We’ve all been advised to “accept” some bad thing. You know: “it is what it is”, “embrace the suck”, and variations thereof. But what does it mean to accept something?
Viewing entries in
Explorations Outside
For those who want to understand the Other Side better, here’s a few do’s and don’ts: ...Don’t paint the Other Side with a broad brush; realize there is a range of opinions within all groups. ...Don’t attribute the opinions of the most extreme of the Other Side to the whole group. ...
Observing thoughts is like registering words without trying to understand what is being said. If we’re talking to someone, we want them to listen to us, not observe us. Listening requires relinquishing control, allowing oneself to enter another world – to be taken into that world. To follow the sprites. Listening involves a lot of non-listening - attention to something other than the just the words: gestures, facial expressions, inflections, interpretations of what we’re hearing, inchoate reactions, incipient responses partly rehearsed.
Per Laska and Gurman, “common factors” are those that are “necessary and sufficient for change: (a) an emotionally charged bond between the therapist and patient, (b) a confiding healing setting in which therapy takes place, (c) a therapist who provides a psychologically derived and culturally embedded explanation for emotional distress, (d) an explanation that is adaptive (i.e., provides viable and believable options for overcoming specific difficulties) and is accepted by the patient, and (e) a set of procedures or rituals engaged by the patient and therapist that leads the patient to enact something that is positive, helpful, or adaptive.” (p. 469)
A few types of Power: Control over Resources, Control over Rewards, and Coercion/Punishment. Power is subject to the Law of Personal Exploitation – the person/entity who cares less has the power to exploit the person who cares more (applicable to government services to employer-employee relations to marriages, etc.).
Having too much time on one’s hands, as in "today I really don't have to do anything, although I know I should" often leads to inertia and procrastination, which feeds on itself: the longer one delays doing something, the harder it is to just do it. Not doing erodes self-confidence in one’s ability to achieve something through doing. Self-confidence isn’t a willed attitude – if it’s healthy and not delusional, self-confidence is based on accumulating evidence one can do what it takes for the task at hand
.
The thing about monopolies is that they are mostly harmful when they are truly monopolies - that is, there is no real competition for the product/service they provide and the price of entry is steep for potential competitors. But what constitutes the competition is not always obvious. Take Greyhound. Greyhound could be considered a monopoly in some areas of the country, but only when competition is defined as other companies of the same kind, i.e., other bus companies. We know that’s absurd. Greyhound’s competitors are also other forms of transportation: cars, planes, trains.
Years ago I went to a meeting. People were talking about moments of feeling bad about themselves. When recounting these episodes, there was this pained look on their faces, as if the experience of being self-critical was a type of suffering, for which they required years of therapy. I kept on thinking: Oh, pleeeease!
If only more people were aware of their dark potential, the world would truly be a better place. Accepting that all of us are inherently flawed would make it harder to dismiss or dehumanize anyone in particular. It would also make it harder to believe in utopian ideologies, which bring out the worst in our species.
Mind wandering is the brain exploring the problem space. It’s where the brain goes when we are not intentionally focusing on something (or, to be precise, when those parts of the brain are not engaged in processes that are experienced as intentionally focusing on things, with the understanding that “experiencing” is also a product of the brain). Problem spaces being what they are, the human animal is not always in a cheerful mood when its mind is wandering.
Tropes of Derision are mocking words and phrases used by The Unsympathetic Observer to frame its object as unworthy of respect or compassion. This is the first of an occasional series....Be inconvenienced: implies opposition is based on convenience and people’s unwillingness to give up their comfort and selfish ways (see: An Inconvenient Truth). Those who resist our message are not principled – they’re just spoiled and lazy.
Problem spaces being what they are, the human animal is not always in a cheerful mood when its mind is wandering. Not necessarily unhappy – but maybe a notch or two down on the happy-ometer.
The Process: identify policy goal; identify obstacles to goal (the problem); explore and become knowledgeable about the nature of the problem (causal factors, moderators, mediators, interactions); explore possible solutions to problem (pros/cons, trade-offs, incentives/disincentives, consequences, impact on other policy goals, etc.); identify the type of data needed to assess effectiveness and desirability of each solution; set up data collection and analysis system; experiment with possible hypotheses/solutions; analyze findings; refine hypotheses; tweak or reject solutions and experiment again with remaining options, ideally in different conditions (as effectiveness may depend on local contexts)....
Perceived scarcity happens when we want a limited resource that other people want too. Scarcity fuels desire; scarcity leads to suffering. By definition, most people cannot enjoy scarce goods. To me, scarcity is like the first law of existence. Whatever you want, if it's out there and others want it too, then the law of scarcity applies. Bottom line: if what you want is a resource available to others and it is generally desirable, it becomes scarce, with all that implies.
Humans typically seek social validation of their views – without which, niggling reservations rarely rise to the level of conviction. And without the courage of conviction, it’s awfully hard to resist the powers that be. We’ll just follow orders, however uncomfortable we feel about them.
...subjects have a conversation with a digitized person. When the face of this “person” frowns, scowls and otherwise looks unfriendly, the subjects report not really liking him. When the face is friendly, laughs a lot, and mirrors the subjects’ facial expressions and head movements, the subjects report liking him.
Recently I read about a woman railing against tech workers saying she reminds herself not to call tech employers “companies” but “corporations”, the better to maintain her indignation. Finding the words that vilify…. But why are “corporations” tainted and not “companies”?
Hype: nefarious others are exaggerating...Nefarious: sarcasm...
Puffery: “Examples: legendary, great, acclaimed, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, award-winning, landmark, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, hit, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso, honorable, awesome ..."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Words_to_watch
Heuristics that are useful except when they aren’t: 1) It depends; 2) Context is everything; 3) The devil’s in the details...