101–110 of 130 posts
http://blogs.psychcentral.com/relationships/2011/07/seven-to...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a rule people are a lot smarter than they may appear to be at first contact. And people that think they are very smart are typically smart along some fairly narrow field and then extrapolate their smartness in that one area to all areas. Thinking is interesting that way, if you're 'smart' it usually means that you know a lot about some subject but that isn't actually being smart. Being smart means that you can use…
My favorite thing to learn is to recognize a cognitive bias in myself. I might know one, theoretically, but if I recognize it consciously when I fall victim to it, I feel like I've grown a bit.
"That’s why saying “I don’t know” is usually smart, because it’s refusing to jump to a conclusion." Define usually. More often than not when I hear "I don't know" it is offered as an excuse/explanation for laziness and shirking responsibility.
There are no smart people or stupid people, just people being smart or being stupid. The same could be said about almost all behaviors, such as courage, promiscuity, or whathaveyou. However, over time people tend to display consistent patterns of behavior. As a consistent picture emerges, we tend to switch from thinking of people as acting a certain way, to thinking of people as being a certain way. Whether you want…
But people tend to fixate on their first impression of others. It's very common to see someone do something stupid once, and then assume they're stupid forever-or the opposite. It's definitely worth recognizing the first impression bias, and doing your best to fight it.
So yeah, it is hard to fight a first impression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, one argument is that politics is essentially a football game. The stakes are far, far higher, but fundamentally it comes down to all the institutions of a society self-organizing themselves into coalitions for the assumption or protection of power. "Reason" amounts to a way to mask rhetorical flourishes to convince dupes that they're morally better or smarter than the other side. And if you're turning to the Wa…
I agree with your first two paragraphs. The position you advocate in the third would make sense if political affiliation conferred a tangible benefit or our participation in the process affected the outcomes. But neither of those is true, and it undermines your case. Affiliation is rife with intangible benefits of a vaguely religious character: believing that you're right, believing that you're benefiting the righteo…
OT: I don't know anyone who's done that, but I've long wondered if the most effective way to get the result you want is to simply destroy everyone opposing it, rather than promoting the result directly. It seems that it'd be much easier to manipulate the system (and the people) using a negative influence than positive. It's definitely not right, but seems like it could be effective. Then again, as I write this I realize that this is half of what happens already.
There are no smart people or stupid people, just people being smart or being stupid. The same could be said about almost all behaviors, such as courage, promiscuity, or whathaveyou. However, over time people tend to display consistent patterns of behavior. As a consistent picture emerges, we tend to switch from thinking of people as acting a certain way, to thinking of people as being a certain way. Whether you want…
> As a consistent picture emerges I've found that the length of time most people take to form a "consistent picture" of someone else is very short. Generally, it is whatever is the shortest length of time required to determine "are they acting in accordance with my desires or not?". If the person is generally helping to make things happen which you want to have happen, you form a favorable impression of them quickly.…
That's a very humanities 1990s definition of "smart," and one that I don't think is remotely accurate, either.
"That’s why saying “I don’t know” is usually smart, because it’s refusing to jump to a conclusion." Define usually. More often than not when I hear "I don't know" it is offered as an excuse/explanation for laziness and shirking responsibility.
When a smart person says "I don't know", It's usually followed with a "give me a second to figure it out." or "let me look that up real quick.".
Instead, I usually use anything else that indicates that I'm going to make inquiries. "That's a good question. I'll have to look into that." comes out of my mouth a lot now. Sometimes without "That's a good queston." at the start.
Sorry but no. Most people are cattle. Utter retards. The only thing missing them is drooling on the floor and making feces. They're little more than animals that can speak. Anyone even remotely smart knows most people are stupid compared to himself. Of course, smart people don't go around whining about it. But they do KNOW they're surrounded by retards.
Indeed...
I believe I have potential to be a great programmer, but it's difficult when you're being told your code is "all sorts of wrong."
This was exactly what I needed to read right now. Thank you for posting it.