50 Rules, Fnord's quote, Denis Waitley quote

Post Reply New Topic

I will admit I do have a problem with this.



Huh!! I am very confused by what you are saying here. Maybe your brain operates differently than mine. This is along the lines of how I think. Let's say one is consistently late to his job. He is eventually fired. He thinks traffic prevented him from getting to work. In fact, he is consistently late to many appointments and he thinks it is traffic. People get angry with him and he loses friends and family. He believes he can't control traffic and there is nothing he can do. He then wonders, what if he is wrong? He starts to have doubts about his perceived lack of responsibility. He starts to develop a negative disposition towards his own belief of his lack of responsibility. He keeps asking himself "how am I wrong I'm always getting stuck in traffic?" The man mulls over this and his late appointments. He asks himself how can I be on time to my appointments with consistent traffic? He thinks "I don't see how this is possible." After a while an idea hits him. He thinks "for my future appointments I need to leave a hour early. " He implements this idea and obtains good results. Not only is he is their to his appointments on time but he is there early. Sometimes he is their earlier then those he has an appointment with. He is considered reliable. People like him.

If he did not dwell and analyze his past how would he have altered his future results? I do not follow your logic at all.



How do you derive this from the Lot story? I don't understand. All I read is that she was told not to her head back. In fact, Lot and his family was told not to do it. I don't believe the bible states the thoughts in her head whatsoever. I do not derive any kind of point from this part of the story except that she disobeyed an order she was given.

If one has rowboating as a hobby and his boat consistently gets holes because it hits rocks a lot and it leaks when it does wouldn't you want to dwell on the past events of the boat to try to understand why one's boat kept getting holes? If one does not analyze what occured how can one come up with a solution? Maybe he analyzes the bottom of the boat and reenforces the bottom. Unless I am mistaken, I'm interpreting you as saying not to even worry about past sinking of the boats at all. To me, this makes no sense and defies any logic I understand.




Why wouldn't he try to figure out a way around what he can't do? What if he analyzes what he thinks he can't do and it turns out there is a fix or one of his assumptions is faulty? How is one supposed mitigate, work-around or over something he can't do if it is unacceptable to focus on it? I do not understand the thinking on this. To me, it makes no sense.



Maybe because he sees certain beliefs in a given belief system as faulty or the very least they make no sense to him. They come across as Jabberwocky. Maybe he does not accept that just because most of the population in a given society accepts a belief as true does not make it true. This is based upon The Parable of the Poisoned Well(http://www.theparableteller.com/2010/08 ... -well.html)

In addition, he keeps in mind that maybe his assumptions are faulty as well.



I was using the car as a metaphorical example. I should've elaborated. This makes no sense though. If you see a problem and identitfy it one already has a complaint. If one has no complaint then how does he have a problem. How is it possible to identify a problem at all? One has to be able to identify a problem in order to find resolution am I correct? If my assumptions are faulty then why are they faulty?





So, we're in agreement then? This is how I see reality. This is not what is promoted though in our society. What is promoted is things like "you can do anything you set your mind to" or "if you believe hard enough and long enough then your dreams will come to." Henry Ford did not just dream of the Model T. He had it built, massed produced and sold. He had the ability and know how to do this.



This form of thinking is alien to me. I do not think in this way whatsoever. I did not know one was supposed to think in this way. This is how my thought processes work. I initally believe there are some things I can't do. I will call one instance x. I look at the statements of "I can't do it" or "it can't be done" as conclusions from premises. Later after I state these statements or think about them I ask myself what if my conclusion is based upon a faulty premise? There have been times my conclusion has been faulty. I apply my negative thinking to my negative conclusion and correct the faulty premise.

For example, right now I do not believe I can obtain a job at all. I do have a track record in which I have lasted in jobs for quite a bit. My doubt of my ability to obtain a job at all is in doubt. What I seek in this case is to know am I correct in my negativity and my "I can't" attitude or are my premises faulty?

Another example, I didn't think I could wash dishes whatsoever because of my motor coordination problems. Since I have doubts about what I am able to do I then start to doubt the doubting. I start asking myself what if there is a way I can wash the dishes. It took a long time but I found a solution. I doubted my own negativity and the premises the conclusion it came from. I had a negative disposition towards certain premises that made up the negative conclusion.



Sorry, I should've elaborated. I was using the changing of the tire in a metaphorical sense. I've taught myself to tie a tie before by looking it up. I've forgotten it and I would have to re-learn it. I had to go through the steps multiple times. I had doubts I could ever tie a tie until it came to me to look it up. Even then, I still had doubts about tying the tie. Therein lies the problem. What if my doubts are based upon faulty premises. What it turned out was I had problems following the mirror image and I missed a step. The only way I was able to catch this missing step was to play the video step by step and pause in between steps. I was able to disprove my own doubts on tying a tie and my premise that led me to this doubt was missing a step everytime until I did the step by step and pause the video method.



This is what I do not understand myself. To me, one has to have a starting point. How would it be possible to literally prove everything? It took me a long time to grasp this myself. If one has to have proof for all then how would we establish a starting point that is not derived from something else. If one proves x one would have to prove the premises that led to x. One would have to prove the premises that led to the conclusions that became the premises that led to x. This could go on in a infinte regression. To me, one has to have an axiom to start from. The axioms that are accepted today include All A are A and Existence Exists. Can you prove these two things? Can you prove that a chair is a chair? Can you prove that existence exists? Is it possible to disprove existence as existing but still existing to think about existence not thinking? How would you prove these things? My question to you is why is accepting some things based upon faith is considered ignoble to you if certain things are considered axiomatic, axioms and starting points must exist?




Again, I was using this as a metaphorical example. I should've elaborated. Again, my apologies. My point is there are limits that a person can do. If I am wrong and If the "I can" belief and method always holds up then why can't one do telekinesis and in fact we can be like Q from star trek who can change the very rules and laws of space and time itself? I do not believe I can change the very rules and laws of space and time itself with my belief and thoughts alone. Do I have a premise that is faulty?



This is a good idea as well. This is what I would think to do. If one does that wouldn't one be considered giving up? I thought it was unacceptable to give up. I do not understand.



Why do a lot of people promote mere belief alone and that mere belief alone can give ability? This is what comes across to me.



One has to make sure he knows how to do it, has the right equipment and he is doing it correctly. For me, obtaining a job something kept nagging at me that did not quite feel right as well besides my work history. In order for me to state with absolute certainity that I can't work and pass the interviews. For the I can't work part, how is it possible for me to prove this? I would have to be able to tested on every job that exists now. For the interview, what if there is a way to effectively train me to pass an interview. I am starting to go to a workshop every tuesday and thursday. The guy breaks it down in simplistic, specific and concrete terms. What if I am wrong? What if there is a way I can pass it? What if my doubts about my passing the interview have major holes in the premises? I am starting to doubt my own doubt of my ability to obtain and keep a job? What if my negativity is flawed? This how I think Fnord. If my thinking is faulty how do I think like you? Your thinking is so foreign.

The statement, "Don't use the red lug nuts," creates a class of lug nuts whose use is prohibited, and identifies red ones as members of that class. Using the expressio principle, I interpret that to mean that only the red ones are members of that prohibited class, and the exclusion that I identify is that other colours are excluded from the prohibited class. But suppose that someone then brings in brown lug nuts. Those were not in the bag when the instruction, "don't use the red ones," was made. Now we have a real ambiguity--because the brown ones weren't there, I cannot know whether brown ones are excluded from the prohibited class, or would have been included had they been in the bag at the time.

What I think you have done is introduce this level of ambiguity at an earlier stage. You are quite correct in seeing that the instruction, "don't use the red ones," is silent on the question of whether or not to use the other colours. But there is a means of interpretation to allow us to express ourselves economically, using the fewest words necessary to convey the full meaning.

The legal profession is the place in which precision of language is most often desired. Take one look at taxation legislation to see the degree to which precision in language leads to incomprehensibility. Infamously, there was a provision of Canada's Income Tax Act that was eight hundred words long, and the first punctuation was the period. In the last four or five decades the legal profession and law schools have been pushing hard for the use of "plain english" as a means of getting away from language that is so precise and so convoluted as to exclude a lay person from any comprehension of what has been written.



AS is one of those "checklist" disorders from the the DSM-IV where you need a prescribed number of tick marks from various presentations to arrive at a diagnosis. There must be an impairment to social interaction, but this impairment can take one of several forms: impairment in non-verbal interactive behaviours; impairment in the development of peer relationships; lack of spontaneous sharing of interests or activities; impairment of social reciprocity.

So while your impairment might be grounded in the inability to understand the unspoken part of the instruction, "move this to the opposite side of the stove," mine is grounded in an impairment of reciprocity. (And for the life of me I still only get sarcasm about 50% of the time...)

But one essential criterion for all Aspies is that we present no significant cognitive or language delays. Our deficit is not in the understanding of language--but rather in the understanding of the non-verbal elements that accomany language, or the non-verbal context that is an aid to interpretation of language.

(And, yes, my name is: )

I think most people on the autism spectrum are analytical thinkers like yourself and me. Fnord seems not to be which makes me wonder if he is truly on the autism spectrum.

I think he is correct in some cases though. There are certain situations in life where being over-analytical can trip you up and lead to analysis paralysis. It can make you too inhibited and unwilling to take risks. A lot of things in life are somewhat random and serendipitous. If you really have your mind set on a certain job, but are turned down after the interview, you might get hung up for months trying to analyze what you did wrong. In reality it could have been that you didn't necessarily do anything wrong but it was simply the case that a lot of people interviewed for that particular job and someone else happened to be a better fit for what that particular employer wanted. There are situations in life where the chances of hitting success on any individual effort are low for almost anyone, like landing a job in a bad market. In these situations pure persistence can pay off.

You're right, I am impaired in the non-verbal part. I know the definition of reciprocity but I do not understand how you apply it. Can you give me a specific example if you do not mind? I do better with specific examples.

With the rowboat example, I will say that one doesn't need to be in his head to much or he could get eaten by a shark. This may be what Fnord is alluding to and if it is I do believe he is correct. To me, not to dwell on one's past and learn from it makes no sense. To me, if one does not learn from history he is doomed to repeat it.

I think it's really about finding some kind of happy medium. There is a tendency for people on the autism spectrum to be overly analytical and it can sometimes lead to paralysis and depression. Some situations there is no getting around a risk of failure and figuring out what works for you has to be a process of trial and error. This requires action. The trick would be to figure out how much of the past you had control over and learn from those situations where you could have made a better choice. Focusing on things you don't have a lot of control over is more harmful than good.

I think it is about finding some kind of happy medium as well. Here is where one of my main problems lie. It is presented in America as though everyone can follow and succeed at their dreams if they believe hard enough and try hard enough. It is presented as though if he believes hard enough eventually his efforts will always produce results? Using a prospertous example, why can't I use telepathy and fly. Going outside of the propertous and using more realistic examples, why do we have people in residental homes, group homes, mental institutions, and social security? Why do people end up comitting sucide in America? Why don't we ever hear from those who sunk? Why are the successes in America always talked about and presented but never the failures? Are we not receiving a biased and slanted report of what America is and whom is able to succeed in America?

I have another question. We always hear about those whom are wanting to come into America including illegal aliens. Why don't we hear the other side of the equation and that is why don't we hear about those who were unhappy and left America? Why isn't this published in major news sources whatsoever or ever talked about?

Guess what? I found someone who seems to be a success outside of America and he left because he was unhappy. People here claim we're free. He claims otherwise. I've been asking some of the same questions as well.

Is he truthfully correct on anything he writes about?

http://www.happierabroad.com/
http://www.happierabroad.com/ebook/Page31b.htm
http://blog.happierabroad.com/2010/06/t ... -open.html
http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7567
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/index.php

Some of the problems he has with America I have as well. In fact, I have a question for those on wrongplanet. We've all been trying to figure out the American social veener out. It is presented as though that this veener is the epitome of all that is good and perfect? If it is so why isn't it open to questioning whatsoever? Why must one project this aura of confidence, extraversion and energy in order to succeed at all in America?

Here are more of my questions. Can the American people themselves with the social veener ever violate anyone's inalienable rights? In the 10th amendment from our bill of rights it says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." What kind of powers do the people have? Is abuse of said powers by the people possible? If yes, why and if not why not? Is the American social veener a part of these powers the American people have? Are the people themselves abusing their powers and are tyrranical through the social veener?

In America, why isn't one allowed and is socially unacceptable to to question a normal person's perception of things? Let's talk about the handshake. It is said in America one must give a firm handshake and this displays confidence. People here do not like what they call the fishy or wimpy handshake. Everytime I present an alternative scenario the other person becomes upset and thinks I'm being disrespectful. I am showing that I do not want to hurt your hand. In fact, I don't like firm handshakes and when they squeeze to hard. They act like this alternative example I present is not even possible and the American interpretation is the only one that even possibly even exists. Forget it being valid. People here seem to deny their are alternate interpretations. They will not even consider an examination.

A lot of the things he says here I actually agree. http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Attitude_Fanatics.htm

People here will deny your interpretation, your perception and anything else that does not fit their veneer whatsoever. It is all about attitude with people here. IMHO,it is treated as though that one's attitude is the building blocks of time and space. It is treated as though one can create their reality through thoughts alone? It is true one can influence their reality but what's the extent like he asks?

Why is it culturally unacceptable to blame an external entity at all in America? How much control does one truthfully have of his circumstances?

I have similar issues to this guy.

I think that all of your questions are valid ones and they are valid in all societies.

As to how this relates to your first paragraph, consider the issue of fulfilling expectations.

If I am going to sell people a self-help book, then how am I going to maximize my sales? There is a strong view that suggests that the best way to get people to buy a message is to tell people what they want to hear. If a person buys, How to Be an Incredibly Successful Business Tycoon, that person probably doesn't want to read, "you only have a 0.0001% chance of becoming a billionaire."

Yes, a lot of people fail. A lot of people cannot--through no fault of their own--achieve self-sufficiency, let alone prosperity. But is that the kind of instructive example that people want to read about?

People like having their biases reinforced. Meanwhile, news organizations are not in the business of journalism--no! They are in the business of bringing advertisers and consumers together. And the way that they get the latter is by telling the stories that people want to read.

You, on the other hand, are a critical consumer of information. You interest seems not to be in having your biases confirmed--or else your biases are inconsistent with the prevailing cultural biases in your country. So it stands to reason that you are going to see a disconnect between what is presented to you as a consumer of information and your expectations.