Joined: 14 Jun 2005
|Post subject: Delaying Gratification
When it comes to helping the poor, the more intelligent are definitely more libertarian:
Proves my point of the self fed ego and its will for consumption
I find the same smugness here at fivebodied
I pointed out before that, traditionally, Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. This blog post explains the phenomenon: more intelligent people are more likely to agree with the Republican platform of “conservative” economic policies.
Government spending for the environment is a specific exception to the general principle of the more intelligent being more libertarian (or more economically conservative). I suspect that respondents don’t see the question as an economics question but rather as a question about how much they care about the environment. The more intelligent are more environmentally conscious. Other questions in the GSS show the same tendency for more intelligent people to care more about the environment.
In a certain sense, the more intelligent “consume” environmental spending more than the less intelligent. More intelligent people have greater income and they use it to go on vacations where they admire the beauty of nature. Communing with nature is an intellectual pursuit. The more intelligent are in favor of government spending which they perceive to directly benefit them and which promotes the values they hold dear.
It is time for a people ecology.
Hubris rules the mind.
Libertarianism is most popular in the United States, where it is claimed to be the philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and several of the Founding Fathers. Libertarianism is often bundled with American conservatism, because many conservatives aim to retain the ideas of the Founders (although many conservatives are not comfortable with libertarianism). Polls show that 10 to 20 percent of voting-age Americans have libertarian views.
LIBERALS ARE SMARTER THAN CONSERVATIVES
REPUBLICANS ARE SMARTER THAN DEMOCRATS
But when people decide which party to vote for, a major factor is how much money they make and/or what social class they consider themselves a part of. People who are of a higher social class or make more money (both of these factors correlating with higher intelligence) are more likely to vote Republican.
Thursday, March 31, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
. The most popular Silicon Valley politician of the last 30 years was a Republican, U.S. Congressman Ed Zschau.
1. Silicon Valley is 30 miles from San Francisco but a galaxy away in politics. San Francisco is old left. It cross-dresses libertarian but always sides with unions, rent control, "living wages" and undemocratic court fiats. Silicon Valley, while voting Democrat of late, is more right than it appears. It celebrates capital formation, hard work, and unequal outcomes from equal chance.
6. In Washington, Republicans are the daddy party and Democrats are the mommy party. But out here, Republicans are the hardware party and Democrats are the software party. Intel's Mr. Barrett and Cisco's John Chambers sell gadgets and vote Republican. Google's Eric Schmidt and Oracle's Larry Ellison sell vapor and vote Democrat.
Established in 1974, RIA is the only trade group in North America organized exclusively to promote the use of robotics. The Association collects and reports market statistics each quarter based on actual totals provided confidentially by RIA member companies, which is estimated to represent more than 90% of the robotics market activity in North America.
‘‘However, the most interesting result from 2006 is that non-automotive orders reached the highest mark since we’ve been tracking the data this way. We saw very strong growth in industries such as beverages and tobacco, apparel, wood products, paper manufacturing, printing, machinery manufacturing, and furniture. We also saw growth in food and consumer goods, life sciences/pharmaceuticals/biomedical, and plastics and rubber,’‘ Vincent explained.
Non-automotive orders accounted for 44% of total orders in 2006, compared with just 30% in 2005. Vincent believes this is a very healthy trend for the robotics industry.
‘‘Our members understand that while the automotive industry has traditionally been and remains the largest customer for robotics, changes are occurring in the auto industry that may negatively impact future robot sales to automotive OEMs and their suppliers,’‘ said Vincent. ‘‘Therefore, it becomes more important than ever to find new markets, which is what we’re seeing happen.’‘
The automobile (LaRouche)
Was vampirizing the robotics industry.
Goes to prove that a robot is not a car.
CarMen are dead.
Fucking car culture was slowing robotics down.
Bob Dobbs is a fool.
The robot quadrant is not in Los Angeles.
Ways to end car culture along with the globalized trade godzilla
Democrats may now be the more intelligent party
I previously wrote that Republicans are more intelligent than Democrats. It seems that may have been a hasty conclusion based on looking at the entire General Social Survey (GSS) dataset, and ignoring the trend. It seems that the Republicans used to be the more intelligent party, but that may no longer be true.
Robots need irony.
The highest number of robotics patents are in Blue states (CA, MA, MI, PA)
You may find it surprising that the robots were not mechanical in nature but were created through chemical means.
In the meantime there has been an enormous shakeout in the robot industry. In the US, for example, only one US company, Adept, remains in the production industrial robot arm business. Most of the rest went under, consolidated, or were sold to European and Japanese companies.
Corporate & US Headquarters 3011 Triad Drive
Livermore, CA 94551
Livermore is a city in Alameda County, California, United States. The population was 82,845 as of January 1, 2007. Livermore is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. Livermore is a "major suburb" of the Bay Area.
Not Los Angeles.
Less Zionism in Northern California, gives the chance for the robots to breathe.
If anyone knew Blade Runner was a movie adaptation.
In the book by Dick, the original location was San Francisco.
In the J.R. myths of Stang Bob was assassinated in S.F.
Conventional wisdom holds that area denizens are latte-sipping, tofu-snacking liberals as likely to vote for someone like Newt Gingrich as they are to wear mink. This is, after all, the region that birthed the Burning Man festival, celebrated an illegal gay marriage last week, and whose political beliefs presumably would give Pat Robertson a case of the heebie-jeebies.
There is some truth to that. In November's race for San Francisco mayor, for instance, the Republican candidate garnered 4 percent the votes of the Democratic and Green candidates. Registered Democrats and Greens in Berkeley outnumber Republicans by over 10 to 1, according to the California secretary of state. In Palo Alto, Mountain View, and San Jose, the divide is not as stunning, but the ratio remains about two registered Democrats for every Republican.
But those numbers don't come close to telling the real story.
Sift through the heaps of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and you'll find that people who work for technology firms actually disliked Al Gore even more than they disliked George W. Bush.
For each election cycle since 1998, Microsoft employees have favored the Bushes and Doles over the Clintons and Gores.
In the current electoral season, employees of Intel and Cisco who donated to political campaigns prefer Republicans over Democrats. What's more, for each election cycle since 1998, Microsoft employees have favored the Bushes and Doles over the Clintons and Gores. (Though in 2004, at least, the Redmond crowd is giving equally to both major parties.)
To be sure, John Kerry managed to snag $900,000 at one event last spring in San Francisco. And Microsoft employees anted up $46,113 to become the third-largest group of donors to Howard Dean, after the University of California and Time Warner. But it was Bush who raised $4 million at a fundraiser at the Los Altos Hills, Calif., home of Cisco CEO John Chambers.
This is the polar opposite of the Hollywood types--at the other end of California--who have never broken off their love affair with the Democratic Party.
Internet and computer-related PACs have given an average of 60 percent of their money to Republicans over the last four elections, and only 40 percent to Democratic candidates. That list includes eBay, EDS, Gateway, Hewlett-Packard, Intuit, Texas Instruments, VeriSign and Yahoo. Telecommunications and electronics PACs tend to be even more aggressively Republican.
Among Republican-friendly tech firms, Intel stands out as one of the party's most loyal allies.
the internet is republican
So what exactly is wrong with the Internet?
It is useful at this point to summarise the characteristics and goals of liberalism: it seeks to (a) maximise interaction; (b) to maximise the number of those interacting; (c) to maximise the number affected by each transaction; and (d) to maximise the zone where interaction takes place. By creating chains of interactions, it transmits cause and effect - it collectivises action. A concrete example: the ethics of global distribution of wealth and income. You (as an individual) cannot correct global inequalities, by buying one pack of coffee - not even if you check every purchase for trade inequalities. You can not (for instance) improve the condition of the rural poor in Ethiopia, by individual purchasing strategies. You have no individual control over the economy you live in, and therefore no individual control of your life. Similarly, you have no individual control over the Internet, and can therefore take no moral decisions concerning it. This is what makes liberalism and its structure unethical: they destroy the moral autonomy of the subject. If the Net can be proved liberal, it can be proved unethical.
For cyber-ideology, however, the greatest advantage of Internet, is an advantage that is derived from liberal models. Liberals see ideas and opinions as objects of exchange: if a liberal has an opinion, he or she wants to 'express it' and exchange it with others. The priority of dialogue and communication, in neo-liberal theories (such as communicative ethics), parallels the priority of market exchange, in classic liberalism. (In this sense communicative ethics, and dialogue ethics, have already set the political-ethical framework for cyberspace). The information society is a liberal society of hyper-exchange: the citizen transmits, receives, and forwards a stream of ideas and opinions - as a sort of Nick Leeson of communication. It is certainly true that only the Internet (or something like it) could make this possible: however, that does not make it morally or politically right.
I just love acting like an asshole on fivebodied
Delaying gratification while working toward a goal appears to have roots in a specific brain circuit. NIMH scientists have discovered a signal in a brain area involved in motivation that strengthens as a monkey performs a task for which it has been trained to expect a reward.
Munetaka Shidara, Ph.D, and Barry Richmond, M.D., NIMH Laboratory of Neuropsychology, trained monkeys to release a lever when a spot on a computer screen turned from red to green. The animals knew they had performed the task correctly when the spot turned blue. A visual cue -- a gray bar on the screen -- got brighter as they progressed through a succession of trials required to get a juice treat. Though never punished, the monkeys couldn’t graduate to the next level until they had successfully completed the current trial.
The brain signal boost occurred as the monkey worked harder and more accurately as the reward neared. Emanating from a reward-anticipating circuit in the front top center of the brain, the signal is thought to sustain the goal-driven behavior and then shuts off when the reward is assured. Signal alterations may underlie abnormal activity detected in the brain area, the anterior cingulate cortex, in disorders of motivation and reward expectation, such as obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), propose the researchers. They report on their findings in the May 30 Science.
"If you’re working toward a distant goal, you must often keep working even if you don’t like what you are doing very much," explained Richmond. "It makes sense that there is such a signal that varies with degree of reward expectancy that keeps you on-task performing a long sequence of behaviors. What we’re studying in a rather cartoon-like way with this task are the dynamics of this situation: the ongoing tension between the desirability of reaching the goal and the hard work needed to achieve it."
As the monkeys approached their reward, they made progressively fewer errors, with the fewest occurring during the rewarded trial. Electrical activity of about a third of more than 100 neurons, brain cells, monitored in the anterior cingulate progressively increased with reward expectancy. The progressive activity abated only when the reward was imminent and the expectancy resolved.
The researchers saw no such progressive activity when they switched the animals to a random condition in which the cues were no longer related to the rewards. In this condition, the monkeys performed the task well regardless of cue brightness, but showed little activation of the anticipatory anterior cingulate circuitry. "There is a substantial behavioral difference between knowing for certain what will happen in each successfully completed trial (cued condition) versus knowing the overall reward rate without knowing the outcome of each trial for certain (random condition)," they note. The monkeys performed poorly when they had no expectation of reward.
Feelings of increasing anticipation experienced as we work in stages toward a predicted outcome may be traceable to the reward expectancy signal, propose Richmond and Shidara, who now works at the Neuroscience Research Institute of Japan’s National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology.
In a disturbance of motivation, such as OCD, Richmond speculates that the brain may be hijacked by runaway signals in this reward expectancy circuit. The individual performs the behavior that would normally alleviate the sense of expectancy, but the signal somehow fails to turn off. There is no feeling of completion, the tension remains unresolved, and a compulsion to keep repeating the behavior takes over. Brain imaging studies have detected abnormal activation in the anterior cingulate in patients with OCD.
Love is what happens to a man and woman who don't know each other. (W. Somerset Maugham, 1874-1965)
Delaying gratification is not only valuable in love; it is at the core of living the civilized life. Instead of eating raw wheat kernels in the field, human beings go through the process of threshing, grinding, and baking. The bread that results can be a work of art. Love is the same way. The only way to get that feeling all the time, is to first learn to push it away. That feeling of attraction, when we first feel it, is not to be trusted, no matter how good it feels.
We have such a tendency not to control our actions when faced with an initial attraction to someone that I submit we almost never run the risk of being too deliberate about our feelings. We're not talking about becoming perfectionists. That's an entirely different distortion of the human desire to love. Jumping in too quickly is a much more common problem. A little bit of deliberate, left-brain thinking can really help. To do that thinking, we have to seek a state of detachment, which requires Positive Matrix Interrupt and is, in fact, a state of Shock.
One of the methods we can use to insert an interrupt into habitual behavior patterns in this dangerous area is to simply keep contacts short and minimal. Keep the first date short, wait a week at least before the second date, and keep your social options open. The worst scenario is that first date that stretches into the wee hours of the morning, and then you see each other the next afternoon. We have a tendency not to think when we engage in activities that could lead to love—precisely when we most desperately need to give ourselves time and perspective to think.
Sex is a strong motivator here. The final chapter of this book is devoted to it. But we'll let loose a preliminary thought about sex now. Here's where the confusion sets in. In a relationship, you need sex first, but you don't need it most.
In a great relationship, you're likely to have great sex because everything else clicks. But ultimately, sex isn't the most important factor in the relationship. In the beginning, because of attraction and what I call the pose/poise factor, sex takes on a larger role. We're talking about a very strong urge here. When we are faced with this urge, especially when attraction to someone brings it to the front, we have to be careful.
It is precisely because most of us shy away from casual sex that we have to be careful. Because we need the sex, the holding, the touching, the feeling of instant security and validation, we often convince ourselves we care about the other person. The sex is no longer casual and so it's okay. But who is kidding whom? Often we just become attached to the other person. The other person is not who we are really looking for. Real communication never even begins. We begin to play out a painful, repetitive scenario that can take years before it fizzles out in misery. So considering this, it is crucially important to step back and think.
You do your stepping back one incident at a time. You train yourself and free yourself from habit in bite sized bits. But you can do it. The reward, having that feeling all the time, is worth all the work.
In previous generations, marriages of young people were arranged by older people. Many times, the arranged marriages worked out well. The older people had perspective, perhaps wisdom, and they weren't blinded by young love or raging hormones. We no longer have the option of arranged marriage, or do we? You can arrange your own marriage or relationship by learning to step away from yourself for a while. It involves pushing that feeling away at first so you can have more of it later. It involves moving your desire to love and be loved to a higher, more civilized plane, all based on personal progress and Trope.
Exercise: Delaying Gratification
Go to a good restaurant, alone, and order a meal. Make sure you're nice and hungry. When the food comes, don't begin to eat for at least five minutes. During this training time, concentrate on “love temptations” in your past that might have been similar to the food temptation you now have in front of you. If you do this exercise often, you'll begin to train your delaying reflex and gain good perspective on what you really want.
I went to the party & all they gave me was this little chip.