nakulanb
-
Posts
86 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by nakulanb
-
-
On 12/25/2022 at 4:19 PM, happiness said:
My friend has a 7 month old baby. I don’t have much experience with babies, and I disagree with how they interact with him. I think this type of behavior around babies is extremely common. Baby talk, high pitched voices, peek-a-boo, making stupid faces and unintelligible noises that represent nothing, saying overly unrealistic and fanciful things that the baby can’t even understand. Most baby toys are also really stupid IMO, even by baby standards, and I’m concerned that they may screw the babies up epistemologically.
It’s not that I don’t like babies, but that I don’t want to interact with them in such “babyish” ways. Admittedly, I’m struggling to put my finger on exactly what I object to here—what does the term “babyish” mean if not in a manner that’s appropriate for a baby? If I had a baby, I would be more apt to carry him around with me while I do regular things, or try to think of ways to stimulate him that are based on helping him grasp objective reality. I get that maybe I just can’t relate to being a parent, am just too boring and slow witted to thing of anything to say to a baby, and that times when you just might want to do anything to make a baby smile, laugh, or stop crying. But how can you do this without doing things like making dumb giraffe sounds when you’re not a giraffe?
I agree. I think we should take into account the topics we discuss with babies and kids but never dumb ourselves down. Maybe a slightly friendlier tone is ok, but nothing un-intelligible imo.
-
They don't have to think exactly like me or be an Objectivist, simply they must be kind folks that are passionate about life.
What about you?
-
I've been enjoying Romance novels by Carla Neggers lately and the poetry of Rupi Kaur. I've also been composing lots of my own poetry lately.
-
On 9/22/2020 at 5:49 PM, nakulanb said:
This is back up with new music.
-
- dream_weaver and Boydstun
-
2
-
19 hours ago, Eiuol said:
Surprisingly enough, the opposite is true (it depends what you mean by lying though). There is no empirical evidence that telling kids all about fantasy in any way harms their orientation towards reality or comprehension of what is real or not. Kids are quite able to do this on their own, they don't require adults to help them understand what is real or not when it comes to things they see (or don't see) in everyday life. If anything, this type of fantasy enhances orientation towards reality in the sense that they are practicing making the distinction between what is right there in front of them, versus things they don't actually have evidence for. They might not have a sophisticated way to talk about unseen versus unseen things, but they are never confused about what is real or not. Kids certainly have a sense of wonder about the imaginary, but they are learning over time exactly what it means for something to be imaginary.
The same goes for imaginary friends. You can play along with the kid pretending that the imaginary friend is there, even going as far as to set up a place at the kitchen table. This isn't lying; it's pretending. It's not like you would be trying to convince the kid that the imaginary friend really is there. You don't have to remind the kid that it is pretend, they already understand that. The empirical evidence about this is that kids with imaginary friends have superior social skills to kids that do not, without any kind of cognitive deficit or issue whatsoever. Imagination is a very useful thing!
Telling kids about Santa is no different than telling them about the Grinch, or reading any Dr. Seuss book. Some sort of extreme lying like very extravagant ploys or adamantly arguing that Santa really is real probably wouldn't be good though. Leaving out cookies, having them write a list, saying that the reindeer are coming at midnight, these are the equivalent of playing along for fun.
The difference between imaginary friends and Santa is that the kid invented the friend whereas the parent tells the child about Santa. Fiction works are known to be make-believe as well.
-
Do you let your kids believe in Santa, or do you teach them about reality from a young age? RIght now, without kids, I don't believe in allowing children to have this delusion.
-
On 11/25/2019 at 11:29 PM, MisterSwig said:
I wouldn't say that. Though I don't think the source of love is your desire to see the best in them. That is a separate issue, probably an attempt to sustain the love. The source is the fact that they're your parents, they raised you, and I assume they treat you well. It would be difficult to maintain such love if your parents were monsters who treat you terribly.
Thanks for the clarification.
-
-
36 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:
Do you think your parents love you because they want to see the best in you? Might it be because they created and raised you?
Yes on all counts. Is that in contradiction with Rand's ethics?
-
No takers on this topic?
-
2 hours ago, nakulanb said:
A change of pace, an improvisation:
I took this down.
-
A change of pace, an improvisation:
-
Happy Halloween! Here I am performing "The Michael Meyers Theme Song" from the film, "Halloween".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r0rRBJeGkg&lc=z23uttep5nuagpkdracdp432ld4nfgmcv1zqreebxcpw03c010c
-
-
Thank you dream_weaver!
-
-
I'll tune in when I can. I'm interested in the drug and meditation ones, in particular.
-
I think the moral of the story is flawed, but I find the thinking of the character intriguing being that I'm interested in therapy and enjoy studying maladaptive thinking and behaviors.
-
I love this movie because I find the story touching, beautifully told and I think the sets are brilliant. The score also adds a nice touch! While I think the film went with the right ending, it's not one I support. It's all about evasion from reality and building up tall tales about your life to make it feel greater than it is rather than making your life great within reality.
Anyone seen it and agree? I've also read the book, but I don't recall it as well.
-
7 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
I spent several days and several hours each day at Guitar Center playing the electronic keyboards, listening to the voices available, and the tactile feel of the action.
As to Jazz/Blues, they're both an American phenomenon. Sometimes I forget to differentiate them.
All I can ask to that is "What did you have in mind?" or, "What can you come up with?"
I think I'm done with those two, I'm happy with the way they came out. I was just curious about your critique; I was a bit confused by your post above relating to those two pieces.
Some people, as I said, thought they were some of my best. The different criteria we carry, implicitly or explicitly, in assessing various Art work makes all the difference in what we feel about it.
-
10 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:
For Cherry Blossoms and Funnel Cake isolate and focus on just what your left hand is playing. Either do it by mental exercise while listening, or play just the left hand by itself without the right to consider it by itself.
Normally, it takes an act of focus on my behalf to isolate the harmony. In those two pieces, it just stood out. Your playing style does not strike me as one who plays by ear. If you play by ear, you may be attenuating to the melody while letting the harmony just fill in.
Would you just prefer a more interesting harmony on these two works?
-
Mind you, I took lessons from age 3 to about 16, but studied the Suzuki Method which focuses on training the ear. But I can sight-read, just not stupendously.
I do not score out my music, I simply record them, and when I need to re-learn a work, I do it with my ears.
-
You have very nice tone on the piano. The piece was very much a Blues progression!
Being into Fit Bodies isn't Always Shallow
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted
If you value fit bodies over personality, it's ok, it isn't always shallow. I care more about what is typically thought of as deep, which is personality and kind/passionate men and women, but if you are into fitness yourself, it can be a shared bond between you and your significant other. It is only shallow when you aren't bonding over anything together.
A person can be shallowly into personality when they won't date an interesting man or woman due to being good looking even if they are nice people.
I dated a stereotypically good looking girl in HS, two actually, one for like a week, the other for 8 months.
First one wasn't too good of a mix, but it was my first relationship, the second one was very interesting.