some overlap, but then, I lean more "Objectivish" than Libertarian. And the thing that sticks out in my mind is that Rand famously said she rejected a significant monetary offer if she would just incorporate religion into her philosophy. Knowing that Rand did have relations with Isabel Paterson, Leonard Reed, etc, it does seem to be a plausible claim, however. (And relatedly, there is a current theory going around that ARI is being influenced by external funding to not only over-ride the previous rejection of libertarianism, but also to promote leftist causes like open immigration, etc, reflected in a push to vote for Clinton and demonize Trump, etc...). That's why I'm intrigued by this claim, primarily. If I remember correctly (I need to re-read it), Stefan says something along the lines that this isn't certain, maybe more anecdotal, based on his experiences. I was trying to Google the topic, but there's a high signal-to-noise ratio, there. I did watch his videos "Why I Was Wrong About Libertarians" and "Why I Was Wrong About Atheists", but I didn't get much answer there. (Edit, 11/14/17: I found Stefan's quote from the book, and I have to partially correct my above question:) "For instance, when I say that libertarianism has an innate hostility towards the discipline of psychology – and in particular, the exploration of the unconscious – because of its financial dependence upon Christianity, what is my proof for such an assertion? "This theory certainly fits and explains the consistent facts of my considerable experience over many years, and I do think that I have made logically consistent arguments as to why those who take their bread-and-butter from the insane can never consistently advocate sanity, but what is still missing is the widest objective and empirical proof for my assertions." So, here, specifically, he is not disputing his own claim about Christians funding libertarianism, but the idea of an innate a hostility of libertarians towards psychology, BECAUSE of that funding...) End edit The one source I did find useful was Brian Dougherty's RADICALS FOR CAPITALISM: A FREEWHEELING HISTORY OF THE MODERN LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT. I had read it before, but not thoroughly. A quick re-skimming does reveal details about Christian-backed funding of libertarianism, but also points out some more details that make the issue not so clear-cut (i.e., how some people rejected such religious involvement, how Leonard Read was less Christian than he was "on a spiritual path", etc...that kind of stuff...no clear-cut "smoking gun". So, my question is two-fold: Could anyone point out some more sources that might substantiate Stefan's claim? And, in light of his more recent "Why I Was About Libertarians/Atheists" videos, and the defense of Christians he makes in the latter, has Stefan tempered his antipathy towards Christians funding libertarian causes, as well? Thanks, in advance.