orwells boot

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

hopefully I am not in violation of any of the rules. I have had occasion to ponder freedom, human behavior, stupidity, politics, etc. Among other things I have discovered that I am very unlike most humans. Visit wrongplanet.net to get an idea of this lack of similarity to most of you out there. I have many neurological deficiencies. One that I consider to be a plus is that I do not emote like many of you. The manmager of this area said to refrain from attacking the person, just their ideas. He does not realize that for the vast majority of humans, attacking their ideas / beliefs is the same as attacking them. I do not have this problem. This I have in common with the best of scientists. Scientists are wrong more often than they are right, and there is no appealing the udgment of the physical world / nature.

If someone does not like your ideas, you can go find "like minded people" This is not an option with nature.

Well, a few years ago, I posted 6000 word essay on the internet. In live journal in fact. Enter the two words orwells boot into any search engine and that essay will come back at the top of the list. Number 1. Maybe number 2, and sometimes 1 and 2 depending on the engine. For example both bing and yahoo have me listed 1 and 2. So, I figured that I had something to say. At the risk of sounding a bit arrogant, how many of you will come back at the top of any search?

My conclusion was kind of a downer. But the response and my own curiousity drove me to expand on my ideas, and they can be found here: http://xfoolnature.org/?p=10. This is a 35000 word article and growing. Figure on spending the better part of an 2 hours reading it, and that is without the links. You may find it worth while, since I think I have some ideas about addressing most of the problems we face from the physical world, and how to reduce the chances of being the victim of psychopaths.

I very much want to get constructive feedback. I believe that I have some new and constructive ideas to add to human discourse. At least they are ideas that I have not seen anywhere else.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Comments

[pastorlenny.livejournal.com]

I sure wish I was smart.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I like toast

[404.livejournal.com]

[peamasii.livejournal.com]

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I think once you get to 35,000 words it's no longer an 'article', it's the whole thing.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

The beginnings of what I hope to be a book actually.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I'm told the key to uniqueness is to insert a single word into Google and come up with exactly one reference. Perhaps you should work on that.

At one time it worked for "calipigious," but that got pretty mainstream in a hurry.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

I do not think that I said unique. I said number 1 on the list. Perhaps I should be more explicite. That is number 1 out of 2.5 million hits.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

While this sure is intriguing, I'll cite two of our most basic rules:

6. Posts that solely include an advertisement of either a LJ community, a personal LJ blog or a commercial product will be removed. Mentioning these as part of the narrative is fine though, as long as that's not the sole purpose of the post. Same applies to campaigning for a cause, or non-political topics.

8. We strongly encourage personal opinion and analysis, rather than posting a one-line comment/question, a single link, or picture, copy-pasting some article or embedding a Youtube video. This is generally considered low-quality and would in most cases be removed. Don't be so lazy, we're interested in your personal position!

Bottom-line: in order to begin having something like a discussion here, you'll need to either put a short opinion in your post, or at least present (in very rough lines) what your essay/article is about. So far what I can gather from your post is: "Hi. I'm not like most of you. I'm unique. I once wrote an essay. People liked it. It's number 1 in the search engine. Here's a link to my essay. I hope you like it".

It sounds interesting, but I'm afraid that doesn't suffice. For the two reasons cited above.

Now, usually we give 1 hour for amendments, but because my comment possibly comes at a very inconvenient time for you, feel free to use the next 6 hours to either 1) add some opinion on the subject you want discussed, or 2) summarise shortly what your essay is about.

Then, hopefully, we proceed with the discussion.

Meanwhile, putting the post in the [pending for deletion] tag ;)

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

So you're inviting us to read a mysterious 35000 word article that could eventually turn out to be a list of cooking recipes? Or a phone book?

How do I know that you're not inviting me to click on a link that would install malicious software on my engine?

What is it about? What does it say? What are the points it's making? I'm not going to dedicate hours upon hours of my time to read something that I'm not sure what it is at all, and only then have a discussion about it, probably, maybe. It doesn't work that way. That's not the idea of this forum. Besides, there are books to fill my time with.

Tell me honestly. Were you just trawling for a few more hundred clicks on your article? Did you cross-post this to a dozen other communities, hoping for even more clicks that would prop up your article on the search engines? Or did you intend to have a real debate here? Because if the latter was your intention, you didn't provide any fodder for debate.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

HOw about this for fodder? My article --- orwells boot --- supplies a fair amount of evidence that humans are by nature communal tribal entities. That is how evolution works. Our primary drive is to be accepted by the tribe. Unfortunately, a byproduct of this is that the great majority of humans are unwilling or unable to learn from direct experience, preferring to learn from and be obedient to their superiors. In other words, they are stupid and authoritarian. As examples, I offer such diverse people as Donald Rumsfeld, and the managers who were responsible for the Columbia, and Challenger failures. All of these failed to heed a statement from Richard Feynman that Nature can not be fooled.

A few humans are detached from others. We emote little if at all, and have little if any interest in human activity. See temple Grandins book Thinking in Pictures, or visit Wrongplanet.net. We are on the autism disorder spectrum. In my case aspergers. We have no ideas why you humans do much of what you do. We have more in common with psychopaths than with normal humans, except that we do not see humans as food, and are more honest than most humans.

Is that enough fodder?

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

If you want to see the future of humanity, it is a boot stomping on a face forever. What the interogator said to winston smith in the book 1984 by George Orwell. I take about 6000 words of evidence from our world that can be seen and quantified, and some logic to come to the conclusion that this is indeed the case.

Some of the bits that are in my essay are the fact that lord Acton was wrong. It is not that power tends to corrupt, and that absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Rather it is that 1% of our population is psychopathic (see bob hare, and his psychopathic personality screening test and related material) and psychopaths are attracted to power. I also demonstrate that evolution selected us to be comprised mostly of stupid (unwilling or unable to learn from experience --- as I show with the people who launched the Challenger shuttle, this has nothing to do with raw intellect. ) and authoritarian. We tend to be obedient to authority. If you can make a social entity that has little if any feedback from the physical world, like a bureaucracy, you have a recipe for disaster.

It turns out that there may be a way out. There is a concept called E-prime. Remove all forms of the verb to be from speaking and thinking. I modify that to remove all forms of to-be when one speaks of things that can not be measured. Really, for most people I preceive the car to be red sounds kind of foolish. The car IS RED. It is dayglo, cherry red, and if you do not see that, you are color blind. But good, and ugly do not reside in things, They reside in peoples minds. I liked the diner. Since is was a 5000 calorie deep fried baconcheese combo with crispie chreame donuts for buns, it may not qualify as good, at least for a doctor. I present these ideas as ways that we may start thinking about the physical world and the associated problems. I also discuss, give credit to, spinoza, lao tzu, richard feynman among others.

All of this is an attempt to help people see the world more clearly and better recognize humpty dumpty speak, and otherwise be happier and better able to deal with the real and contrived problems of the world.

Is this better?
Mr Kol. I hope that this is what you need. If not, perhaps you would take the time to visit my sites, and tell me what I need to make this post acceptable. Or, maybe you would read my post and tell me why I am a pretentious idiot. I read your CV, and you present yourself as a smart capable human whose ideas should not be dismissed lightly. I should have not missed rule 6. Unfortunately, like most humans, I often see (or not) what I want to see.

I am surprised that you seem interested in personal opinion, and do not mention logic and evidence. I see little if any evidence that the problems facing humans can be fixed by voting or opinion polls. I question the entire notion of opinions being good for anything other than expressing what one likes or does not like. This can be useful if one is deciding where to go to dinner, or what movie to see. It has little if any use in deciding if one should have his child innoculated, how to deal with aids, or how to address global warming.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

The personal stuff I'd rather not address here. While I meant for you to put your amendment in the original post itself, I say let's not be too dense and count that what you presented more than suffices. After all, the idea was to see here what your position on the issue was (of course, supported with facts and evidence if possible, like you said). And we did. So thank you. Enjoy the discussion! :)

Removing the 6-hour deadline now. *tips hat*

I'll visit your sites, yes.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Hey, that's quite some read!

Might need a few pints to wash it down.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Go for the rakia!

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

OK I'll click on it. Maybe later today, or some time by the end of this week. Or the next one. Bye for now.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Have you tried taking up painting?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Maybe a canvas that is 35,000,000 pixels.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

If you google my name, I'm the 48th result to come up.

So yeah, I'll waive the autograph fee for all of you.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

refrain from attacking the person, just their ideas. He does not realize that for the vast majority of humans, attacking their ideas / beliefs is the same as attacking them

Good point.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

I am very unlike most humans

Not an unusual feeling. I'm betting the similarities outweigh the differences.


Visit wrongplanet.net to get an idea of this lack of similarity to most of you out there.

No.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

Depends on what you mean by similarities and differences. At a 140 IQ I am over 2SD from the normal. I am obese and 65 years old, but take zero medications, and ski down black diamond ski slopes. Not well, but am the fattest, and usually the oldest one on those slopes.

I emote at about 10% of the normal level, and enjoy having my ideas attacked. I change my mind about major concepts. For example, I joined the libertarian party in 1978, (after being a socialist), but just last year my reading and study convinced me that the core libertarian ideals of societies of autonomous individuals is contrary to human nature. Humans are, by nature and evolution, tribal and group animals. How many people here can say that after 40 they under went a major change in how they view the nature of humans and culture?

I can also stop speeding bullets, and have my big toe on my hand.

I also have aspergers. I try to think and communicate in moldified e-prime. My fun reading is / are non fiction books, usually about humans and the physical world.

My similarities are that I eat, sleep, poop, and pee. I am sexually streight, and when you cut me I bleed. But by most measures I exist at the extreme end of the normal distribution.

So, if you quantify your bet in measurable terms (and I am betting that you can not ) I would probably win the bet.

[fornikate.livejournal.com]

what

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Having not had time to read your book yet, I would suggest that you look into Spiral Dynamics. If you need pointers on that, ask me.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_Dynamics


Sounds like a cult.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I'm going to have to pass, the 666 in your user name scared me off.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

And that's not even the real number of the beast.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

Having skimmed the article, I will offer the following advice: if you want your ideas to be treated seriously, write in a serious style.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

I thought that I was. One of my major neurological deficites is that I really do not do abstractions well, nor understand how humans understand words. For example I do not know what love means. I do, on the other hand, understand and recognize acts of love. That is, I comprehend the concrete much better than the abstract. So, seriously ... can you take a paragraph or two of mine and re-write in in what you consider manner. I would appreciate the help.

And here I assume you mean my main article orwells boot, or perhaps what I wrote at xfoolnature.org. Much of what I am writing here is fluff, almost always in response to fluff

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Alright, I only skimmed your article because of a few things. The major one being structure: it's rambling style isn't easy to read. Also using terms like "stoopid" makes you look that way. It may mean something to you but I couldn't understand why you were using it. Restructure with an abstract on top (read some scientific papers for that), then treat the rest like a news article: Cover the main points in brief at the beginning and flesh out the ideas later on. That way if a reader is interested in a particular point they can read on, otherwise they can skip it.

If you are actually writing a book, then the style would be different, but nobody has time to read every book ever published, so they need a good reason to devote hours to it. This requires pre- and post- publication publicity.

FYI Like Andy Warhol I claim my IQ to be 86. That number isn't arbitrary. Being smart does not shield you from dumb ideas. In fact, in some ways it makes it more likely that you will have them.

[factotum666.livejournal.com]

Your point with the rambling style is well taken. I was afraid that might be the case. In fact, I am searching for an editor.
I kind of wondered about st00pid myself. But I wanted to differentiate it from stupid, which almost any person thinks of as intellectually challenged. Clearly those who launched the Challenger, and Columbia had above average IQ's, and an ability to solve problems. As did Donald Rumsfeld. Unfortunately they had an amazing ability to not learn from experience. There are few things more dangerous in this complex world than a smart stupid person in a position of power. They can use their smart to defend their stupid in an amazing range of ways.

I very much liked your other suggestions. Thank You!!

I had read that about Andy Warhol. It makes me question IQ tests. Have you done the ravens progressive matricies test?
Well, no matter. Clearly you are either a freak of nature, or IQ tests are not 100% accurate. Or some combination of that and other things.