Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marzshox

Regulars
  • Posts

    60
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Marzshox reacted to Gus Van Horn blog in Reblogged:How Ideas Propagate   
    Years ago, possibly through Alex Epstein's How to Talk to Anyone About Energy course or Don Watkins's Persuasion Mastery course, I recall one of the later steps of the process of persuasion being to point the other person to a book which will present whatever argument or viewpoint you are promoting in a comprehensive way.

    This makes perfect sense and mirrors my own experience. Way back in grad school, a big-L Libertarian contacted me after reading a few of my student newspaper columns, saying among other things that he thought I'd "make a good Libertarian."

    I disagreed, and began arguing that the Libertarian movement would actually harm the cause of liberty. We emailed back and forth for quite some time.

    (This was a surprise, as I'd expected a short correspondence, ended by him insulting me for bringing Ayn Rand into the conversation: That's basically what had always happened in my semi-captive audiences with my Libertarian ex-father-in-law...)

    I finally reached the conclusion that (a) this guy was actually interested in what I was saying, although he did not always agree with it, and (b) he needed (and was ready) to see a better case than I was making because his questions and objections were intelligent. So I lent him my well-worn copy of Peter Schwartz's booklet, Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty.

    A week or so passed, and I, probably a decade older than the Libertarian, began to think something like, This kid's ghosting me. Time to ask for my booklet back.

    Within about another day, and before I'd done anything else, I heard back from him. He'd changed his mind! "Chalk one up for pamphleteering," his email began.

    Some time later, at his suggestion I would join him in starting a campus Objectivist club, which did very well.

    That is, in microcosm, how the kind of ideas we need to spread, to improve our culture happens: One mind at a time, and, crucially, with each new fellow traveler deciding on his own to join the cause in whatever capacity makes sense to him.

    I've been re-reading Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It lately, and this episode came to my mind as I read the essay "An Untitled Letter," where she commented on John Rawls's A Theory of Justice.

    Within is her brief description of the funhouse mirror image of how good ideas spread: how bad works gain currency. It is instructive to consider the differences between the two processes:When one considers the need to change the overall direction of a culture, this sounds intimidating. But omitted from the above are important elements of context, supplied in part by Rand's description of how more active-minded readers will react to such garbage (within that essay); as well as how intellectuals can influence a culture, and in this way, affect the course of history (elsewhere).

    In short, merely looking at numbers is the wrong way to view cultural trends. The people who glom on to an impenetrable work they keep hearing is profound do not count in that regard. They can't or won't bother to grasp anything truly original.

    They're the ones who skip editorials and run away from serious conversations of any kind. There are tons of them and, aside from perhaps being amenable to persuasion at a very superficial level, on a very specific issue, and for a very short time, they are not the best targets for meaningful, long-range attempts to persuade them of something that will challenge major philosophical premises most people in their society -- likely including themselves -- hold.

    -- CAVLink to Original
  2. Like
    Marzshox got a reaction from softwareNerd in Poker Brain   
    Poker is one of my most favored activities that also happens to have long lasting neurological effects (as a result of extensive playing). I’ve had the fortunate opportunity of playing upwards of 8,500 hands of poker in the last several months alone (online play). While this isn’t a long enough period of time to result in the “burned in” synaptic wiring that corresponds to the many repeated-a-session. It’s certainly a start!   The more I played the more I built up a repertoire of strategy and techniques that I could apply to every succeeding hand after learning something from the previous one . It’s also very true that playing somewhat heavily for hours, I would increase my understanding in almost epiphany like strides where deep understanding merely emerged subconsciously at integral parts, periodically. Kind of like a scientist looking for a big solution when finally all his efforts lead to a result, that just “clicks”. It’s all so clear.   Accomplishing a feat of poker or executing “intermediate” like abilities is quite pleasing and a result of playing such hands technically and intuitively “brilliantly”, releases a surge of dopamine all on its own (Hello! Gamblers Anonymous!).   However the buzz kill most surely occurs in no time at all. Suddenly your confidence is trifled, you make very amateur mistakes. It’s as if you learned absolutely nothing. You’re back at stage one. Much of life is like this. :/   The reason I’ve chosen Poker as the main emblem of this discussion is simply because of it’s many benefits that carry over in to everyday human life. Learning the game/playing often not only hones your intuition and understanding of others, but radically will improve memory and decision making. Above all else I feel emotional control trumps the list. The game will teach you to think with your head, remain calm and not act on impulsive emotions in daily life.   Best of all the game will teach you how to think for the future, deal with failure, and make wise choices throughout the day! You will weigh all options at superior levels.   Added: I haven't posted in awhile. Most often my posts reflect what I'm reading at the time. As of late it's been only poker, or Star Trek fiction!!
  3. Like
    Marzshox reacted to DavidV in Local Forum Creation Prerequisites   
    I’ve been thinking about the requirements necessary to create local forums, and the oversight that local members will have over that forum. I believe that some prerequisites are necessary to create forums that will be used appropriately.

    Regarding forum creation:

    By default, three local members must request a local forum before it is created. They can either second and third the original poster, or a single requester can name the other two members. There are some exceptions: If you’re from a major urban area (million +) only two member requests are necessary, and only one request is necessary from members with 500+ posts, patron members, or moderators.

    Regarding forum ownership:

    By default, local forums will be treated as part of the rest of the site. However, leaders of local Objectivist groups may request to become local leaders, and become moderators for the forum.
  4. Like
    Marzshox reacted to Eiuol in Silicon Vally emerged from Roswell, Technology   
    The way I see it, the people who think technology literally came from aliens don't actually recognize what is required of creativity and invention. Even if there was a UFO crash and some engineers reverse engineered a computer, to expand on the technology requires immense understanding of what led up to it.
    I am extremely interested in the field of psychology of creativity. To be sure, it is important to understand philosophically what the meaning of creation is and what it logically depends upon. But for a complete understanding, psychology is also required. To be clear, my answer here is focused on psychology, not the social requirements politically speaking, or a broad answer in terms of ethics.
    Universities do not themselves create creative ability. All they really can do is create a space for research, or transmit existing knowledge. From my own research in terms of books I've read, and my own pursuits with psychology, creativity is fundamentally about altering your conceptual structure in order to gain a new understanding of the world before you. That would be a theory of discontinuous development - it isn't linear, and it isn't just a matter of learning more. That's why a crashed spaceship would not really enable new technologies, because all the people looking at it are thinking in an existing conceptual structure with specific premises. Imagine the state of medicine now, compared to when people spoke about the four humors. Before it was theorized that germs cause disease, people thought about sickness in a totally different way.
    A sense of curiosity and openness to experiences are pieces of how new ideas are generated - psychology research bears this out. Of existing measures of creativity (there is no measure for simply creativity though, but there are  ways to measure aspects of creativity) IQ isn't a big factor, but it does help up to 120.
    Is this the sort of answer you are looking for?
  5. Like
    Marzshox got a reaction from softwareNerd in New Zealand - What Is Notable About It?   
    It's the home of the great Burt Monroe, whose Indian motorcycle won him records at Bonneville Salt Flats! 
     
  6. Like
    Marzshox got a reaction from softwareNerd in Apple encryption   
    Actually I'm not full of theories. Just a storm in my mind that sometimes comes up with unlikely ideas.
    Even if I don't find truth in them or consider them good ideas, I will occasionally share them anyway just as food for thought.
    For example. A television from Japan that has a finger sensor button, could actually be a webcam that the Japanese use to have access to every Americans living room.
    Though unlikely, if you think of what technology exists and realize that such a scenario is possible... It's not so far fetched.
    However, because such possibilities are unlikely occurences, doesn't mean they're not possible: 
    The government usually reverse engineers such technology, before it is carelessly put on the market.
    I don't believe such unlikely scenarios actually happen, but they are none the less interesting ideas.
  7. Like
    Marzshox got a reaction from softwareNerd in The reading brain   
    Yeah, I meant decedents not ancestors. Sorry, It's been awhile since I've typed this much online.
    Glad you cleared this up. This teaches me something I did not know.
     
  8. Like
    Marzshox got a reaction from softwareNerd in Restoring Hearing To The Deaf, Sight to the Blind   
    This reminds me of some of the extraordinary senses that blind people have that compensate for their lack of sight.
    For one, a blind woman I know, once made a comment on my brothers new footwear. She could smell the new leather once he had walked in her home.
    Another case was of a young African boy. If I remember correctly, he was born with no eyes, or had them removed at a very young age, for reasons of health complications.
    As this boy grew older, he developed his own way of recognizing physical obstacles in his environment. He would let out a chirp like clicking sound with his mouth, which would reflect off of hard objects, and he would literally hear where the sound had echoed back from.
    This allowed him to ride bikes, play basketball, and walk around inside or outside, without bumping in to anything.
     
  9. Like
    Marzshox reacted to Reidy in The reading brain   
    Two thoughts occured to me as I read your post.
    One is that if reading is as unsuited to our brains as she says, then maybe these notions of neuroanatomy as destiny and genetics as destiny are wrong; we don't really face an anomaly that needs explaining away.
    The other is that what she says about the internet is remarkably similar to what grownups were saying about TV when I was a child in the Eisenhower era.
×
×
  • Create New...