Comment author: JanetK 07 February 2011 11:33:11AM 13 points [-]

I believe there should be a subject in school (and text books to go with it) that goes through all the things that adult citizens should know. I believe this was part of what was called Civics but that is dead or changed to something else. The idea is somewhat dated but it included things like how to vote, how to read a train schedule, that different types of insurance actually were, simple first aid, how to find a book in a library and all sorts of things like that. Today it would be a slightly different list. Somewhere between 10 and 14 seems the ideal age to be interested and learn these sort of things.

Comment author: JanetK 09 January 2011 06:05:05AM 0 points [-]
  1. I do not use the phrase 'free will' except to attack it. And I do not attack 'free will' without at the same time attacking 'determinism' and the outdated fight between them. They are both useless and flawed. When others use the word, I assume they mean a mental process that is non-material and that they therefore still have a dualist ghost in their thinking.
  2. Freewill is an illusion only if you believe in it. If you don't believe in free will (and don't believe in determinism) then you just make decisions.
  3. Why lie to others or yourself? The important thing is how to learn to make good decisions ('mind maintenance' I call it). It is difficult to do this if you still believe in the freewill-vs-determinism idea.
Comment author: JanetK 03 January 2011 07:13:37AM 4 points [-]

I have used 'reality' but sometimes needed to call it 'undifferentiated reality' or to introduce the map-territory metaphor and then refer to the 'territory'. There is a problem with the right word for this in English. I suggest that you use the Russian word after a paragraph explaining its meaning - this would be interesting to your readers, allow you to define the concept you want to use very carefully and avoid any English language philosophical baggage.

In response to Christmas
Comment author: JanetK 20 December 2010 09:44:45AM 4 points [-]

People have been celebrating around the solstice long before Christianity sold the holiday. Most of the Christmassy things: gifts, trees, fires, food, song and so on are left over from pre-Christian holidays. Take back Christmas a have a ball.

In response to comment by JanetK on Christmas
Comment author: JanetK 21 December 2010 07:56:40AM 1 point [-]

I just think it is a good time for a party and has been for a long time at high latitudes. I don't think there is a problem with this. If religious people want to control the party, just ignore them and enjoy Christmas.

In response to Christmas
Comment author: JanetK 20 December 2010 09:44:45AM 4 points [-]

People have been celebrating around the solstice long before Christianity sold the holiday. Most of the Christmassy things: gifts, trees, fires, food, song and so on are left over from pre-Christian holidays. Take back Christmas a have a ball.

Comment author: JanetK 20 December 2010 09:38:09AM 10 points [-]

I do not remember believing in Santa or when I stopped. But I do remember the game of everyone pretending there was a Santa and a Tooth Fairy and an Easter Bunny. It was great fun and I had no feeling that I was lied to by my parents or others. When I realized that God was not in this group and I was actually supposed to believe in that being was when my problems with pretense really began. I started to notice how others, by their actions etc., displayed a lack of believe in what they said about God, but they insisted that it was important to believe. End of innocence, now I was being lied to!

Comment author: gwern 23 November 2010 06:47:21PM 7 points [-]

Somewhat relevant:

"Monarchs, more so than other autocrats, tend to develop norms that help elites solve their collective action problem. Such a “political culture” makes monarchs’ commitments credible. Therefore, monarchs should exhibit longer tenures and faster growth than non-monarchs. Time-series cross-sectional analyses corroborate these hypotheses for the Middle East and North Africa between 1950 and 2004. Monarchs are less likely to suffer coups, revolutions, or government crises. Additionally, as oil rents increase in monarchies, they generate higher economic growth - which does not happen in non-monarchies. A case study of Qatar’s political history puts flesh on a theory of monarchical political culture."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1548222

Comment author: JanetK 07 December 2010 10:05:47AM 2 points [-]

I can think of a number of reasons why monarchs may suffer somewhat less from the 'power corrupts' norm. (1) often educated from childhood to use power wisely (2) often feel their power is legit and therefore less fearful of overthrow (3) tend to get better 'press' than other autocrats so that abuse of power less noticeable (4) often have continuity and structure in their advisors inherited from previous monarch.

Despite this, there have been some pretty nasty monarchs through history - even ones that are thought of as great like Good Queen Bess. However, if I had to live in an autocratic state I would prefer an established monarchy, all others things being equal.

Comment author: JanetK 24 October 2010 09:37:02AM -1 points [-]

I voted up. Post makes good sense to me.

Comment author: nick012000 01 October 2010 06:53:36AM 0 points [-]

Here is the list of personality axes OkCupid uses. There's quite a few of them. There's also that four-letter personality test, though I can't remember its name at the moment.

Comment author: JanetK 01 October 2010 12:22:59PM 0 points [-]

the list of personality axes OkCupid uses.

Ok I get it. I don't really find it convincing but I get it. I can understand the idea of a 'space' made of personality dimensions and I can envisage an idea that someone could link their identity as their area in such a space.

Personality theory seems pretty weak (and boring) to me, a sort of left over from Freud's and other psychoanalytic theories. So I guess I have nothing to add to this discussion.

Comment author: Jonathan_Graehl 30 September 2010 09:29:23PM 0 points [-]

Maybe 'personality'?

Comment author: JanetK 01 October 2010 06:11:29AM 0 points [-]

Maybe 'personality'?

What question is personality the answer to?

View more: Prev | Next