Daniel Earwicker

Reading, United Kingdom

Someone is shy

Daniel hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Daniel Earwicker
Posted over 3 years ago
Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0
How universal is the universalism? It's possible to imagine some pretty unpleasant rituals, and whatever you imagine, someone somewhere has probably carried out such a ritual in the name of their religion. Where do you draw the line as to the religious holidays you would agree to celebrate?
Noface
Daniel Earwicker
Posted over 3 years ago
Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0
de Botton has a little dig at Dawkins, but Dawkins likes singing Christmas carols too! Far too many take the easy root of responding to this cartoon, straw-man version of Dawkins. All too often they're taking a position not a million miles from his. de Botton praises many things about religions, but fully rejects belief in the supernatural. The problem is that it is the belief in the supernatural that truly defines religions; none of the other aspects he mentions are unique to religion (he explains most of them with reference to a non-religious counterpart).
Noface
Daniel Earwicker
Posted almost 5 years ago
Derek Sivers: Keep your goals to yourself
This makes sense. So from now on, whenever I want to achieve something, I won't tell anyone about it. I feel so much better now I've said that to you all! Oh damn... What if your actual goal is to be happy/satisfied? Your "announced" goal is just a means to that end. e.g. you think learning the clarinet will make you happier, so you tell your friends. By talking about the desire to play the clarinet, you become satisfied about it and feel a little happier before you even start. This makes you less likely to ever learn to play a note, but on the up-side, you've actually already achieved your ultimate goal: feeling better! Consider the test referred to in the above talk: at the end of the experiment, which group sounded happier?
Noface
Daniel Earwicker
Posted about 5 years ago
Barry Schwartz: The paradox of choice
If you can't find a mobile/cell phone that doesn't do "too much", that's a gap in the market; though probably not a serious gap because of course you can always ignore the features you don't need, which is what we all do, so society isn't going to crumble because it has too many cameras on phones. If it's impossible to find a doctor these days that will tell you what treatment you need, then that implies all the doctors are doing the same thing. In other words: not enough choice in styles of medical treatment - probably due to the way medicine is regulated (at least in the sense that a long history of law suits builds up into a form of regulation, and probably also in the more direct sense of government regulation). At which point I find I'm struck with an irresistible urge to stop watching this and go to bed, so I'm going to exercise my choice to do that. It's good to have a choice.