The Golden Rule is for suckers

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201208/how-the-golden-rule-makes-us-dumb

In conflict, the Golden Rule is mute, so we abandon it, and then give ourselves or our opponents a hard time for not living up to its supposedly gold standard.

moot*

The Golden Rule is intended to appeal to your opponent’s better nature and a sense of equality.
It relies on the premise they have a ‘better nature’, a sporting competitive zeal.
This is why it fails.
Most countries in the world failed to invent or follow Queensberry rules. It’s an Anglo convention.

At best the Golden Rule is a paradox: “We should all compromise so no one has to compromise.” As such it’s perhaps a useful way to frame a moral dilemma but it’s neither golden nor a rule.  Dilemmas masquerading as principles are a big part of the problem with how humans handle conflict. The supposed rules deceive us into thinking there’s a problem-solving formula when there isn’t. They distract us from wondering about exactly the dilemmas that need our careful attention.

Instead? I suggest you adopt girl’s best friend:

http://www.sociopathworld.com/2011/09/diamond-rule.html

Madness as Moral Metaphor

http://www.henrydampier.com/2015/04/unhappy-mad-soft-moderns/

…What Thomas Szasz uncovered was that mental illnesses are better understood as metaphors for moral illness than as conventional illnesses like cancer and appendicitis. As progressives change the moral structure of society, the quasi-scientific notions of what is healthy and what is ill must also change….

That link includes this;

Properly speaking, contends Szasz, insanity is not a disease with origins to be excavated, but a behavior with meanings to be decoded. Social existence is a rule-governed game-playing ritual in which the mad person bends the rules and exploits the loopholes. Since the mad person is engaged in social performances that obey certain expectations so as to defy others, the pertinent questions are not about the origins, but about the conventions, of insanity.

That’s a very nurture-based way of looking at it, the PC lot should be delighted. Alas, that allots them responsibility for their actions, and the refutes the rationale behind claiming mental illness – absolving personal responsibility, the way others used to do with sins.

This idea washes with what I’ve witnessed.

Back to HD;

…It’s easy to blame the birth control pill for your own sexual incontinence, but much harder to confess your own willful sins. The fat man is more likely to blame Nabisco for making Oreo creme cookies so delicious rather than to look into his own gluttony, sloth, and intemperance. …

We have children in the bodies of adults. All the rights, none of the responsibility. It’s called extended adolescence, and better thought of as a form of Peter Pan Syndrome. [women ‘suffer’ it too]

There is a lot of sweeping under the rug. Promiscuity is still a sign of psychopathy. Homosexuality is often accompanied with a low impulse control, a resultant inability to be monogamous and multiple fetishes, which grow worse and more extreme over time. Everyone knows by now the HIV and suicide rates among transsexuals.

We seem to ignore our own common law. The age of criminal responsibility is none at all. If they come up with a good excuse, like a child to a teacher, they can be let off. Naturally, they hide behind the medical model, and play victim. What else can they do, change? I blame the Nanny State for part of this. It infantilises adults for the sake of their health. The problem has multiple prongs.

In a biological sense, these people are either human, with responsibility for themselves, or inhuman, and undeserving of their rights accordingly. Dangerous line of thought? Perhaps. Tell that to the prefrontal cortex studies detailing the impulse control and rational decision making that living in a civilized society demands.

Cracked accidentally explains active K-types to passive r-types

article 

Best bits;

So here’s the secret, the thing that has been plainly obvious all along: Those people out there who are accomplishing great things and seem to get 50 hours’ worth of work done every day? They’re doing it because they have that gun to their head. An imaginary gun, pressed against their temple all day, every day.

All the Ks in the audience be like

lol laughing rdj tony stark heehee haha

Now go go find the most successful person you know. Talk to them about their average week, and listen closely to what they don’t have. They either don’t have friends, or kids, or hobbies, or they don’t keep up with pop culture, or something that you actually consider very valuable to your own life. Their day is only 24 hours long, just like yours. There is no such thing as adding to it — just sacrificing one thing for another.

r-type reader: “Oh noes! You mean I have to choose?! The world should accommodate me!

I don’t know anyone of merit who considers pop culture that valuable. Most of it is mind-rotting trash.
And your hobbies should be your occupation. As in, you make money doing it. Or gain something. I like to say, make your actions pay rent. (Or dividends, if speaking to another K).
Saying: An inch of time can buy an inch of gold, but an inch of gold cannot buy an inch of time.

The friends and spouse/kid thing remind me of two good articles on the subject of time management. Every successful person has mastered that one skill before any others.
1. RR’s Human Energy is Conserved.
2. Captain Capitalism’s The Economics of Caloric Return.

Back to Cracked;

Otherwise, it’s no different from planning a budget that assumes you’ll have twice as much money as you actually make. If you want to become a different person, part of it is deciding which parts of you need to die.

You mean extra hours won’t sprout out the day cos the Government said so?
I’m not a special snowflake? No superpowers? I am shocked! Shocked and appalled!

But every obese person imagines themselves a decade from now having become thin, every coward imagines they’ll be brave, you get the idea. There’s never a defined plan for how to get from Point A to Point Z, and never an acknowledgment of the unbearable truth…

No mention of opportunity cost. Of course (sign it’s an r-type writer plagiarizing).

Stop. Don’t make be backtrack. If you had the gun to your head, you’d goddamned well find the time. If you can’t make yourself start in the next 24 hours, you wouldn’t do it even if you had 24 lifetimes.

He even mentions their high time preference, without using the verbose name;

Any great long-term project that seems impossible to most people — from building a house to writing a book to becoming an actual ninja — is possible to the people who do them only because they don’t just focus on the end goal. There’s only what they have to do today. Don’t misunderstand me — it’s not that they ignore the goal, it’s that they don’t regard what they do today and what they want to have 10 years from now as separate things. The future isn’t a fanciful wish, it’s just the logical end of a long chain of todays. What they do today and what they want to be long-term are the same thing.

How hard are the K types laughing to realize the r types literally don’t get this?
It’s like they’re fucking five. This r guy thinks no one else has discovered this.

This, right here, is at the heart of every unfulfilled ambition in your life. We use the same word — “want” — to mean two completely different things, and the constant confusion between those definitions is why so many people are disappointed in how their lives turned out.

Wrong. Want refers to intangible desire. Will refers to planned action.
Americans use ‘want’ when they mean ‘will’ because the casual culture punishes the active.

Here’s the ending, icing on Mr. Cupcake;

Now look around you — look at all of the minimum-wage people who “want” to be rich and/or famous, with some vague notion of, I don’t know, being on a reality show some day or getting “discovered” for some talent they didn’t know they had. Now look at all of the MBAs working 100-hour weeks on the trading floor because they “want” to be rich. The difference in the two is night and day, but in many cases the former group doesn’t realize it. They just stay poor while the other group starts shopping for vacation homes.

Or they blow their lottery winnings because they don’t know being rich involves more staying rich than becoming.

And I’m starting to think that the world really is divided between those who have a clear idea of what it means to want something — including the total cost and sacrifices it will take to get it — and those who are just content to leave it as an airy “wouldn’t it be nice” fantasy. The former group hones in on what they want and goes zooming after it like a shark. The latter looks at them, shakes their head and says, “How do they do it?” As if they have a cheat code, or a secret technique.

“What, you’re saying we should all be douchebag stockbrokers working hundred-hour weeks?” No.I’m saying that while some of you are sitting around the coffee shop talking about how you “want” the system to change, that douchebag is accumulating money so he can actually run for congress. Because when he “wants” something, he doesn’t sing a song about it. He prices that shit and makes a down payment. And when that relentless BMW-driving douche has kids, he’ll teach them, too, what it really means to “want” something — to be single-minded, and voracious, and to pursue it to the ends of the Earth. Instilling that lesson goes just as far toward preserving wealth and power in a group as the actual inheritance they’ll leave behind.

That is the paragraph which tells you he, himself is an r-type.
He assumes people who are better than them, must be bad people. Because they couldn’t possibly deserve it, could they? If he can’t win himself, there must be no way to do it fairly, legally, honestly. ~ bunny hamstering.

Are you scared of those people? Are you imagining them as cold-blooded stock brokers and lobbyists and swindlers, the Wolf of Wall Street types who are eating away at the world like a cancer? Well, they scare you because it’s a glimpse at what accomplishing great things actuallycosts. You know Steve Jobs was a fucking psychopath, right? So the next time somebody asks you if you want to be rich, really stop and think about it. Think about what it will take. Think about what kind of person you’ll need to become.

Money doesn’t make you evil. Quit believing in cartoons, you’re a grown man. This is why pop culture is rot.

Here’s the close (he doesn’t know his ABCs);

And that’s the point of all this — I’ve found, as time goes on, that everybody gets what they want. Not what they say they want in order to make themselves look good to others, or what they tell themselves they want so they feel better about the current state of their life. No, I’m talking about what they really want. And to find out what they really want, you don’t need to ask them. You just need to look at what they did today. You want to change, start there.

You mean…. what they deserve???

 

The Politics of Randomness

http://aeon.co/magazine/world-views/is-the-most-rational-choice-the-random-one/

Excerpts;

The list goes on. It could – it does – fill books. As any blackjack dealer or tarot reader might tell you, we have a love for the flip of the card. Why shouldn’t we? Chance has some special properties. It is a swift, consistent, and (unless your chickens all die) relatively cheap decider. Devoid of any guiding mind, it is subject to neither blame nor regret. Inhuman, it can act as a blank surface on which to descry the churning of fate or the work of divine hands. Chance distributes resources and judges disputes with perfect equanimity.

Thinking about choice and chance in this way has applications outside rural Borneo, too. In particular, it can call into question some of the basic mechanisms of our rationalist-meritocratic-democratic system – which is why, as you might imagine, a political theorist such as Stone is so interested in randomness in the first place.

Let me suggest that, in the fraught and unpredictable world in which we live, both of those ideals – total certainty and perfect reward – are delusional. That’s not to say that we shouldn’t try to increase knowledge and reward success. It’s just that, until we reach that utopia, we might want to come to terms with the reality of our situation, which is that our lives are dominated by uncertainty, biases, subjective judgments and the vagaries of chance.

Apply maths: Feminists cause inequality

Inequality is encouraged by divided decision making outcomes.

If Group A of women have no children, Group B have one and Group C have two, will their finances magically align at some point despite the pressure of expenditures caused by childrearing?

This is why societies need to actively encourage the family unit, you leftoid idiots. Children are an investment with a future taxable benefit to society. Your benefits and pensions are paid for by the investment of parents if you have no (productive) children of your own.

A palpable lack of correct information about the outcomes of different lifestyle choices e.g. partner count and divorce rates, age/fertility levels, drives natural discrete divisions into extremes.

OR

To take a non-sexed unbiased egalitarian (even Communist) example.

Give everyone in the world £2,000.

Check in a year later.

How can anyone deny that some people will be doing well, and others will be doing poorly?
Inequality is driven by fundamental differences between people. In other words, human biodiversity. Where’s the celebration of ideological and intellectual diversity? Why should idiots be supported by the intelligent for freely made choices?

In an ideal feminist utopia, everyone is a feminist.
Where are all the productive people? When you take away the motivation, the carrot e.g. quality men from offering the commitment of marriage, the system falls apart. Productive people will not work when the fruits of that labour, their natural right, is stolen from them by broken societal decree. They strike from action because they are not stupid, that is why they are productive.

Feminism isn’t a war on women per se. It’s a war on productivity, a la Cultural Marxism. On good men and good women, who might’ve found each other. It might’ve worked before globalization, pushed by the same stupid groups who expected widespread financial ruin would turn people to their anti-capitalist alternative. Now, a single SWPL princess’ faux journalism can be outsourced to a very grateful girl in India supporting her children. Hallelujah, karma is sweet.

High earners better detect economic bubbles

That in itself is a type of intelligence though. A pattern occurs to the subconscious way before conscious awareness. And pattern recognition has been argued as vital to the mind.

http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-07-high-earners-stock-game-brain.html

“At some point during the 50 trading periods of each session, a price bubble would invariably form and crash. The scientists had suspected that crowd cognition would result in some , though they had not expected it to happen every time.

What surprised the scientists even more were the distinctive brain activity patterns that emerged among the low earners and high earners.

Traders who bought more aggressively based on activity in one brain region, the nucleus accumbens, earned less.

In contrast, the high earners seemed to ignore nucleus accumbens activity in favor of the anterior insular cortex, a brain area active during bodily discomfort and unpleasant emotional states. [I’d bet money they were called pessimists by the idiots]

Just before a bubble peaked – as their brain scans were revealing an increased activity in the anterior insula – the high earners would begin to sell their shares.

The scientists believe the high earners’ brain activity may represent a neural early warning signal of an impending crash.

“It’s notoriously hard to identify bubbles and predict crashes by tracking price fluctuations alone,” said Colin Camerer, a behavioral economist at Caltech and the study’s other senior author. “This experimental method is ideal for understanding the neuropsychology of bubble formation, because we can control the fundamental values and use both prices and brain activity to figure out why bubbles form and crash.”

The model may also shed light on other contexts in which groups – and individuals – overvalue something, Montague said.

“This neurobehavioral metric could be used to help quantify situations in which people place excessive value on poor choices, such as drug addiction, compulsive gambling, or overeating,” he said. [promiscuity, suicidal politics]

Montague, who also directs the Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute’s Computational Psychiatry Unit, plans to explore the promise of mindfulness training in moderating one’s own brain activity, as well as research into real-world applications, including stock markets.

“The brain can provide us with valuable information about what someone may be perceiving about the market and what they’re likely to do next,” Montague said. “That gut feeling the high earners had? It was all in their heads.””

There is no free will in science

Our understanding of free will, in fact, was informed by theology. If you could choose how to act, religion could control you, the bread and the birch. Calvinists adopted the opposite position but still acted in accordance with scripture. Same goes for other ‘Chosen’ groups.

One day genetic engineering will prove us victors

Free will is antithetical to cause and effect. Billions of events occurred to bring us as organisms to this present moment in the universe, with our precise configuration of genes, chemicals and schemata. We may think we are choosing A over B over C, yet divorced from our personal involvement, it is easy to see which option a self-interested higher mammal will opt for on little biographical info.

Humans are predictable and the ever-dwindling excess margin is a measurement error.

Belief has an effect on outcomes, thusly it is a cause, but sustaining belief is an ability in itself (try telling that to atheists). Strength to strength, or character, as it was once known. Self-efficacy, the belief in oneself when acting, bolsters performance, in a type of outcome placebo effect.

Extremes are frowned upon by the average, it threatens them. Absolving responsibility is an outcome of misinterpretation. There is certainly responsibility for our actions, in spite of our changing understanding of choice, because we did them. Criminal responsibility requires actus reus, the act, and mens rea in many cases, the intention.

As both are present, we are not free but we are responsible.

It joins the ranks of other terrifying facts, shelved alongside precious mortality.