Who took society's spine?

[nash8]

No, they were all too late.



Is that your idea of spine? If so, I think I found your problem. And do you think Iran actually hates America? Have you been there? There are a lot of people there who have no problem America, quite a few idolize America, or at least our jeans and music. I do doubt Iran hates America.

In fact, I don't believe it's true at all. I think it's a conspiracy by Iran's government, as a part of a malicious plot to control them using religion and propaganda. Notice how we only get some politician talking? I've seen politicians. Those ************* are mean. We never get "man on the street." Maybe because they have no free speech or free press. I bet they hate that.

Kind of like how people in the U.S. talk about Islamic peoples out of sheer ignorance due to the propaganda spread by politicians and other people of prominence here in the U.S. And considering the grave difference in the freedom of information between the U.S. and Iran, I would say that it is substantially worse over there.

There's no spine in telling someone you hate them. That's fear. It's cowardice. It's saying "I don't have the guts to make peace with you, so I will try to goad you into making a mistake."

Indeed.

But no. It takes a courage to stand up for yourself, but it takes even more courage to those who hold power over your life. When did people start losing that power? When they started settling down and building cities. When they decided collective survival was better than wondering what your next meal was going to be. It gave us more time to imagine and invent and create. Or at least, that was the sales pitch.

Indeed. And I would also add the comfort level of said collective survival as well. But the disparity in comfortablity has also grown to great for that to be the case anymore. Sure it works here in America, but when it came down to it. How many of us could look a starving child in the face, and straight up tell them that us riding a Benz was more important than them having clean water, food, and education.

So, we can go back to more egalitarian nomadic lifestyles, getting rid of the hierarchy of city social life, and also causing 6 billion and several hundred million to die of starvation and disease when we stop farming and cleaning the water in the process. We can prove how brave we are by killing warriors in seasonal, ritual combat - assuming we live.

Indeed, but instead of digressing, why not spread the wealth.

Or we can suck it up and learn to deal with the reality before us.

Or we can suck it up and learn how to change it?

People will ignore you. Not everyone will consider you an important part of their life. It just means they care about their emotions more than they care about yours.

If they look peaceful, that's usually a calming action. Diffuse emotions and avoid social conflict. They are being triggered by a source of fear, possibly someone who is holding onto rage, thinking how stupid, selfish, and spineless they are.

Indeed

If you find people to be stupid, selfish, and spineless quite often, then one of two things might be true. You are a gifted genius, altrustic to a degree that you hold people to a higher standard, and not compassionate enough to notice how casually rude you act toward people, or you might be encountering people who are reflecting what they are getting.

I would consider myself to be a combination of all of these.

Well, this socially "unevolved" evolutionary trait comes a glitch in mixing human imaginative power, and the ancient biological drive to survive. Every single person is taught to build a goal that will help society, and having stuff has almost always been a sign of success. Whether it's stuff you made or a mansion full of asterisks. We all tell ourselves stories about what is important. Some people think it's a large home, others a pile of asterisks, and others say nothing is important but what you earned. They're all different interpretations of our survival instinct. For some people, a large home means stability to survive in their world. For others, asterisks means being able to avoid words frowned upon by our lord political correctness.

Indeed, but you miss an important point. While I agree with you that having stuff is not neccesarily a bad thing, it is the lack of balance between having stuff and helping people. As I said before, how many people within American society could honestly look at a starving child in the face, and honestly tell them that they're need to have "stuff" is more important than that child having the basic neccessities of life? Granted, their would be some, but I would think that the large majority of people would not be able to, nor would they desire to be able to do so honestly. But then again, maybe my absolute sense of altruism is just shining through.

How's that working out for other people? You seem to be really ****** off by the fact no one else seems to try or care.

These days? I don't think it's ever been considered polite or civil to say you don't like someone, or someone is wrong or mistaken. I know people who said, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." And they said it decades before political correctness was a thing.

Indeed. Telling someone your preception of the truth in a way that you know will hurt them is in fact, the opposite of having a spine in my opinon, at least in most occasions. Granted this is admittedly hard to do with a lot of people, but if you take the time you usually realize that you have common ground with the person you vehemently disagreed with on another subject. Why focus on the discord just to demonstrated your "spine"?

Think more about why you do what you do, and less about why other people do what they do. It will serve you well.

For the most part I agree with you, however I do think it is important to "understand" why people do what they do if you truly seek to help them, but at the same time you must be careful not to judge what they unless it directly affects you, and by you, I don't mean your emotional state, because then you are no different from those you seek to help. And the blind can lead the blind anywhere (unless of course that one of the blind person has DareDevil superpowers ).

 

[Luke Morningstar]

Kind of like how people in the U.S. talk about Islamic peoples out of sheer ignorance due to the propaganda spread by politicians and other people of prominence here in the U.S. And considering the grave difference in the freedom of information between the U.S. and Iran, I would say that it is substantially worse over there.

Absolutely. But the green protests proved that Iranians are no less stupid than we are. However, since they have little influence, I believe there are fewer going along with the program. Many just keep quiet to avoid notice, but would embrace a change in a second.

Sure it works here in America, but when it came down to it. How many of us could look a starving child in the face, and straight up tell them that us riding a Benz was more important than them having clean water, food, and education.

I'm constantly surprised by the cognative dissonance capable of some people. The real problem is that not enough people who own a Benz will ever have cause to look a real suffering child in the face and see the suffering. Those that do usually get involved.

Indeed, but instead of digressing, why not spread the wealth

I think spreading the wealth would be digressing. But moving forward is harder than moving back. It's why conservative movements generally have more power. The failure rate on innovation in something as silly as mobile apps is something like 90% or higher. That's true with most art, also.

Or we can suck it up and learn how to change it?

I don't really believe that's possible, but I think we agree. Dealing with reality includes dealing with change. Most of the change is out of our control, and that's the harder problem. It's pretty easy to get into a mind state where we see the change needed. The problem is getting enough people to see what we see, convincing them it's right, and then making it work. Unless we want to use violence to force our ideas, then we need to suck it up and spend most of our time like tai chi masters, redirecting things that come at us to making things better.

I would consider myself to be a combination of all of these.

I knew we'd get along fine.

Indeed, but you miss an important point. While I agree with you that having stuff is not necessarily a bad thing, it is the lack of balance between having stuff and helping people. As I said before, how many people within American society could honestly look at a starving child in the face, and honestly tell them that they're need to have "stuff" is more important than that child having the basic necessities of life? Granted, their would be some, but I would think that the large majority of people would not be able to, nor would they desire to be able to do so honestly. But then again, maybe my absolute sense of altruism is just shining through.

You are shining through just fine. Like I mention above, I think people who try to carry altruism in their heart would be surprised what people with too much are willing to do to keep things in their favor. If you haven't heard about this study, check it out: Scientists Study the Negative Effects of Income Inequality »

I think the ability to have stuff beyond what we need is dangerous, not strictly bad. And I agree that the lack of balance is important, if not the heart of the matter.

And it's pretty much a proven law that if people spend time with people suffering, they will gain a strong desire to help. Some people take more time than others. But it's not a coincidence why xenophobia and nationalism are used to ensure that things don't change in that direction.

Why focus on the discord just to demonstrated your "spine"?

Great word choice. I love it. I think it's ironic that vertebrates are the ones we definitely know have emotions like fear and anger. We get dischord when we don't tune our chord.

For the most part I agree with you, however I do think it is important to "understand" why people do what they do if you truly seek to help them, but at the same time you must be careful not to judge what they unless it directly affects you, and by you, I don't mean your emotional state, because then you are no different from those you seek to help. And the blind can lead the blind anywhere (unless of course that one of the blind person has DareDevil superpowers ).

I think I entirely agree with you. I think it's more important to understand why we want to help them. Understanding them is critical for that process, I agree.

I think altruism is deceptively selfish. To grow, we analyze our actions, our motivations, our emotional patterns. We do this in as many areas of our life as we can stand to. By doing so, we learn more about ourselves through real world application. We gain wisdom and knowledge about how to improve our lives, then we peer review it by checking with each other in giving advice and communicating ideas.

Speaking from what I know of the latest great technology from psychology, having a similar emotional state isn't bad, it's just hard. In fact, I find most of the people I really want to help have similar emotional responses as I do, and I somehow I subconsciously recognize that. I don't know how you do it, these brains are ridiculously powerful.

By paying attention to why I decide to interact with someone, helping or not, helps me see if I'm doing it for them, because most of the time, I'm really doing it to help me in some nebulous way.

By forging ourselves into better humans, we pass on our memes to those around us, even if they only pick them up subconsciously. And show how to give and be compassionate by doing it and thriving.

 

[nash8]

Absolutely. But the green protests proved that Iranians are no less stupid than we are. However, since they have little influence, I believe there are fewer going along with the program. Many just keep quiet to avoid notice, but would embrace a change in a second.

The only reason the green protests carried any weight is because prominent people took part in it, mainly members of the Iranian National team. But like you said, most that agreed with it, would not be likely to voice their opinion, because they think that it wouldn't matter. And in reality it wouldn't, it only would if a large enough population believed it would. But I would agree with you that many, if not the majority, would embrace change.

I'm constantly surprised by the cognative dissonance capable of some people. The real problem is that not enough people who own a Benz will ever have cause to look a real suffering child in the face and see the suffering. Those that do usually get involved.

Cognitive dissonance, in my opinion is the reason for human survival. However, I believe that we have reached a level of evolution where it is no longer neccessary for us to survive, at least to the degree that we use it.

And not only that, but due to the relative wealth of America, the people that own Benz's will never even likely encounter a suffering child, and America has the horrible habit of not believing anything they don't see in real life with their own eyes.

I think spreading the wealth would be digressing. But moving forward is harder than moving back. It's why conservative movements generally have more power. The failure rate on innovation in something as silly as mobile apps is something like 90% or higher. That's true with most art, also.

How would spreading the wealth be digressing? The real epic fail in my opinion is that we have put so much emphasis on innovation on something as silly as mobile apps to create the 90% failure rate. Doesn't a 90% failure rate tell you were already pretty well innovated in this area.

I don't really believe that's possible, but I think we agree. Dealing with reality includes dealing with change. Most of the change is out of our control, and that's the harder problem. It's pretty easy to get into a mind state where we see the change needed. The problem is getting enough people to see what we see, convincing them it's right, and then making it work. Unless we want to use violence to force our ideas, then we need to suck it up and spend most of our time like tai chi masters, redirecting things that come at us to making things better.

Lol getting people to see what we see, and convincing them that it would work is the problem. Getting someone to see what you think is right, impossible my friend lol. And I think your tai chi master theory might be on to something.

I knew we'd get along fine.

Lol, yeah you did.

You are shining through just fine. Like I mention above, I think people who try to carry altruism in their heart would be surprised what people with too much are willing to do to keep things in their favor. If you haven't heard about this study, check it out: Scientists Study the Negative Effects of Income Inequality »

Oh i know too well what those type of people are capable doing. The thing with that is that those people are the minority, and they rely on the majority to provide them with that wealth. If they majority ever figured that they held all the power it would be over. But then you have fear, and fear is a powerful motivator indeed.

I think the ability to have stuff beyond what we need is dangerous, not strictly bad. And I agree that the lack of balance is important, if not the heart of the matter.

Beyond need is anything beyond fresh water, food, and a shack. I think if wealth was redistrubted we could comfortably have well above that, and still have enough discrepency between the top and the bottom to drive competition. This whole 1%/99% is severly out of balance. Even if we had a 1%/70% ratio the world would be pretty well, generally speaking. Suffering due to lack of basic neccessities would be almost non existent.

And it's pretty much a proven law that if people spend time with people suffering, they will gain a strong desire to help. Some people take more time than others. But it's not a coincidence why xenophobia and nationalism are used to ensure that things don't change in that direction.

Indeed... Bill Gates is the perfect example.

Great word choice. I love it. I think it's ironic that vertebrates are the ones we definitely know have emotions like fear and anger. We get dischord when we don't tune our chord.

Very true. I had a weird idea the other night: Cockroaches don't feel fear, and they are as spineless as it gets.

I think I entirely agree with you. I think it's more important to understand why we want to help them. Understanding them is critical for that process, I agree.

Indeed.

I think altruism is deceptively selfish. To grow, we analyze our actions, our motivations, our emotional patterns. We do this in as many areas of our life as we can stand to. By doing so, we learn more about ourselves through real world application. We gain wisdom and knowledge about how to improve our lives, then we peer review it by checking with each other in giving advice and communicating ideas.

True altruism is as selfish as it gets, but that's the allure, as well as the secret to all of the compassion philosophies.
Understanding LOVE

Speaking from what I know of the latest great technology from psychology, having a similar emotional state isn't bad, it's just hard. In fact, I find most of the people I really want to help have similar emotional responses as I do, and I somehow I subconsciously recognize that. I don't know how you do it, these brains are ridiculously powerful.

From my point of view the key to similar emotional states would be to minimize emotion. This is accomplished through focusing brain activity toward the frontal lobes, and away from the hindbrain. Meditation studies have demonstrated that meditative practices can permanently change the brain. But getting the masses to meditate, easier said than done.

By paying attention to why I decide to interact with someone, helping or not, helps me see if I'm doing it for them, because most of the time, I'm really doing it to help me in some nebulous way.

I've learned that most of the time it's better not to help people lol. I have a naturally helping personality, but I've come to realize that when I try to help people "out of the kindness of my heart" it usually doesn't work out. But when I try to help myself by helping others it works out a lot better. There are, of course, excpetions but generally speaking it works better.

By forging ourselves into better humans, we pass on our memes to those around us, even if they only pick them up subconsciously. And show how to give and be compassionate by doing it and thriving.

Indeed. Be the change you want to see in the world.

 

[Orias]

What does any of this have to do with societies spine?

Its a constant game of "King of the Hill" if you ask me.

 

[nash8]

What does any of this have to do with societies spine?

Its a constant game of "King of the Hill" if you ask me.

Socieities spine has been taken, from my perspective, because they no longer have the "spine" to do what they feel. The majority of people, in my opinion, feel that it is "right" to help people that are suffering. However, they have been engrained that doing so will hurt them.

And I agree that it is a game of "King of the Hill", the only problem is that theres a big flat area at the top with only a few people on it. And those at the top have convinced those trying to climb the hill that the only way to do so is to push other people off, when in reality, the best way to the top would be to get a large group of people working together to throw those off the top.

King of the hill is supposed to be fun, but when you got 10 Rampage Jacksons on top of the hill, it kinda eliminates the point, and your relegated to get as high on the hill as you can, but never the top.

 

[nash8]

But I do agree people are WWWWAAAYYYY to damn sensitive.