But what we CAN do… we can quantify some things. And we can quantify how good our predictions are, for the better predictions. And that can improve our ability to forecast, and improve our ability to affect things.
Which is what is called for here.
Quote:
You either are INSIDE the matrix and fighting for its continuity, or OUTSIDE it, wanting to destroy it. Quote:
I suspect that there are competing hardwired needs in humans: to belong to the herd and to be independent from the herd. Its a good thing the movie The Matrix came along. Those who need a metaphor to identify which herd is in and which is out have something to cling to.
This debate has been both interesting and exhausting for me after reading all 226 comments. I had hoped to tap into some of the wisdom and experience of those who post on this site with knowledge of the science for some eddification. The only viewpoint I can entirely agree with is Jordan Peterson’s: “that it’s a nightmarish mess and very difficult to seperate the science from politics.” In itself, this gives truth to the addage of science advancing one funeral at a time. Lacking an understanding of what the causes for AGW are won’t stop my attempts but does further the need for preparation, as if there isn’t enough to consider. I appreciate the time all have taken to voice their comments, it is what make’s this site unique.
ecb, I don’t know if you looked at some of the graphs in a link I posted but if you did and noticed how insignificant the recent wiggle is compared to previous ones, then I wonder if you would consider the " null hypothesis" to be appropriate or perhaps Occam’s razor?
The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This principle is often called the principle of parsimony. It underlies all scientific modeling and theory building.
Old Guy,
maybe this will help?
An Essay towards solving a Problem in the Doctrine of Chances. By the late Rev. Mr. Bayes, communicated by Mr. Price, in a letter to John Canton, M. A. and F. R. S.
P R O B L E M. Given the number of times which an unknown event has happend and failed: Required the chance that the probability of its happening in a single trial lies somewhere between any two degrees of probability that can be named. DEFINITION 1. Several events are inconsistent, when if one of them happens, none of the rest can. 2. Two events are contrary when one, or other of them must; and both together cannot happen. 3. An event is said to fail, when it cannot happen; or, which comes to the same thing, when its contrary has happened. 4. An event is said to be determined when it has either happened or failed. 5. The probability of any event is the ratio between the value at which an expectation depending on the happening of the event ought to be computed, and the chance of the thing expected upon it’s happening. 6. By chance I mean the same as probability. 7. Events are independent when the happening of any one of them does neither increase nor abate the probability of the rest.
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:
You must be referring to household candles being able to melt structural steel I-beams You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel. Nowhere in your subsequent posts did you recant this notion. Chris (and others) even tried to respectfully correct you. Instead, you just kept hammering the idea. From your post #229That quote is from an old post which I read for the first time today. Chris, I watch this video of WTC 7 burning, and "very limited" is -not- how I'd describe what I'm seeing. I apologize, I can't figure out how to make the video show in this post. You say that melted steel is an issue for you. It's a sticking point for me too, from the other direction. I have yet to understand how a simple candle can have temperature zones within the flame that exceed the melting point of some steel alloys ... http://candles.org/candle-science/Quote:... out of all of the images we have available to us of WTC 7 none of them show anything more than a very limited series of fires in a couple of spots on a couple of floors....but I'm supposed to accept that fires as large as those seen in that video would not.Chris, where does your assumption come from that the fires of WTC 7 had no temperatures sufficient to melt any steel?
An ordinary wax candle has zones within the flame where the temperatures are above the melting point of steel. But some folks insist that an inferno covering several floors couldn't possibly have had anything comparable. That's a huge limiting belief and it's amusing and sad both at once that someone who asserts that sees fit to mock anyone else about limiting beliefs!Then, in post #236, you posted a picture of a completely rusted through cast iron fire grate. This was your message accompanying it:
Chris responded in post #238I beg to differ.Quote:This is why fireplace grates don't melt
Yoxa, I've held off on commenting on your really poor grasp of the basics of science, but I really cannot let you continue deflecting this thread (again) with what must be direct attempts at misdirection because you do not otherwise come off elsewhere in other conversations with such ignorance. You do realize that the fireplace grate you have posted is cast iron, right? And you did read the very source you lifted that image from and saw that it said this, right?
What Causes Fireplace Grate Melt Down? Heat will oxidize (rust) any metal made with iron. That includes cast iron and steel. Over time, heating your grate again and again will cause the rusting process to thin the metal to the point that it bends or even severs
that's right...over time, and with ashes cast iron rusts away. Not melt. Rust. You put a long-term process (rusting) happening to cast iron and used that as 'proof' of melting. Nobody is that sloppy/ignorant...right? Well, either you are, or you are being deliberately obtuse to deflect a conversation away from an area you find uncomfortable. Further your candle "theory" is so uncomfortably ignorant that I hardly know where to begin, but it's not worthy of this site and you never responded to the numerous people who engaged you on that topic logically and rationally. Yet you dragged that drowned cat back up for another go. Science please. If we're discussing steel, please stick to steel. Don't ever confuse rusting with melting, or cast iron with structural steel. And never mistake the idealized optimum burn temperature of something with complete oxygenation with the temperature of a dark, smoky fire (especially if NIST and FEMA both already concluded the fires never got above 1000C). The mistakes you are making are profound enough that I am going to ask you to stop posting on this thread because the low-quality of your contributions. If you are being deliberately misleading for some other set of reasons then that's just worse. If you continue you will be banned.Then in post #239, you responded:
So, Yoxa, please tell me how I misrepresented your position. Also, because you are so concerned about being respectful, how should we say that you harbor ignorant notions without calling you ignorant?You presume too much. I just sometimes can't resist commenting on things that don't make sense to me.Quote:what must be direct attempts at misdirectionOkay, got it. I'll ask YOU, Chris ... start a different thread for it if you don't think it fits here ... how can you believe all this stuff and not feel compelled to flee the country?Quote:If you continue you will be banned.
Yoxa wrote:
Quote:
I just want to see a credible, defensible plan Yoxa wrote:
Quote:
half-witted "starts" Yoxa wrote:
Quote:
no solution I've actually searched for a plan. I can't find it. I cajoled Mark Cochrane a couple of years ago. He finally admitted that he knows of no plan. In a subsequent post on another thread, he said that other climate scientists get unusually quiet whenever he brings up the topic. Based on that information, I have concluded that global warming is a predicament that only has outcomes. (If there is no solution, it can't be a problem.) It's up to you "true believers" who think there is a solution to find it. Post it here and I'll be one of the first to thank you.I agree completely that "time will tell." Of course, by the time we know what should have been done, the opportunity to do so will have had vanished. It's almost as if you wrote that so you can come back later with "I told you so." Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible. How would you know if you don't produce a workable plan that evaluates the consequences? Grover
Michael_Rudmin wrote:
Grover, do you really want to come up with a credible plan? If so, then one needs to figure out how to get "there", from "here". Rules for Rulers has stood in the way so far.
I am not convinced that there IS a plan, but if there is to be a credible plan, it must account for the sociaological laws in "getting there".
Do you want to try? Do others? I think I can lead the way.Grover,
I’m sorry if this causes offence to you or the site, but I’ve been witnessing a seriously flawed pattern of behavior along this thread over a number of days that I would like to be recognised by others in residence of this forum. : -
6 Common Traits of Narcissists and Gaslighters
“Some people try to be tall by cutting off the heads of others.” —Paramahansa Yogananda Psychologist Stephen Johnson writes that a narcissist is someone who has “buried his true self-expression in response to early injuries and replaced it with a highly developed, compensatory false self.” This alternate persona often comes across as grandiose, “above others,” self-absorbed, and highly conceited. Gaslighting is a form of persistent manipulation and brainwashing that causes the victim to doubt her or himself, and to ultimately lose one’s own sense of perception, identity, and self-worth. A gaslighter’s statements and accusations are often based on deliberate falsehoods and calculated marginalization. The term gaslighting is derived from the 1944 film Gaslight, where a husband tries to convince his wife that she’s insane by causing her to question herself and her reality. Multiple studies and writings have been done on the impact of narcissism and gaslighting on relationships(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6). While each of these often destructive pathologies is unique, there are certain behavioral overlaps. Following are six common traits, with references from my books: "How to Successfully Handle Narcissists" and "How to Successfully Handle Gaslighters & Stop Psychological Bullying". Not all narcissists and gaslighters possess every characteristic identified below. However, chronic narcissists and gaslighters are likely to exhibit at least several of the following on a regular basis. 1. Frequent Lies and Exaggerations Both narcissists and gaslighters are prone to frequent lies and exaggerations (about themselves and others), and have the tendency of lifting themselves up by putting others down. While narcissists often strive to make themselves seem superior and “special” by showing off, bragging, taking undeserved credit, and other forms of self-aggrandizement, gaslighters tend to concentrate on making you feel inferior through false accusations, constant criticism, and psychological intimidation. Both narcissists and gaslighters can be adept at distortion of facts, deliberate falsehoods, character assassinations, and negative coercions. One key difference is that while the narcissist lies and exaggerates to boost their fragile self-worth, the gaslighter does so to augment their domination and control. 2. Rarely Admit Flaws and Are Highly Aggressive When Criticized Many narcissists and gaslighters have thin skin and can react poorly when called to account for their negative behavior. When challenged, the narcissist is likely to either fight (e.g., temper tantrum, excuse-making, denial, blame, hypersensitivity, etc.) or take flight (bolt out the door, avoidance, silent treatment, sulking resentment, or other forms of passive-aggression). The gaslighter nearly always resorts to escalation by doubling or tripling down on their false accusations or coercions, to intimidate or oppress their opponent. Many gaslighters view relationships as inherently competitive rather than collaborative; a zero-sum game where one is either a winner or a loser, on top or at the bottom. “Offense is the best defense” is a mantra for many gaslighters, which also represents their aggressive method of relating to people. 3. False Image Projection “My husband always wants people to see him as successful, powerful, and envy-worthy, no matter how shaky his real life actually is.” —Anonymous partner of narcissist Both narcissists and gaslighters tend to project false, idealized images of themselves to the world, in order to hide their inner insecurities. Many narcissists like to impress others by making themselves look good externally. This “trophy complex" can exhibit itself physically, romantically, sexually, socially, religiously, financially, materially, professionally, academically, or culturally. The underlying message of this display is: “I’m better than you!” or “Look at how special I am — I’m worthy of everyone’s love, admiration, and acceptance!” Gaslighters, on the other hand, often create an idealized self-image of being the dominant, suppressive alpha male or female in personal relationships, at the workplace, or in high-profile positions of society (such as politics and media). Many gaslighters like to view themselves falsely as all-powerful and strong, capable of dishing out judgments and penalties at will. Pathological gaslighters often take pride and boost themselves up by marginalizing those whom they perceive as weaker, believing that the meek deserve their downtrodden fate. They attack their victims with direct or subtle cruelty and contempt, gaining sadistic pleasure from these offenses, and betraying a lack of empathy and humanity. In essence, narcissists want others to worship them, while gaslighters want others to submit to them. In a big way, these external facades become pivotal parts of their false identities, replacing the real and insecure self. 4. Rule Breaking and Boundary Violation Many narcissists and gaslighters enjoy getting away with violating rules and social norms. Examples of narcissistic trespass include cutting in line, chronic under-tipping, personal space intrusion, borrowing items without returning, using other’s properties without asking, disobeying traffic laws, breaking appointments, and negating promises. Examples of gaslighting trespass include direct or subtle marginalizing remarks, public or private shaming and humiliation, sardonic humor and sarcastic comments, internet trolling, angry and hateful speech, and virulent attacks on undesirable individuals and groups. Both narcissist and gaslighter boundary violations presume entitlement, with a narrow, egocentric orientation that oppresses and de-humanizes their victims. In severe cases, this boundary violation pathology may result in illicit and underhanded dealings, financial abuse, sexual harassment, date rape, domestic abuse, hate crimes, human rights violations, and other forms of criminality. Many narcissists and gaslighters take pride in their destructive behaviors, as their machinations provide them with a hollow (and desperate) sense of superiority and privilege. 5. Emotional Invalidation and Coercion Although narcissists and gaslighters can be (but are not always) physically abusive, for the majority of their victims, emotional suffering is where the damage is most painfully felt. Both narcissists and gaslighters enjoy spreading and arousing negative emotions in order to feel powerful, and keep you insecure and off-balance. They habitually invalidate others’ thoughts, feelings, and priorities, showing little remorse for causing people in their lives pain. They often blame their victims for having caused their own victimization (“You wouldn’t get yelled at if you weren’t so stupid!”). In addition, many narcissists and gaslighters have unpredictable mood swings and are prone to emotional drama — you never know what might displease them and set them off. They become upset at any signs of independence and self-affirmation (“Who do you think you are!?”). They turn agitated if you disagree with their views or fail to meet their expectations. As mentioned earlier, they are sensitive to criticism, but quick to judge others. By keeping you down and making you feel inferior, they boost their fragile ego, and feel more reassured about themselves. 6. Manipulation: The Use or Control of Others as an Extension of Oneself Both narcissists and gaslighters have a tendency to make decisions for others to suit their own agenda. Narcissists may use their romantic partner, child, family, friend, or colleague to meet unreasonable self-serving needs, fulfill unrealized dreams, or cover-up weaknesses and shortcomings. Narcissists are also fond of using guilt, blame, and victimhood as manipulative devices. Gaslighters conduct psychological manipulation toward individuals and groups through persistent distortion of the truth, with the intention of causing their victims to question themselves and feel less confident. In personal and/or professional environments, they manipulate by micromanaging (controlling) relationships, including telling others how they should think, feel, and behave under the gaslighter’s unreasonable restrictions and scrutiny. They often become critical, angry, intimidating, and/or hostile toward those who fail to bow down to their directives. Gaslighter manipulation is often highly aggressive, with punitive measures (tangible or psychological) executed toward those who fail to recognize and obey their self-perceived authority. Perhaps the biggest distinction between narcissists and gaslighters is that narcissists use and exploit, and gaslighters dominate and control. While the narcissist does so to compensate for a desperate sense of deficiency (of being unloved as the real self), the gaslighter does so to hide their ever-present insecurity (of being powerless and losing control). Both of these pathological types betray an inability and/or unwillingness to relate to people genuinely and equitably as human beings. They become “special” and “superior” by being less human and by de-humanizing others. In the worst-case scenario, some individuals possess traits of both narcissism and gaslighting. This is a highly toxic and destructive combination of vanity, manipulation, bullying, and abuse — all unleashed in order to compensate for the perpetrator’s deep-seated sense of inadequacy and fear.Finn
I am under the theory that not all fighting has to be all out war. That a successfully trained martial artist can avoid the fight, and win.
That if one doesn’t attempt the jiu jitsu, then war is in fact very likely.
That’s why. But as I noted, it would take concerted effort by many people, and there is no guarantee of success. There’s only the guarantee if you tried your hardest, you’ll have tried your hardest. And whether THIS path is the best for trying one’s hardest or another… even that I cannot guarantee.
A long post indeed!
I’ll just respond to a couple of things.
Quote:
You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel.Quote:
Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible.Sandman:
Your comments, regarding two kinds of people in the context of a corrupt, degenerating culture (are as usual) very thought provoking…
Your distinction of being inside the matrix vs outside is an important one, and has value in terms of how we can intelligently decide to use our time and resources in collaboration with each other to build our own better worlds. If in fact there are “two kinds” of people in this respect, we need to figure out who is who and use this information in a practical way.
I have 3 observations that relate:
- during the last wide spread civilization collapse, the dark ages saw a similar bifurcation of small bands of rational thinkers who escaped from the rotting Roman carcass and created small resilient communities (Monestaries) far away in places like Ireland or remote mountains, where they could preserve the best aspects of the destroyed civilization for a better future. Without those resilient independent groups of rational thinkers, we would not have Greek philosophy or the development of the Trivium and the associated structures that eventually turned into the Renaissance. These are the people who see the Matrix for what it is.
- before the present ongoing collapse (such as 50 years ago in America), the rationals (those who think for themselves) did not suffer but instead enthusiastically participated in society/matrix. The issue is not matrix per se but rather the phenomenon of civilization collapse, and the special role of rational thought individuals in society.
- In a total population, about 5-7% are “rational” thinkers. These are easy to spot, using a Briggs Myers test or other related test. In fact most INTP personalities (such as myself) can pretty easily and quickly identify other similar personalities (particularly INTP but also INTJ and related rational thinkers) with just a few minutes conversation. There seems to be a strong genetic component to this, which we should argue about because this may be an important factor in our ongoing evolution.
Rational thinkers often become scientists and engineers and self associate into membership of blogs such as this one. The vast majority of scientists and engineers are rational thinkers and more easily see the Matrix for what it is.
As society undergoes advanced decomposition, it is important for the minority of rational thinkers to identify each other, work with each other, and create small resilient communities, to survive the dark ages, as we did before. I am working on this in my personal situation and I run into like minded rationals from other countries who spontaneously are coming to these same conclusions. This is happening. 100 years from now people will look back and thank those who saw the need to preserve and continue rational thought and action as a basis for living. We need to create new education systems, health systems etc based on new technologies, despite what is going on in the matrix. Finding each other and communicating our ideas via this particular website is unusually valuable, in my opinion.
Really interesting post and perspective, Motts. I’d never heard that idea about resilient communities in the past --monestaries in remote locations- serving the function of preserving/advancing worthy aspects of civilization during the dark ages, for a better future. Pretty fascinating.
It actually made me hopeful for a moment, until I remembered that this time around we’re also trashing our ecosystem and driving numerous species into extinction. Still, I admire the approach that you’re taking. It seems like the best we can do now is play a weak hand strong.
fionn-
I found your post on “gaslighting” and NPD to be really pretty interesting. I know at least one person who probably had NPD. I did not realize it at the time (being a child and all), and only much later did I find out why they acted so badly. That said, I have one request of you.
The next time you are tempted to affix such a label to one of the members of our herd, I request that instead of attempting some sort of professional diagnosis, you provide specific examples of the behavior you find objectionable. For example:
“In post X, you said the following. Blah blah blah. To me, this is a classic example of gaslighting, because…”
I fully realize this requires more effort than simply posting someone else’s words on the subject of NPD and highlighting the various areas you think apply. But by presenting evidence, you enable the rest of the herd to really understand what you are saying, and also to sort out whether they agree with your assessment or not. Evidence also enables the accused to self-assess, and respond substantively - by apologising, or clarifying, or refuting your accusation. Everyone can learn if evidence is involved.
If you don’t use an evidence-based approach, all you are really doing is name-calling with a fancy label.
pinecarr- I found this book to be an interesting read on the topic… if you have not used worldcat.org before, simply scroll down and enter your zip code and a list of libraries that have a copy will be generated. It seems to be a fairly popular book.
fionnbharr wrote:
I'm sorry if this causes offence to you or the site, but I've been witnessing a seriously flawed pattern of behavior along this thread over a number of days that I would like to be recognised by others in residence of this forum. : -
Flash to a courtroom scene with the defendant on the witness stand. Prosecutor: "Have you stopped beating your wife? - yes or no" Judge: "Answer the question."Finn, Why would I take offense? You noticed a "seriously flawed pattern of behavior" and automatically attributed it to one of two deeply flawed personality traits. If those were the only 2 options available, you may have a point. I suppose that I should thank you for saving me from spending years on a psychiatrist's couch to come to this conclusion. /sarc I noticed that you've made 2 posts on this thread offering "advice." The first one was directed at old guy and the second was directed at me. We're both arguing against the church of climate change. Is that just a coincidence? I'm wondering if trying to help the messenger is your way of stifling the message. Hmmm. That said, I do admit to letting my emotions get the best of me in this debate. I took out my frustrations on Yoxa. She didn't deserve the ire I subjected her to - and I sincerely apologize. I'll tone down the rhetoric from now on. So, why am I so frustrated? After all, the facts are the facts and the science is the science, right? Well, not quite. I wouldn't have a problem if all the facts were exposed and the scientists came up with theories to explain the facts. I'm sure we would all agree that would be the ideal situation. But science takes time and resources (people, expensive equipment, and buildings) to accomplish the arduous task. That takes funding. Asymmetric funding doesn't produce the best science. There's an old adage with university professors - "Publish or Perish." Publishing advances the science while improving the brand name of the university and the professor; however, it goes deeper than that. Professors sell their expertise to those with money to spend. That brings funding to the institution so they can pay the salaries, buy state-of-the-art equipment, and furnish the new buildings in a way that the administrators would really like to become accustomed to. The managers know that if the funding dries up, so does their future. I've talked with a handful of professors about this. They agree that the pressure is always there. As long as they bring in adequate funding, administrators leave them alone to do their work. As soon as the funding lags, pressure gets applied. It is easy to figure out what result the funding agencies are looking to get. Those who make the "best" proposal are the likeliest to get the funding. One professor friend put it this way, "if you only look east, you don't have to acknowledge the sunset." As a personal anecdote, I found the same pressure during my engineering career. My managers would get agitated when I proposed cheaper solutions to the client. Our engineering fee was based on the cost of the project. It was all about the money. So, where am I going with this? The author of the polar flip research paper I cited earlier bemoaned the lack of funding for geosciences. He said that climate change research received over 1,000 times the funding. (I don't remember exactly if that was for a specific US agency or if that was overall. The exact number or details aren't that necessary here.) Without the funding, science doesn't happen. If the funding is skewed, the resulting science is also skewed. It goes deeper than that. I have a decided Libertarian outlook. I will fight as hard for your liberty as I will for my own. Yet, those who believe that climate change is an issue and that government is the sole entity able to defeat climate change are willing to vote to limit my liberties through more taxation and encumbering regulations. What's the solution? Grover
Yoxa,
I’d first like to apologize for taking my frustrations out on you. I’m truly sorry!
Yoxa wrote:
A long post indeed!
I'll just respond to a couple of things.
Quote:
You clearly are using the heat generated by a candle flame as a gateway to reason that normal office fires (which are much bigger than candle flame fires) should be sufficient to melt structural steel.Yoxa wrote:
Quote:
Just working on harm reduction will only prolong the agony if grander schemes should have been pursued. The best long term strategy may be to burn all the available fossil fuels as fast as possible.I think that the core understanding of those “inside the matrix” and those “outside” is the understanding that authorities tell us things that are not true, for power and profit.
Having ones understanding of truth heavily based on the words of authorities, is The Matrix. This is in science, religion, journalism and politics. Those within the Matrix are averse to critically examining the statements of leaders and authorities for lies.
Yesterday, US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo explained that the Iranians have “cells” inside Venezuela! Who knew?
This was followed shortly by the annoucement that the US military would protect US citizens in Venezuela.
Tulsi Gabbard never believed that Assad “gassed his own people” despite being told this by the highest levels of the US intelligence agencies. She was then decried loudly and widely as “Assad’s mouthpiece in congress” and a “puppet of the Kremlin” who has “a crush on Putin.”
PT boats attacked the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. Young men by the tens of thousands were told that if they loved their country, they would need to kill Vietnamese people – which they did, by the millions. 40 years later declassified documents showed there was no attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. But during those 40 years … that is The Matrix
In the movie Anatomy of a Great Deception, film maker Hopper collects the 3 different network news announcements that World Trade Center Building 7 “is, or is about to, collapse.” These pieces are time stamped and played on live TV in the half hour BEFORE WTC7 collapsed. The fire department moved the public barrier back a block knowing and explaining in advance that Building 7 was “coming down.” Yet there were no indicators of pre-collapse and the collapse was later attributed by NIST to a completely novel mechanism. HOW DID EVERYBODY KNOW? Those inside the Matrix are able to look away. Not watch the film clips. Suspect photoshopping or lying. The aversion to learning about this is so immense that intelligence does not assure the exposure to, or integration of, this factoid into one’s understanding.
This is The Matrix.
Sorry I didn’t find this earlier.
Between 12:30 and 16:00 is the segment from an abbreviated Anatomy of a Great Deception on the many people who knew that WTC7 was going to collapse before it had: