PDA

View Full Version : Who's Pulling Your Strings?



Jovialis
04-01-18, 18:58
We are all influenced by our upbringing – both our environment and our caregivers shape how and who we turn out to be; what we care about and what is important to us. However there comes a time when we must take responsibility for ourselves and learn to resist adjusting to become what others’ judge to be best and instead choose to be what we value.

Most people will present different personas to different people. Your mother will not be the same way she is with you at home when she is at work, or indeed, when she is with her own mother or her partner. We all have a stable and recognisable personality but this alters depending on our environment and who we are with. It can also be shaken by traumatic events or fail to develop properly or be damaged by mental health issues. However, if you have poor boundaries or have an overdeveloped need to be liked or to have approval, then you are susceptible to adapting yourself to others and losing your sense of self. In this way you present as someone who is open to challenge, who can be overruled or ignored when decisions are made or simply someone who is regarded as wishy-washy. Conversely you can be bigoted or dogmatic believing views that were presented to you as you developed and that you have not tested for their relevance to you as you perceive yourself now.

If you present as adaptable or compliant, you can be taken advantage of. Your boundaries are not sure or strong enough to resist those who are stronger personalities with more resilient convictions than you. This may be for all sorts of reasons. You may have had to be “pleasing” in order to get what you needed when you were growing up. You may have needed to be compliant or to have adapted quickly to an inconsistent care giver or adult or even a forceful sibling as you grew up. You may have had to take an adult role before you were fully adult, adopting rules and values that you were not ready for and did not choose. Whatever the reason you will be seen as a “push over” or an “easy touch” or otherwise as someone who is intractable and bigoted. If you don’t want to continue in this way, you need to decide what values constitute who you are and then portray these. This is hard work but the only way to change the way people react towards you is to change how you respond and present to them.

This is what is meant by having “the courage of your convictions”. Do you value what you stand for enough to withstand others’ attempts to dissuade you or undermine you? Are you sure the values you have are yours – are they some outdated views of a parent or carer? Only you can choose for yourself what matters and it is in this choosing and deciding that we become adult. It no longer matters what your caregivers would have thought or your old headmaster or your brother, when you truly become you, it only matters what your own values are and how you judge yourself. In this way you become free of others’ opinions and you start to become what and who matters to you and to portray this in how you behave.

Once you have achieved this and can no longer be bullied or swayed by others, then you have become your adult self. You will like yourself and this will translate into how you are treated by others. In your personal life you can decide what you will or won’t give way on and what matters to you. In work you may have to rein it in a little – after all you are being paid to do a certain job or task so it’s no good deciding after taking a job in a supermarket that you are a committed vegan and can’t countenance selling animal products; make sure you don’t accept such a job in the first place Having principles and sticking by them is admirable but you need to pick your battles and decide what is vitally important to you and who you perceive yourself to be and what you can let go.

All of this takes time and courage. If you have always been easily convinced by others’ arguments or insistence then find someone you admire and try to emulate what they stand for. Think of how you like to be treated and adopt those values for yourself. Jettison the behaviors that no longer suit you and that are outdated for who and how you want to be. We are all a “project in the making” none of us are perfect or get it right, indeed, we learn most through our mistakes. So take your time, you are building your adult self after all. Try things out, evolve, listen to those you like and admire and adopt the values that are close to your heart. As you do this you will feel more and more like “yourself” and as such will be recognizable to others. In this way you can become fully “you”. You are now a product of your own making and choosing, someone that will continue to evolve and grow. In this way your become the architect of you, something that will enhance both your mental and physical health for the rest of your life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/handy-hints-humans/201801/whos-pulling-your-strings

I think it is important to be open to change, if it is reasonable to do so. Nevertheless, there should be a balance between being steadfast in certain values we hold and the ability to compromise. As the article states, I think it is important to have certain archetypes that you should emulate; such as great figures in history, parents, and family members imo. Nevertheless, they too could be somewhat different from what we hold valuable to ourselves. It's really a question of what you as an individual holds valuable. However, it is important to also be guided by a structured set of values; though this could be tailored as well. While I think it is important to think critically, and be objective; being subjective and preferential is important to shaping our values as well. This is what molds our unique interests and tastes in our personal lives.

But when it comes to serious discussion, in matters like science; we need to be objective. I think the biggest issue with some debate is that people impose their subjective values, in spite of empirical evidence that says otherwise.

Angela
05-01-18, 01:44
I think it is important to be open to change, if it is reasonable to do so. Nevertheless, there should be a balance between being steadfast in certain values we hold and the ability to compromise. As the article states, I think it is important to have certain archetypes that you should emulate; such as great figures in history, parents, and family members imo. Nevertheless, they too could be somewhat different from what we hold valuable to ourselves. It's really a question of what you as an individual holds valuable. However, it is important to also be guided by a structured set of values; though this could be tailored as well. While I think it is important to think critically, and be objective; being subjective and preferential is important to shaping our values as well. This is what molds our unique interests and tastes in our personal lives.

But when it comes to serious discussion, in matters like science; we need to be objective. I think the biggest issue with some debate is that people impose their subjective values, in spite of empirical evidence that says otherwise.

Razib Khan has been writing a series of posts bemoaning this situation: the end of any attempt by most people to be objective and to produce and analyze data objectively.

He thinks it spells disaster for our culture. I agree.

Jovialis
05-01-18, 02:12
Razib Khan has been writing a series of posts bemoaning this situation: the end of any attempt by most people to be objective and to produce and analyze data objectively.

He thinks it spells disaster for our culture. I agree.

Me too, it's also often obvious when people are not being objective. Rather, they think being strident and hostile can make up for a lack of empirical evidence. The problem is, that sort of behavior appeals to people that are cut-out to be mindless followers.

Salento
05-01-18, 22:01
What about @itovoi?
He threatened to ...... me. I still don’t know what the heck he was talking about.
Any hint? Anybody?

davef
06-01-18, 03:09
What about @itovoi?
He threatened to ...... me. I still don’t know what the heck he was talking about.
Any hint? Anybody?
I have no idea why as well, you should message him privately asking what it was all about. Hopefully you'll settle things between the two of you.

Salento
06-01-18, 04:11
I have no idea why as well, you should message him privately asking what it was all about. Hopefully you'll settle things between the two of you.

We should all “Choose Our Words Carefully”. That remind of:
https://youtu.be/J-rMbmCg6nc
[emoji2] lol

davef
06-01-18, 15:05
We should all “Choose Our Words Carefully”. That remind of:
https://youtu.be/J-rMbmCg6nc
[emoji2] lol
THIIIIIS OR THAT OR WHATEVER IS SPAAAAAAAAAARTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA

https://youtu.be/w2JFMd73AzQ

Salento
06-01-18, 16:30
THIIIIIS OR THAT OR WHATEVER IS SPAAAAAAAAAARTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AA

https://youtu.be/w2JFMd73AzQ

Ooooh, You have chosen your words Carefully @Davef!
Examples of NOT Choosing words Carefully:
“I have a really good brain”
“Trust me, I’m like a Smart Person”
https://youtu.be/vXpik2IIeaQ
[emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
and just 1 Hour ago [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23]
“and been like really smart”
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180106/3c44ac5e6f950df2f31963fb10d7623f.jpg

bicicleur
06-01-18, 17:25
Razib Khan has been writing a series of posts bemoaning this situation: the end of any attempt by most people to be objective and to produce and analyze data objectively.
He thinks it spells disaster for our culture. I agree.
that is a consequence of modern democracy which is way to egalitarian
everybody has a say, even in matters they can't comprehend
it gives power to the manipulators of these peoples minds
look at the impact of the movie 'an unconvenient truth' by Al Gore
the spectators didn't understand anything about the matter, but they were impressed and demanded politicians to take immediate action
of course these politicians did so immediately, it was good for their image, but they didn't take the most efficient measurments
the same with Brexit, how can you explain a majority of the people voted for this? but it happened
what about Trump? did he realy expect himself to win the elections? can't the system produce a better president? some people think he might even be re-elected next term

Jovialis
06-01-18, 17:45
that is a consequence of modern democracy which is way to egalitarian
everybody has a say, even in matters they can't comprehend
it gives power to the manipulators of these peoples minds
look at the impact of the movie 'an unconvenient truth' by Al Gore
the spectators didn't understand anything about the matter, but they were impressed and demanded politicians to take immediate action
of course these politicians did so immediately, it was good for their image, but they didn't take the most efficient measurments
the same with Brexit, how can you explain a majority of the people voted for this? but it happened
what about Trump? did he realy expect himself to win the elections? can't the system produce a better president? some people think he might even be re-elected next term
I did expect him to have a 50-50 chance. Because on the surface of those Real Clear politics averages, it seemed as though he was losing. But if you considered the who they were sampling; it was often more Democrats than Republicans.

None of these pollsters got it right. Trump won PA, WI, and MI; yet all of them put it in Hillary's favor.
https://www.270towin.com/2016-election-forecast-predictions/

Actual results:
https://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/bRgO6.png

Angela
06-01-18, 18:59
that is a consequence of modern democracy which is way to egalitarian
everybody has a say, even in matters they can't comprehend
it gives power to the manipulators of these peoples minds
look at the impact of the movie 'an unconvenient truth' by Al Gore
the spectators didn't understand anything about the matter, but they were impressed and demanded politicians to take immediate action
of course these politicians did so immediately, it was good for their image, but they didn't take the most efficient measurments
the same with Brexit, how can you explain a majority of the people voted for this? but it happened
what about Trump? did he realy expect himself to win the elections? can't the system produce a better president? some people think he might even be re-elected next term

All of that is true, but Khan's point is that even educated people, scholars, researchers, etc. are doing this more and more, not to mention internet "experts" shading and massaging and manipulating data. When it invades the scientific realm we're in big trouble.

bicicleur
06-01-18, 20:33
All of that is true, but Khan's point is that even educated people, scholars, researchers, etc. are doing this more and more, not to mention internet "experts" shading and massaging and manipulating data. When it invades the scientific realm we're in big trouble.

then it is not just stupidity
it is laziness
or worse, it is conscious manipulation of the truth

I guess that counts for Al Gore too
I can't imagine he is stupid enough to believe his own nonsense
allthough .. I have seen many politicians are actualy that stupid

Trump is a variation on that
he believes a lot of what he says because his mind is troubled by wishfull thinking

Angela
06-01-18, 21:21
then it is not just stupidity
it is laziness
or worse, it is conscious manipulation of the truth

I guess that counts for Al Gore too
I can't imagine he is stupid enough to believe his own nonsense
allthough .. I have seen many politicians are actualy that stupid

Trump is a variation on that
he believes a lot of what he says because his mind is troubled by wishfull thinking

In some people I think it's almost an unconscious manipulation of the data. They want to believe something, so they look only at data which supports their position, or they give it more weight, or they interpret it in the most favorable possible light. In others it's outright dishonesty. Look at the data massaging that went on with some of the climate data. That's why I think it's so important to know who or what is funding certain "research".

I also think that for science researchers, it's in part the way they're trained to approach a problem or issue. I think a lot of them would benefit from a course or two in the law. You're trained to present the best possible argument for both sides. You have to do it in real life situations as well. If you're prosecuting a case, you have to marshal all the evidence and create a persuasive argument as to why the person is guilty, but if you're going to really prepare for trial, you need to also construct the best possible case for the defense so you know what is going to come at you. Or, if you're a civil litigator, for example, you don't choose your side; you have to present the best possible case for that particular side, while trying to figure out what the other side could possibly argue.

It's like linear thinking versus more global thinking.

bicicleur
06-01-18, 21:52
In some people I think it's almost an unconscious manipulation of the data. They want to believe something, so they look only at data which supports their position, or they give it more weight, or they interpret it in the most favorable possible light. In others it's outright dishonesty. Look at the data massaging that went on with some of the climate data. That's why I think it's so important to know who or what is funding certain "research".


that is what I meant with 'wishfull thinking' obstructing the mind

those are the most convincing liars, because they believe what they say

Jovialis
06-01-18, 22:14
The problem is, you would have to establish an authoritarian-regime of technocrats if you wanted a government absent of special interests. But even then, there would be conflict, some sectors may be divided on key issues. That's why I think it's better for government to be less involved with social-engineering and central planning, and leave it to private means. But to at least be a safe guard against abuse and ensure the existence of the state, and the rights of it's people.

Politics is the authoritative-allocation of the values of society. Thus, it is by nature subjective. If the majority of a constituency does not accept or recognize it's government, it is not legitimate.

bicicleur
06-01-18, 22:25
The problem is, you would have to establish an authoritarian-regime of technocrats if you wanted a government absent of special interests.

yes, indeed, that is an utopia
that is why a democratic government with minimum intervention in society would the best alternative
but democratic governments seem to be intervening more and more in every day life of its citizens


That's why I think it's better for government to be less involved with social-engineering and central planning, and leave it to private means. But to at least be a safe guard against abuse and ensure the existence of the state, and the rights of it's people.

Politics is the authoritative-allocation of the values of society. Thus, it is by nature subjective. If the majority of a constituency does not accept or recognize it's government, it is not legitimate.

Jovialis
06-01-18, 22:46
yes, indeed, that is an utopia
that is why a democratic government with minimum intervention in society would the best alternative
but democratic governments seem to be intervening more and more in every day life of its citizens

Sorry, I added this part after you had quoted me:

But even then, there would be conflict, some sectors may be divided on key issues. (in a technocracy)

It's a balancing act between scarcity of resources, and other situations that may arise that impact the ebb and flow of the state. (i.e. conflict and competition with other states, economic-blocks, natural disaster, internal unrest, etc) But also, there would essentially still be competition between those technocratic sectors, because they're operating to produce the best results for what they're set out to do. This may clash with what another sector is trying to achieve. Unless there was a mediator/counsel that had to assess which sector get's the most attention, to serve what the state needs best. Ultimately, it begins to sound more and more like totalitarianism. Which is why the appointment of a government by a constituency is probably best, to be a check against an inefficient government itself. But because politics is subjective by nature, we can only hope for the best. The problem is, we need more educated people. You could limit the vote to people who are highly-educated, but that could cause all sorts of discrimination issues. For example, originally, only white land-owning males were allowed to vote in the US. The founding fathers wanted only to enfranchise land-owners, because they figured only individuals that have wealth were smart enough to vote for electors.

But the current problem with education is that it is failing to produce objective-minded people by and large.*

Another problem is that we've have a long period of divided government in the United States, so both sides are scraping the bottom of the barrel to gain support. Thus we have some politicians appeal to extremism on both sides. This is probably due to the two-party system (in addition to mass media), which was never supposed to be a fixture in American politics. It is something that had evolved over the course of history. Nevertheless, much of the history in the U.S. , it was either Democrats, or Republicans that controlled government for long stretches of time; and the government ran more efficiently.

HStrick
07-01-18, 06:00
"But the current problem with education is that it is failing to produce objective-minded people by and large.*"

That's what happens when schools quit teaching facts and logic so students will have the information needed to make informed decisions.
In addition, community membership and the bonds of family have become so stretched so far that kids feel more connected to their peers, whose decision-making skills re no better than their own, and the characters they watch on TV. And both these groups have little understanding and no respect for the values that once provided the lodestone for decision-making.
The "children" I'm referencing are those from the 1970s onward.

Jovialis
07-01-18, 17:06
"But the current problem with education is that it is failing to produce objective-minded people by and large.*"

That's what happens when schools quit teaching facts and logic so students will have the information needed to make informed decisions.
In addition, community membership and the bonds of family have become so stretched so far that kids feel more connected to their peers, whose decision-making skills re no better than their own, and the characters they watch on TV. And both these groups have little understanding and no respect for the values that once provided the lodestone for decision-making.
The "children" I'm referencing are those from the 1970s onward.

I recall from your previous post in my other thread (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35129-Ideals-of-Maturity-rooted-in-Religious-Philosophical-traditions-v-Emotion-Impulse) that you said you were an educator. Anecdotally, I know quite a few educators that share those same sentiments. Parenting is probably a source of the issue as well. You're right, the influence of peers probably also impacts the development of a person's values in formative years. There was a motivational speaker named Jim Rohn that stated "we are the sum of the 5 people we spend the most time with" (http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rohn-youre-the-average-of-the-five-people-you-spend-the-most-time-with-2012-7). I believe this to be true, because especially teenagers will tend to listen to their friends more than their parents. Because other people have lousy families, they infect the society as a whole as well. As the old saying goes, "one bad apples spoils the whole bunch". Sometimes, people are inclined to emulate the bravado of the most iconoclastic and rebellious member of their peers; they want to be bad, because it's perceived as being smart and cool. As we are social animals, being cool is valued. This is how kids gets involved with gangs, drug-use, mistreating members of the opposite-sex, promiscuity, and rudeness. They're raised by popular-culture, and the internet, absent of the guidance and values that made first-world countries a decent place to live. In today's culture, there's a lack of empathy, "greed is good", traditions are pointless, emotional-immaturity is celebrated, violence and hostility are legitimate means of facilitating change; this is a freak show. Moreover, there is a conscious effort by some in academia and politicians to breakdown traditional values. But also a consumer-culture that knows it's an effective way to sell products.