Guitar Gear Forum

ajaxlepinski wrote:I'm not saying that psychologists and social scientists are always wrong but, they are certainly not always right.
It is impossible to prove that people are born with a certain set of values, sexual orientation or, sense of right and wrong.
It's more likely that, people are born with a certain capacity for intelligence - that capacity determines how well they will be able to understand themselves, how well they will interpret the world around them and how well they will be able to survive in it.
Hence, the expression: "He's not playing with a full deck".

It's not impossible to prove that people are born with certain values. They've studied it extensively even in toddler interaction, where you see what the values of individuals are before they can even necessarily verbally communicate. There's a nature/nurturer dynamic always, but morality in general is deeply embedded in human genetics. It's not a cultural phenomena. Culture will then allow it to manifest in various ways, but there's a reason why liberal/conservative thinking is a truism around the world. It's mostly inherent, and what we end up arguing and associating with or straying away from are the manifestations that culture enables, like the branding of our two political parties. That's a secondary phenomena to the base moral underpinnings.

Which is why you have moderates who lean a certain way, but don't always agree how the political apparatus operates on certain issues, and will struggle with the "team" direction.

Liberals like the free flow and free access of information, and for that reason they question rigid structure. To the liberal it's not adaptable enough to be updated when needed. Conservatives like the preservation of tried and true things, and don't like things being messed with before taking a lot of long hard looks at it. Changing what works brings unintended consequences.

These two ways of thinking is probably as old as our great grandmother Lucy.

Ostinato Rubato wrote:

ajaxlepinski wrote:I'm not saying that psychologists and social scientists are always wrong but, they are certainly not always right.
It is impossible to prove that people are born with a certain set of values, sexual orientation or, sense of right and wrong.
It's more likely that, people are born with a certain capacity for intelligence - that capacity determines how well they will be able to understand themselves, how well they will interpret the world around them and how well they will be able to survive in it.
Hence, the expression: "He's not playing with a full deck".

It's not impossible to prove that people are born with certain values. They've studied it extensively even in toddler interaction, where you see what the values of individuals are before they can even necessarily verbally communicate. There's a nature/nurturer dynamic always, but morality in general is deeply embedded in human genetics. It's not a cultural phenomena. Culture will then allow it to manifest in various ways, but there's a reason why liberal/conservative thinking is a truism around the world. It's mostly inherent, and what we end up arguing and associating with or straying away from are the manifestations that culture enables, like the branding of our two political parties. That's a secondary phenomena to the base moral underpinnings.

Which is why you have moderates who lean a certain way, but don't always agree how the political apparatus operates on certain issues, and will struggle with the "team" direction.

Liberals like the free flow and free access of information, and for that reason they question rigid structure. To the liberal it's not adaptable enough to be updated when needed. Conservatives like the preservation of tried and true things, and don't like things being messed with before taking a lot of long hard looks at it. Changing what works brings unintended consequences.

These two ways of thinking is probably as old as our great grandmother Lucy.

Leaving things the same can also bring unintended consequences... even if they appear to be working for the moment.

No one will argue that, selfish behavior is a survival trait for children.
However, the same child that steals a piece of candy from another on one day, may on a different day, give their only piece of candy to another child. It all depends on their mood, motives and their capacity for understanding.
I have watched a few documentaries about child development and I am certainly no expert but, the researchers never seem to consider that children will have different reactions to the same stimulus at different times, depending on their mood - little kids are constantly changing their personal zeitgheist/mood and sometimes the change can be dramatic.
Culture, Capacity for Learning, Economics and Environment all play a part in how our behavior develops, how it is allowed to develop, and how our behavior finally manifests itself as a adult.
Certainly, infants and small children prioritize their own well being and personal space. Their behavior revolves around survival and their reactions to testing is predicated on mood (am I hungry or not, am I hot or cold, do I want that or, can I give it away, why am I here, why is this person prodding me, I'm in a mood to play but, this scientist wants me to do this but I'd rather do that, etc).

I would propose that, along with being born with a certain IQ capacity, some people are born with the inability to grow out of the survival based, selfish frame of mind.
Remaining selfish and growing up to adulthood, in a poor socioeconomic environment, is not going to play our well on any level.
However, in a wealthy socioeconomic environment, remaining selfish may not be as much of a detriment to one's success and it may even be considered an asset.
From what perspective are the researchers analyzing child behavior? Rich man or poor man?
Ha! I digress.
Maybe kids can be labeled at a young age as being good or bad. I just see too many variables to be certain.

At the end of the day there's enough evidence to suggest that the left and right are both justifiable perspectives when divorced from the political branding that happens within a culture, and that people have deeply valid reasons for being drawn to certain positions and they seem to run deeper than just life experiences and intellect.

If we can accept this premise enough then we might be able to start having some worthwhile conversation with each other. We're at a point where we're attributing motives to someone who's on the other side of the aisle just because we don't like the branding of the party they are associated with, and they way that the apparatus has distorted the underlying values to make us think in extreme ways against each other.

We have more in common than not, and our differences are healthy when utilized correctly. They can lead to the best and most nuanced decisions being made.

you are making my head hurt - can we just get back to the memes!??!?!?

Ostinato Rubato wrote:At the end of the day there's enough evidence to suggest that the left and right are both justifiable perspectives when divorced from the political branding that happens within a culture, and that people have deeply valid reasons for being drawn to certain positions and they seem to run deeper than just life experiences and intellect.

If we can accept this premise enough then we might be able to start having some worthwhile conversation with each other. We're at a point where we're attributing motives to someone who's on the other side of the aisle just because we don't like the branding of the party they are associated with, and they way that the apparatus has distorted the underlying values to make us think in extreme ways against each other.

We have more in common than not, and our differences are healthy when utilized correctly. They can lead to the best and most nuanced decisions being made.

Totally agree... 100%.

If Congress agreed to passing one bill at a time, without adding pork (or multiple bills) then, worthwhile conversations would be easy.
When one party adds pork to a bill, the other side feels obligated to block passage.
Most of the pork, added to bills, has to do with stealing tax money - no politician enters politics for the salary.
Politicians earmark quid quo pro funds to go towards a project with the sole intention of getting kickback donations from the receiver of the funds.
For example: Bailout money is a wonderful way for politicians to collect millions in donations from the CEOs who receive billions in bailout cash.
Much of the political arguing is over pork - it is the pork and the resulting donations that prevent worthwhile conversations.
When the Democrats see the Republicans about to make some big donation money from a quid pro quo deal, they obstruct until they get their piece of the pie.
And when the Republicans see that the Democrats are about to make some extra cash, they argue the point until they get their cut. (you vote for my pork and I'll vote for yours)
Most political fights, between Republicans and Democrats has to do with making extra money, beyond their salaries.
Both sides of the aisle steal tax money and both sides cover for each other - neither party wants to kill the goose that's laying millions in golden eggs.
Get rid of Super PAKs, lobbyist money and quid pro quo funding, and political discussions will be short and productive.

ajaxlepinski wrote:......
Get rid of Super PAKs, lobbyist money and quid pro quo funding, and political discussions will be short and productive.

I was with you until this last part..........

clipless bumper wrote:

ajaxlepinski wrote:......
Get rid of Super PAKs, lobbyist money and quid pro quo funding, and political discussions will be short and productive.

I was with you until this last part..........

Well, maybe political discussions won't be as divisive?

so i guess someone posted that he was dead on 4chan before it was announced in the media

also the prison guards falsified records and could have been sleeping when he died.

did anyone see his cell mate? dude is jacked.

they are also saying that he made multiple claims in the past about having loads of incriminating material on tons of high profile people.

yeah seems like what goes on in the "inside" is not at all what we expect to be happening , but palms N grease

sleewell wrote:so i guess someone posted that he was dead on 4chan before it was announced in the media

also the prison guards falsified records and could have been sleeping when he died.

did anyone see his cell mate? dude is jacked.

they are also saying that he made multiple claims in the past about having loads of incriminating material on tons of high profile people.

I also read an article, yesterday, saying he had collected incrimination evidence - too bad it took the FBI 4 weeks to search Pedo Island.
I bet a "cleanup crew" visited every Epstein property immediately after his arrest and certainly before the FBI.
If Epstein's attorney had a sealed envelope, I'm sure he already sold it to the highest bidder.

they have his madam , 5 bucks says she is the "Jefe" .

I hope she hired her own, 24 hour body guards and food tasters.

scratch that , I'm not sure they have her , I can't nail that info down . ps chromes new news pages sucks

Is this legit?

fretless wrote:they have his madam , 5 bucks says she is the "Jefe" .

Ghislaine Maxwell ? She's got tons of money from her dad.

Devin wrote:Is this legit?

I heard the same thing.
Michael Baden also appeared on Fox News several times.... not that it matters but, it's an indicator of his allegiance.

I'm surprised that Epstein's body hasn't been "accidentally" cremated yet.

This started floating around the interwebz... probably fake... if it was a prison guard who wrote it, it would be easy for the FBI to figure out who it was...

ajaxlepinski wrote:This started floating around the interwebz... probably fake... if it was a prison guard who wrote it, it would be easy for the FBI to figure out who it was...

Seems legit

yeah , no

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... nsion.html

All I know is, I’ve spent quite a bit of time over on Palm Beach on the Island and it’s a weird place. It’s uncomfortable.

During season, if you spend enough time over there at night, you’ll often see the resemblances of “Eyes wide shut.”

That’s all I’ll say about that.