Pirate Television: Morris Berman - Why America Failed

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, no I didn't. After I stated these three categorical propositions I stated this.



I did this to show you my logical flow and how I think. By implication, if a container is filled with 50% water then the other 50% is not filled with water.

I did state the fourth categorical proposition but not in the way you expected.

I haven't read anything about the Incompleteness Theorems. I'll have to check it out. You might be interested in "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith. Just like "On The Origin of Species" remains the best and most elegant explanation of evolution, Smith remains the best and most elegant explainer of capitalism. Makes for a great read.



We'll get there on space travel. There's a guy who's setting up the basics of colonization on Mars. It's actually pretty savvy, he's funding it by turning it into a sort of reality TV show. As things like this happen, resources are discovered there, companies move there, and then we move on. I have a feeling that within a century or two we'll be out of the solar system.

The things with NTs is that so much of it is intuition. They can explain logically, and do, but they have to move past their instinctive knowledge of how things work, which is why higher level concepts are more logically explained.



These tests get a lot easier once you figure out what they're looking for, but yeah, they aren't easy. The thing with Wal-Mart, they fear unions. Desperately. Those who answer "life is fair" are more likely to strive to achieve fairness, which means unions. Those that accept that life is not fair are more likely to take the kind of crap Walmart dishes out regularly. The "correct" answers on these tests are basically the ones that demonstrate resignation, submission, and moral absolutism. Take theft. One might think that theft is less awful in the event that you're starving. Walmart disagrees. It's really, really hard to explain, but the gist of it is, if it sounds like it's implying "I want to be Walmart's b****", then odds are it's the right answer.

And never put neutral, that makes them think you're indecisive, and never pick the two extremes. It's not logical, it's based on the company's bias, and a lot of statistics goes into it.



It's basically referring to those who think that anyone deserves anything. They don't. No one deserves a living wage. No one deserves shelter. No one deserves much of anything. Unless they are able or willing to fight for whatever they want or need, one must accept what others are willing to give them, and had better do so without complaint. It's cold, but that's the way the world works.

The thing is, as cold as it might be, it also provides an incentive to help. When someone feels they deserve something without working for it, then no one wants to give it to them. However, when you have this concept, giving money to the homeless feels good, because you're doing something that you didn't have to. People never do anything that doesn't provide a return. Giving to the homeless, as a choice, provides a return in the form of "I'm such a good person, I just bought a bum a burger." That goes away if it's forced, as it would be when life is expected to be fair.

I kind of think that's what you were saying, but I wasn't sure. Does that make sense?

In your analogy, the cop violated procedure to save a life. However, whether it's good or bad depends on what the procedure is. A lot of procedures are in place to ensure maximum safety for the policeman and his colleagues. By violating procedure, he may have put all of their lives in danger, which, regardless of the outcome, sets a dangerous precedent. If it was something minor, odds are he'll by forgiven. If there were potential ramifications, then he must be chastised.



The bottom is basically the cashier, or the guy who answers phone, or the guy who gets stuck cleaning up baby vomit. They're the entry level. As they prove themselves, which basically means be submissive, do whatever the manager tells you, and constantly be looking for work (If there is none, dust the counter top or mop the floor, just to look like you're working.), they are advanced to the next level, which is not quite the boss and not quite the employee. If they kiss the boss's butt (And his boss as well), he will eventually be promoted to middle management, and so one and so forth.

If you can't kiss butt, then make damn sure that your work is impeccable. And know that everyone else will be promoted first. Did I mention that life isn't fair?



That's fine. If you are incapable, and those with autism are generally considered so, then that's why we have SSDI and other welfare. When I say "A man must make his own way", that also must go with an exemption for those who can't. As I said, we do have systems in place, and if you can't work, then there's no dishonor in utilizing them. There is dishonor for those who utilize them without being truly disabled.

Awesome, please do read it these things. You may be interested. I will make some time to try to read what you suggest.





I definitely hope so. Let's see what is out there. I'm curious.



I have had to eventually derive this as well. Sometimes it is difficult for me to realize that for them it is intuition. I have been told that it is like asking them how do they move their fingers?




I did not know this. When you mean the two extremes do you mean strongly agree and strongly disagree? I still do not understand the underlying structure of the test. If strongly agree it doesn't mean I absolutely agree. I could agree in 95 percent of all cases but disagree in 5% of them. Do I agree or disagree? How do I logically interpret this?





How does one avoid getting into this trap with people? Let's say I do want a job and want to be able to get off of social security is there a way that I can obtain help from others without falling into this deserving trap or is one not supposed to ask whatsoever? How does one obtain what he needs or desires and obtains help when he needs help without feeling deserving and without portraying that one deserves it? What is the correct way to go on this w/o pissing people off?



I see what you're saying. I was just trying to understand what mercy was and whether it was a form of fairness or not. It seems to be a moot question by your definition of whether one feels he deserves or not. Again, is there a way to obtain help w/o falling into trap? Would offering to help someone with something if they provide x amount of help would help curb this or am I still in the same trap?

My goal is to be able to succeed and do the right thing.





This brings a lot of clarity and understanding. What taking initiative means is to make sure you are constantly look for work and keep busy. If you see something that needs to be straightened out then go ahead and straighten it out. If you see a spill go ahead and clean it up? This is what the general term taking initiative means.

It does not mean to take the manager's instructions and do it your way even if you think your way is better? That is not taking initiative in their mind it is insubordination am I correct?



Well, I guess if I do want to succeed I will have to learn to kiss it and lap it up lol



I want to be able to better myself and if possible either do our nonprofit with my wife and if that doesn't work I want to be able to obtain employment. What is the best way to obtain help from others without causing offense by coming across as thinking that one deserves it? Is there a way to get it out of one's mind that one does deserve whatever x is? Is there a better way and a better technique then what I have been doing or should I not ask others whatsoever and attempt to work it out by myself?

Is believing I deserve x similar to the paradox of happiness in which if I attempt to pursue happiness directly then I can never achieve it?

What if I am wrong about certain conclusions and beliefs I have?

Basically, the way they do it is that strongly means absolutely. So it's "I disagree 100% of the time", "I disagree most of the time", "I dunno", "I agree most of the time", and "I agree 100% of the time". Best this to do is if you agree more than you disagree, hit agree.

However, this is the hard part, think of what the manager who's hiring you wants to hear and go with that option. You probably haven't met him yet, but go with the stereotype of the money-grubbing dictator with an inferiority complex and you're gold. And anything that ask you to put the company above the employee or customer, do so. But always put the customer above the employee.



Absolutely. Go through the proper avenues (Charity, social security, etc.) when possible, don't ask for more than you need, thank the giver profusely, and give back in whatever way you can, depending on who they are or what they need (Company, or volunteering, or helping them roof the house. Whatever you can do to help them when they need it). Use the money for necessities, and don't buy drugs or smokes or booze.



Mercy is not fair. Fairness would be to punish the same way every single time, regardless of circumstance. Mercy is kindness, and that's all. It's a virtue, to be sure, but it is not fair.

Offering to help someone with such and such is a good way to handle it, provided you have a reputation for following through on your word, and the help you provide is of the same magnitude of the help you required ("Pay my electric bill and I'll bake you a cake" is not the same thing. "Pay my electric bill and I'll fix your car" is more in the same ball park.). If you don't follow through 100% of the time, odds are this way won't work. A gentlemen's arrangement also leaves a lot of room for the two parties to screw each other. If you can work something out, that's great, but this sort of thing has gone by the wayside, due to human fallibility.

However, if you must ask for help from someone in particular (not a corporation or a nonprofit or such), it is generally expected that you will do something for them in return. They will almost certainly turn it down, at least once, for hospitality reasons (Iranians turn down anything three times, for example), but keep offering until it's clear they don't want it.



If a manager tells you to do it a particular way, do it a particular way. They can fire you, always remember that. Look for work, but if you're told to do something, drop everything else, asap, and do it. If different levels of management tell you to do different things, do what the top ranked guy told you. If it's the same level, explain calmly that another manager told you to do such and such and you'll try to get to their task after.

And never, never, never argue with a manager unless you are very secure in your relationship with them, even if what they are telling you is ridiculous. I was in a situation once. I was working electronics at Walmart, during Christmas season. Manager from some other department came over the intercom and called for an electronics employee to baby clothes. I finished my line as fast as I could, and hauled over there, after twenty minutes. Dude was standing there with a mop, and asked "Where the hell were you? A kid vomited here twenty minutes ago!" I looked at him, incredulous, and said "Dude, I had a line, in my department. You've been here for twenty minutes, why didn't you clean it up?" I was sent packing the next day. Just do what you're told.

As far as taking initiative, yeah, just what you said. See a spill, clean it up, make sure there's a sign there. If you're in a clothes store, fold clothes customers have left in the dressing room. Clean the counters, wander around and try to make sure everything is orderly... that's pretty much it. I've spent entire days doing nothing. I've turned it into an art form. You just have to look like you're doing something.



Lol, sadly, yes. I've been fairly lucky, I've mostly worked gas stations and such, so it was very easy to earn promotion by virtue of being about the only hard working and honest person there. A lot of managers in other fields, however, require much attention made to their gluteus maximus. Suck it up.



Heh. Let's get this out of the way right here and now. You're wrong about certain conclusions and beliefs you have. The fun of life is in learning. I know myself, I've been wrong about approximately 90% of the conclusions I've decided on, same for convictions. Socrates said "All I know is that I know nothing." This is what he meant. You don't know anything for sure, and that which you think is right and provable is only the tip of the knowledge out there. You're wrong about a lot of stuff, as are we all. Which is a damn good thing, because if we were right about everything, life wouldn't be much fun, would it?

Isn't that a fun thought?