I would constitute this thread as a cyber attack to takeover the site.
Non-disprovable hypothesis suck.
adsenanim
Karma: −102
The major drawback of a PUA community is that it acts as an isolated system; or in harsh terms, like inbreeding.
What you are obfuscating is the idea of a very complex history that doesn’t relate to the argument you are presenting, much like using the two slit experiment to justify existentialism.
One thing I would point out is that the arguments presented here are a considerable effort into the examination of one’s own personal psyche, and that of the common psyche.
While it can be a definite benefit to examine this topic, I advise caution of moderation in the attempt.
I admire the authors own example in doing the equivalent: “I’m not recommending these, just putting them out there for consideration”
My main point of argument is that examination need not be experimentation, we can form hypothesis for consideration and not be burdened with the responsibility of an incorrect interaction.
I find the examples presented in this argument unnecessary (Freedman) if the examiner is capable of limited self examination.
In consideration of the main argument I would say that in my own experience it is possible to advise some of their own awareness without adhering to the presented guideline, that others may be of a nature above the need for any guideline, and, others yet may find completion in never knowing the presented guideline.
Don’t forget that event-related idioms can skew meaning as well...
The use of this poem contributes quite a bit to the argument as it is a factual event and a future possible event.
It is a positive action to do something that will be beneficial within ones own lifetime, and also to repeat something that has been done in the past that is a current benefit.
Planting trees has the benefit of carbon sequestration and the added benefit of providing growth of known positive environmental factors such as increased biodiversity.
The negative aspect of this post is that the wording is similar to religious propaganda such as used by World Vision.
Is this a local game, or are you going to add a way to let people in other locations contribute?
If your only proponents are local than you are not creating a global idea...
I know this is a silly question, but do you know the figures you are presenting may be equated to the forces produced by the action of wind on a sail?
Your romantic dinner is a distance away, and I hope you are not following Achilles after the Tortoise.
I would take the basic premise to be that we are trying the “guilty party” with the idea of “reasonable doubt”.
I’m ok with “Agatha Christy” to the limit of fictional argument, but one would have to give a stronger argument than the “Corax” to find a plausible definition to a physical phenomena. After all, the whole point is to understand.
The more complex a system becomes, the easier it is to destabilize it.
Is this a conditional argument?
From what you are saying, with the mixed strategy NE, I get that possible moves increase in relation to the complexity of the equilibrium, so that it becomes increasingly likely that any possible action could have an added emphasis that would cause a specific outcome as the equilibrium increases in complexity.
e.g.
What you are describing with the pendulum motion, the pendulum does not require additional effort in both directions to increase, only one direction, and the effort need be only the smallest (or smaller in addition) in relation to the period, and direction. An action to large in the same direction, or against the direction will destabilize it.
Isn’t it true that the more precise the equilibrium, the less effort is required to destabilize it?
I think that the main difference between our arguments is that while you are talking of simultaneous action, I am talking of sequential action...
Nice Job!
Can you relate this to Parrondo’s Paradox?
I assume this is being done because you can’t figure out how to separate important topics with low votes from being overcrowded by less important topics with higher votes?
Imagine, giving up solid scientific ideas to interpretation by those who are not able to, or don’t want to put an idea to the test.
Science doesn’t vote, it tests, and if the new idea doesn’t pass the test, then it is foot-noted and put aside.
Ah, so sad...
If it works, it works, if not it is just an idea of how things might work.
“”Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything? … Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?”″
“Where is this coming from? You seem to think everyone interested in alternative employment is a hikikomori. While I’d be hard pressed not to think there’s a substantial minority here with social problems (based on the AQ scores talked about some months ago, for example), nonetheless you go too far—this literally is the mistake of thinking that because all A are B, all B are A!”
The classical representation is that if A=B then B=A
Of course this is just a simple relation.
A can be made of many parts; B can be made of many parts.
forgive me, I havn’t got the whole making quotes thing....
|No. Although a “LessWork” resume database would be cool.
It might be.
|Understanding all experience is beyond anyone’s ability. That said, there’s more to human experience than just traditional western employment (although that’s fine as well).
I don’t think that understanding all experience is beyond ability, we are the product of evolution, experience defines us....
Are you saying that you have the ability to understand all experience without having to participate in reality, or, are you saying that because you are young you want the easiest job you can find?
Maybe you are saying that you want some small form of participation without having to experience anything?
Is this supposed to be some new form of resume?
Maybe you are saying that you have experienced everything within your physical and social reality and have to find some form of work to feed yourself?
?
Thanks, nice link.
I must say though that my example is mainly to illustrate the point of Implicit learning (breaking the code) being harder than explicit learning (being given a key).
I prefer breaking the code most times.
I guess the double entendre about Carlin was a bit to implicit… maybe just not funny...
:)
The calculus example is a good one for examining goal-achievement.
I am currently taking Calculus 2, Integration by Trigonometric Substitution is one of the methods.
The textbook I am using is very Implicit in examples explaining this method, and I have thought many times about how much easier it would be if it were to use more Explicit examples.
Implicit examples by nature take more time and effort than explicit examples, making the implicit less likely to be chosen than the explicit.
It would have to be one very highly motivated 8-year-old to pass the calculus test, or one that has an extremely high ability to understand implicit examples.
As far as the goals of a comedian, he/she would have to be very highly motivated and very good at implicit learning to gain anything from ‘Garfield and Friends’.
Myself, I would choose George Carlin as an explicit example…
One can never assume, :)
My question of “why” relates to the idea that there have been so many examples of a rebellion against society (status quo) by groups and individuals.
Some of these examples are successful, most are not, but all seem to act to make “the great mass of humanity through time” change in a common direction.
It’s almost as if we have been evolving (?), and each case of rebellion is a sudden mutation....
If only we could figure out what constitutes a successful mutation.
SarahC used it in her (?) argument.
I want to know where and why it was said.
Thomas Paine wrote about atheism during a revolution, Martin Luther nailed his argument to a door of a church.
I voted you up for finding the where, but I still want to know the why.
I’m sorry to see this happen to this site, it was a nice place to discuss things in a positive way.
I’m not sure what religion has got hold of it, but gee whiz, I’m sorry for it happening.