Nov 16 2012: Chicken or the egg? The founders punted on this and provided various elastic clauses: the General Welfare clause, the commerce clause and the 10th amendment just to name a few. In addition, Jefferson was once asked, "How much should people be taxed so the government can spend on charity?" Jefferson's answer? "As much as the public will tolerate."
The General Welfare clause can be looked at as the fundamental flaw. Conservatives do not believe it should ever apply and that the government's role should be ideally limited to military protection and interstate adjudication: no safety net and no disaster relief to name a few. Liberals believe the Welfare clause means basic living standards. How can you have an ideal government when folks do not agree on the preferred society? This is similar to the notion that dental plans only cover "necessary" procedures and not "elective" ones. Does the Welfare clause cover such "necessary" basics such as education that is required for Democracy? Or should the Welfare clause also include enriching life as with NASA and funding the Arts? Looking at the tensions today in politics then the shots across the political bows are about the proper role of government: which is just another way of saying the preferred society to live in. Safety net or no safety net?
Nov 16 2012: Life is a feedback loop. What this means is that people need to take ownership of government in as much as they need an ideal government.
Which is more important:
1. Ideal government
2. Government people are invested in
I call this notion PINER: Political innovation not evolution, revolution. That being said then, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, it is not the ideal government one is looking for but the question of ideal government.
To put this into brass tacks, we need to start writing books and making movies and telling stories about the kind of world we want to live in.
Should you be a virgin until you get married? Have only sex with your spouse? Stay married till death to you part? This notions are what our government was built around. Do we still live in that world? Want too?
Our politicians cannot give us that which we cannot describe. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live before we can provide a political system to manifest it.
The question to the answer "What would your ideal government system look like?" is "What would your preferred society look like?"
Nov 5 2012: Can you induce power posturing by taking hormone supplements? Being the cynic that I am then I can just see it now that some snake oil salesman is going to start pushing some testosterone raising, cortasol lowering drug to help people in their interviews based on your research, even though the cost of doing the posture is nothing. This culture is conditioned to trust drugs and look down on things like power posturing.
To whit I think it is important to empirically prove that it is not just the hormones alone. Perhaps two groups: one group changing hormone levels via drugs or food and the other group changes levels via exercise or artificial setting.
Nov 5 2012: a little like "what are you willing to do in order to have succes and people to like you?"
Here's another way to think about this.
In order to be successful one must first believe it without actually having done it. Failure is involved. This has always been troubling for a good many people.
That's it. People vary as to their willingness to believe they can do something prior to actually doing it. This has another name, projection. I took the statement "fake it till you become it" is to people with miss-placed self-esteem as projection is to an athlete seeing something they do in their mind first, right before they do it.
You may fail but if you do not believe you can succeed then your chances of failure are greater.
For certain, the only thing being "faked" here is manifest self-esteem; this is not a promotion of miss-representation of who you are to others. It goes without saying there obviously must be rationale expectation and solid basis in reality for said success beliefs. Some people just have an unwarranted, unaware manifest self-esteem. Having said that, bringing donuts to a meeting to win people over to my side has been useful to me on more than one occasion. ha! And, even more ha! I even tell them that's why I'm bringing the donuts. Hoo ahh! Just call me shameless. Nothing wronging with bringing a little charm, :-D.
Nov 5 2012: Nice talk and it reminded me of a book called "Do It!" that I'd highly recommend to folks who are looking to become more self-aware. Life is a feedback loop and much of the feedback that we find ourselves up against is not what we would wish. And yet we can feel trapped by it. What you are recommending has also been found to be true about verbal communication, clothing, makeup, the food we eat and so on. There is a very inspirational video blog from a 12 year-old girl with terminal cancer called "My makeup is my wig."
Back in the 80's this talk would have fallen under the umbrella of "self-help awareness". I have read a ton of self-help books so as to be aware and be myself to best of modern science's extent and have applied so many of those principles such as you have outlined. And I have to say, education like this is so awesome. I have just never understood the negative stigma that got associated with self-help and self-awareness being somehow bad? Not only is it ok to re-program your own physical state with verbal and non-verbal communication; with clothes; with makeup and even with music, but in my opinion it is the ultimate expression of free-will to engage and manage your physical nature to match your desired thoughts and to overcome genetics or undesired state imbued by ones upbringing.
Well done. Keep up the good work. If you ever want to have a conversation about managing ticks let me know. I have more ticks that are un-trainable behavior then you can shake a stick it and have learned a great deal how to compensate. I enjoy public speaking, perform, lead groups in the work place and overall have adapted to the genetics. Also, Steven Pinker is one of personal heroes. Woot!
Nov 5 2012: "Having experienced power wannabes, I find them dishonest, pretentious, and lacking in content."
I'm just curious if you apply this same thinking to how people should dress? Do people need to wear a suit to business meetings? Should people buy expensive watches? Should people try to project a certain persona in their appearance to match who they are?
To be perfectly frank, having experienced power brokers I find them by-and-large to be dishonest, pretentious, and lacking in content. I believe Scott Adams has the right of it in calling out the Peter Principle. Mark Twain had some pithy comments about idiots in Congress. I've worked in numerous corporations in my life and have found that most people holding power have a much higher opinion of their abilities then the people under them know them to actually possess. Power brokers are like the Emperor walking around with no clothes. One could then conclude that, in fact, being pretentious is being a power broker.
Call this Mybrid's Law of Power: power wannabes, in order to fit in with the power brokers, need to find themselves dishonest, pretentious, and lacking in content so as to fit in with other power brokers.
To whit what Amy is recommending is spot on: to the extent that it comes off pretentious then you'll fit right in with the power brokers, that's what they do. To the extent one is trying to project and communicate what you want to project rather than how you may feel or naturally convey then the audience wins. Win-win. I do not see a downside and that's all I really wanted to say.
Side note:
And as a musician and performer I have to say I find an audience does not want to see some natural expression of what appears to be pain but is really just me naturally concentrating. Few people naturally smile when they concentrate. So, you learn to smile when you perform and after awhile it becomes unconscious and not forced. And at the end of the day that is all Amy is recommending.
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A reply on Conversation: What would your ideal government system look like?
The General Welfare clause can be looked at as the fundamental flaw. Conservatives do not believe it should ever apply and that the government's role should be ideally limited to military protection and interstate adjudication: no safety net and no disaster relief to name a few. Liberals believe the Welfare clause means basic living standards. How can you have an ideal government when folks do not agree on the preferred society? This is similar to the notion that dental plans only cover "necessary" procedures and not "elective" ones. Does the Welfare clause cover such "necessary" basics such as education that is required for Democracy? Or should the Welfare clause also include enriching life as with NASA and funding the Arts? Looking at the tensions today in politics then the shots across the political bows are about the proper role of government: which is just another way of saying the preferred society to live in. Safety net or no safety net?
A comment on Conversation: What would your ideal government system look like?
Which is more important:
1. Ideal government
2. Government people are invested in
I call this notion PINER: Political innovation not evolution, revolution. That being said then, in the spirit of Douglas Adams, it is not the ideal government one is looking for but the question of ideal government.
To put this into brass tacks, we need to start writing books and making movies and telling stories about the kind of world we want to live in.
Should you be a virgin until you get married? Have only sex with your spouse? Stay married till death to you part? This notions are what our government was built around. Do we still live in that world? Want too?
Our politicians cannot give us that which we cannot describe. We need to decide what kind of society we want to live before we can provide a political system to manifest it.
The question to the answer "What would your ideal government system look like?" is "What would your preferred society look like?"
A comment on Talk: Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are
To whit I think it is important to empirically prove that it is not just the hormones alone. Perhaps two groups: one group changing hormone levels via drugs or food and the other group changes levels via exercise or artificial setting.
Something to consider.
A reply on Talk: Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are
Here's another way to think about this.
In order to be successful one must first believe it without actually having done it. Failure is involved. This has always been troubling for a good many people.
That's it. People vary as to their willingness to believe they can do something prior to actually doing it. This has another name, projection. I took the statement "fake it till you become it" is to people with miss-placed self-esteem as projection is to an athlete seeing something they do in their mind first, right before they do it.
You may fail but if you do not believe you can succeed then your chances of failure are greater.
For certain, the only thing being "faked" here is manifest self-esteem; this is not a promotion of miss-representation of who you are to others. It goes without saying there obviously must be rationale expectation and solid basis in reality for said success beliefs. Some people just have an unwarranted, unaware manifest self-esteem. Having said that, bringing donuts to a meeting to win people over to my side has been useful to me on more than one occasion. ha! And, even more ha! I even tell them that's why I'm bringing the donuts. Hoo ahh! Just call me shameless. Nothing wronging with bringing a little charm, :-D.
A comment on Talk: Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are
http://www.youtube.com/user/taliajoy18?feature=results_main
Back in the 80's this talk would have fallen under the umbrella of "self-help awareness". I have read a ton of self-help books so as to be aware and be myself to best of modern science's extent and have applied so many of those principles such as you have outlined. And I have to say, education like this is so awesome. I have just never understood the negative stigma that got associated with self-help and self-awareness being somehow bad? Not only is it ok to re-program your own physical state with verbal and non-verbal communication; with clothes; with makeup and even with music, but in my opinion it is the ultimate expression of free-will to engage and manage your physical nature to match your desired thoughts and to overcome genetics or undesired state imbued by ones upbringing.
Well done. Keep up the good work. If you ever want to have a conversation about managing ticks let me know. I have more ticks that are un-trainable behavior then you can shake a stick it and have learned a great deal how to compensate. I enjoy public speaking, perform, lead groups in the work place and overall have adapted to the genetics. Also, Steven Pinker is one of personal heroes. Woot!
Go! Go! Go!
A reply on Talk: Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are
I'm just curious if you apply this same thinking to how people should dress? Do people need to wear a suit to business meetings? Should people buy expensive watches? Should people try to project a certain persona in their appearance to match who they are?
To be perfectly frank, having experienced power brokers I find them by-and-large to be dishonest, pretentious, and lacking in content. I believe Scott Adams has the right of it in calling out the Peter Principle. Mark Twain had some pithy comments about idiots in Congress. I've worked in numerous corporations in my life and have found that most people holding power have a much higher opinion of their abilities then the people under them know them to actually possess. Power brokers are like the Emperor walking around with no clothes. One could then conclude that, in fact, being pretentious is being a power broker.
Call this Mybrid's Law of Power: power wannabes, in order to fit in with the power brokers, need to find themselves dishonest, pretentious, and lacking in content so as to fit in with other power brokers.
To whit what Amy is recommending is spot on: to the extent that it comes off pretentious then you'll fit right in with the power brokers, that's what they do. To the extent one is trying to project and communicate what you want to project rather than how you may feel or naturally convey then the audience wins. Win-win. I do not see a downside and that's all I really wanted to say.
Side note:
And as a musician and performer I have to say I find an audience does not want to see some natural expression of what appears to be pain but is really just me naturally concentrating. Few people naturally smile when they concentrate. So, you learn to smile when you perform and after awhile it becomes unconscious and not forced. And at the end of the day that is all Amy is recommending.