I'm cool with space exploration, hell, if I had the opportunity I'd fucking go to the moon! Space colonization is what is nauseating. I'd like to be aboard a spaceship that simply watches. — darthbarracuda

I'm cool too with space exploration, but why would you fucking go to the moon? We already know what it looks like (dry, gray, bumpy, round) Have you been to Vladivostok yet? Milwaukee? Odessa? Aleppo? (Never mind; too late, nothing left.) Pyongyang? (Better book your flight soon; it might be disappearing any day now.)

You probably won't be required to take a dose of Pepto Bismol. It seems unlikely that we will send anybody to Mars more than once or twice, then that will be it for both space exploration and galactic colonization.

I am not armed with evidence right now, but I bet if I had the time and other resources I could find a lot of evidence of horrible things done in the name of "progress".

The removal of Native Americans is probably one example. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, the aboriginal genocide wasn't done just in the name of progress, it was done as progress. The European conception of the New World was that it was a wasteland (because it was wild and uncultivated) and needed to be improved--tamed and brought under cultivation. They were wrong about that. The aboriginals had brought much of North America under human control. The forests were kept free of undergrowth to make hunting game easier. prairie fire was used to increase forage for buffalo. Most of the tribes -- coast-to-coast -- engaged in some kind of agriculture. Corn, tomatoes, potatoes,, chili peppers, avocados, cranberries, blueberries, huckleberries,, papayas,, passionfruit, pineapples, strawberries, squash, tobacco, and chocolate (plus a few others) were developed by native American people. Several of the foods (corn, tomatoes, potatoes in particular) required extensive plant breeding to become the major food crops they were when Europeans arrived.

Better for who? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That would be "Better for whom"; who is the subject case, whom is the object case (object of the preposition 'for')

The beneficiaries (are better off now than they would have been in 1067 and 1867).

How do you know?
— WISDOMfromPO-MO — "Bitter

If there is no such thing as progress, then there is no way of measuring whether people are better off now than they were 100 or 1000, 10,000, or 1,000,000 years ago. I assume that progress's occurrence delivers changes which people consider beneficial.

Food production is far greater; deaths of children and women during childbirth are much lower now than they were 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago Adult men and women die of fewer diseases now than in the past, and longevity has increased. What diseases? Polio, Tuberculosis, Small Pox, leprosy, and some others. They are healthier (more robust) now than in the past.

Progress is not without costs, of course. Progress has enabled humans to live more complex lives. We could measure 'progress' by energy consumption. We consume far more energy now, per person, than we did in 1867 or 1066. Global warming, resource depletion, and increasing species' extinction are all effects of our energy consumption and more complex lives.

So, by definition, progress exists. It's another question whether the value of progress to those who are its beneficiaries more than balances out the harm it does.

If you can't get wisdom from your bartender, why drink? — noAxioms

Good point!

My avatar is an illustration of the American Flamingo — geospiza

I have a plastic pink flamingo in my yard, for purposes of low camp. Audubon was spared this embarrassment.

I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary. — noAxioms

A similar thing happened in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod (a mostly German branch of Lutheranism in the US) in the 1980s. It was engineered. It split the synod, congregations, and institutions. The institutions (like the seminary and college administrators) adopted a very conservative, literalist Biblical view. A lot of talent and congregations left to join mainstream Lutherans.

There was nothing inherently, theologically conservative about the German Lutherans in the US. Like I said, it was engineered. It wasn't a mass-movement change.

How did this change come about in your experience?

The predictable objection is, "We abolished slavery. We enfranchised women. We eradicated polio. We ended Apartheid. We have reduced violence to historically low rates. We increased the amount of leisure time people have. How can you not believe in progress?" — WISDOMfromPO-MO

And more besides.

Perhaps the problem is that "progress" implies cumulative and continual change in the direction that is thought to be advantageous. We see in our past that at times we have made progress and then the progress we made receded. We can see this in the longer term (the period of Roman ascendency, then a period of Roman recession and disintegration) and in the shorter term. In 1973 the right to have a safe abortion seemed secured. Forty-odd years later, it no longer seems assured at all.

I don't think history is cyclical, nor is history following a course -- like, toward ever more progress. One event follows another, and this event leads to that event, and if sometimes the result is pleasant, at other times it is not.

Still for now, life is better than it was in 1067 or 1867. If progress happens over the short run, it also plateaus at times, where things don't keep getting better. They just putter along.

One thing about your collapsing foundation metaphor:

Building can be (and sometimes are) built so that the stability of the structure depends on a few members at ground level--City Bank Bldg. in NYC. Other buildings (thinking of a very, very big low-rise building like the Pentagon) aren't going to collapse all at once -- indeed, can't collapse all at once. Philosophical systems can be more like the pentagon. or they can be like a City Bank Bldg. One won't fall all at once, the other one could (theoretically--given the right stresses).

Here's a page charting the evolution of Mondriaan's style from figurative to abstract:

The claw foot chair is not well equipped to grasp its escaped ball, but feels compelled to reach anyway. Sort of like life itself. Should I change my handle from "bitter crank" to something else? What would you suggest.

I would have sworn that was Frank Lloyd Wright art deco. — geospiza

Mondrian Vs. Frank Lloyd Wright:


FLW would never use primary colors, and his art deco designs were representative in an abstract way.

My understanding is that non-latex condoms are not an effective barrier to disease. — geospiza

Condoms are effective barriers to sexual transmission of diseases including AIDS, Zika, Ebola, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Trichomoniasis, and hepatitis.

Polyurethane condoms for men and women are an effective barrier. Women? Yes, the Reality™ brand female condom is an inelastic tube that is inserted into the vagina. An exterior ring (built into the condom) holds it in place. Lifestyle, Durex, and Trojan (and other brands) include plastic as an alternative to latex condoms for men. Some people like plastic better than latex because they feel warmer (heat transfer is faster).

What is not as effective are lambskin condoms, which are made out of sheep gut tissue. Their deficiency is that they are just porous enough to allow some virus particles through. Better than nothing, but not the equal of plastic or latex.

No condom brand is 100% effective over time. They are about 82% effective at preventing pregnancy. The failure rate includes failure to use during sex. Whether this is due to improper use, occasionally skipping use, or a normal failure rate isn't known. However, 82% to 90% effectiveness when used properly is a hell of a lot better than no use at all.

Should pornographic actors be required to use condoms? — geospiza

I've thought about this and discussed the question for years and I still can't decide. The State is not in a good position to enforce such a requirement (because the State is hopefully not on site during porn production). Producers and participants are in a better position to enforce condom use.

Should everyone be legally obligated to use condoms, except in procreative sex? I don't think so.

What is the actual purpose and intent of these proposals, and do they achieve their desired effect? — geospiza

I didn't track that election, so I can't comment on what the authors of the initiative had in mind. However, the obvious reason for requiring condoms in pornography productions would be two-fold: one, to protect the participants from HIV, syphilis, and gonorrhea. Vaccination against the two strains of herpes virus that cause cervical cancer is more effective than condoms. Two, to normalize the use of condoms in casual sexual encounters.

Ironically, from a public health perspective, frequent use of latex condoms can result in skin irritation and increased susceptibility to infection. — geospiza

There are non-latex condoms.

At least in gay pornography, condoms are consistently used in some studio's productions, and consistently not used in other studio's output. Whether condoms are used, or not is based on the market that the studio is pursuing, and perhaps the ethics of the producers. Performers select the studios they want to work with.

Whatever they are willing to do in their own sexual encounters, some men strongly prefer to watch porn where condoms are not used. I have not met any guys who strongly prefer to watch porn where condoms are consistently used--where condom use would just not be an obstacle to their viewing pleasure.

Condoms greatly reduce disease transmission risk. Avoiding unprotected anal or vaginal sex also reduces transmission risk for HIV, but not for syphilis or gonorrhea which can readily be transmitted during oral sex. The only other way of reducing disease transmission risk as much is to have extensive knowledge about the activities of one's partner. This, of course, is difficult to guarantee even in marriage.

It is difficult to say whether condom use in adult films have normalized condom use, because there are other factors leading to normalization. One is the still-not-well-enough publicized risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Two is the devastating impact of AIDS. Three is the wider retail availability of condoms. Four is changes in social patterns which (may or may not) lead to less promiscuous sex.

I don't know whether men who prefer to watch sex where condoms are not used are more likely to refuse to use condoms in their own sexual encounters. I would guess there is a positive correlation --condomless porn being associated with condomless sex--but self-reporting survey information is notoriously unreliable.

I spent several years promoting condom use for HIV prevention, and I am in favor of consistent use for purposes of risk reduction.

BTW, gonorrhea is a greater health risk than it used to be because it is becoming increasingly resistant to antibiotics. A few strains are not readily curable. Syphilis (a more severe disease than gonorrhea in the long run) is as readily curable as ever because Treponema pallidum is sort of fragile and penicillin wipes it out.

Other people are involved with glory holes too. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Oh, I suppose in an art glass studio other people would be involved in the glory hole of the furnace from which a viscous ball of molten glass is taken or later reheated. I don't see what that has to do with sex, however.

The myth "sex is just about pleasure" is wrong because it's ignorant of how other people are involved in the sexual encounter. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Some sexual encounters are more pleasurable if one is observant about how other people are involved in the encounter. In the glory hole situation (which a few of the TPF participants may not be familiar with) both participants will have a better time if they are on the same page. Sometimes it happens that observance of one partner's experience is sort of irrelevant--by mutual agreement. Sex just isn't always about mutuality.

We see it's nothing more than a man thinking he's entitled to try and get what he wants — TheWillowOfDarkness

Why would a man NOT be entitled to at least try to get what he wants? Are not women also entitled to try and get what they want? (You can't always get what you want, you know.)

In some cases, the (dis)interests of women are enough to mean an approach is unethical, even in a bar. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Even "an approach" is unethical? Is one supposed to recognize the aura of inviolability from across the room?

...without consideration of the circumstances or interests of any woman involved. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Well, that seems like a rather tall order for a social situation that one would try to figure out the circumstances of a woman (or a man) when making an approach. In gay bars, all sorts of approaches are made, and if one isn't interested one says so (verbally or non-verbally) and that's that. Of course some guys try harder than others to get what they want--they maybe don't take "no" for an answer. One deals with it. Why would a woman not be able to do as much?

She's really got one of those "actualize the potential for communion" bodies. — VagabondSpectre

Yes, very pneumatic. Probably air-brushed. I'm guessing 1960s or later, judging by the hemline, strapless design, and hair. Not before the 50s.

Do you know this to be true — Reformed Nihilist

This is 50% reading, 50% intuition. I have read some reports that madams and high class prostitution aren't involved with organized crime. Since these are (usually) "outcall" services, services are rendered at widely dispersed locations, by appointment. Educated and/or sophisticated women are hired to serve wealthy clients with services at a high and exclusive price point. The volume of cash is high enough to afford protection from police (through payoffs).

Organized crime generally isn't interested in penny ante rackets. Bottom of the barrel street prostitution doesn't produce enough income to be of interest. Mid-level prostitution would be of more interest because centralized locations (whorehouses) are used, the cash flow is reasonably good, and the business can be tightly controlled.

Organized crime generally prefers to have more control over its operations than this sort of high class whoring allows. The only thing the madam needs is an address book with contacts and telephone numbers of customers and her stable of women. One of the features of exclusive outcall services is protection from blackmail -- something organized crime would be interested in doing, not protecting people from.

There are some rackets organized crime has difficulty entering. Prescription drugs, for instance, aren't generally available in underground markets (there are exceptions) and are subject to oversight by state Departments of Heath. Selling stuff on the internet (like e-bay facilitates) is too dispersed and unpredictable a business to be attractive to organized crime. Loan sharking was a good business before credit cards became ubiquitous.

(Crime gets organized when necessary, and is always looking for new rackets. A current racket is forgery of high class trademarked products like Gucci, Chanel, or Louis Vuitton.

Nothing would prevent organized crime from running a high class outcall service -- I'm sure in some places they have. But in general, that doesn't seem to be their preferred "business model".

1. There is no such thing as "meaningless sex".
2. Casual sex is not different (as sex) than sex with the "proper" partner.
3. Sexual activity bears certain risks, no matter what the intentions of the couple or either individual.*
4. When men and women appear in a bar and behave (dress, actions, speech, etc.) as if they were interested in sex, then their behavior should be taken at face value.**
5. Desiring and obtaining abundant sex with willing partners is not abnormal or deviant. It's what healthy people do, unless otherwise occupied

* The risks include disease, pregnancy, inconvenient entanglements, etc.
** Behaving AS IF one was available and willing and then abruptly claiming that dress, actions, speech, etc. have nothing to do with sex is either naive or deceptive.
*** While having sex isn't obligatory (even in marriage) it is a very pleasant and appropriate experience.

If rape is an expression of power, then mutually agreed upon sexual activity will not lead to rape. Sex that leaves one with regrets because it didn't meet one's standards for "ideal sex" doesn't make it rape.

n places that have Shiite Law — dclements

Did you mean "sharia" law?

Do you buy into the scientific evidence that supports the notion that mindfulness has benefits for both physical and mental health? — Brian

Sure, I'll drink to that. ANY concerted effort to manage one's mental transactions toward a positive outcome are likely to be beneficial. There are numerous methods--secular and religious--to achieve these ends.

I have practiced yoga at times (and I should be practicing it now, for the sake of physical flexibility and range-of-motion, if nothing else) and found it beneficial. Prayer, fasting, exercise, time management, meditation, to-do lists, practicing helpful habits, eating a healthy diet, maintaining an active mental life, getting enough exercise, listening to music (whatever is enjoyable) etc. are all beneficial (I haven't done all those things, mind you, like prayer and fasting).

One example of mindfulness and depression: depression often involves 'perseverating' -- obsessing -- about something one finds annoying. The longer one thinks about it, the more upset one gets. Mindfulness has helped me nip obsessive thinking in the bud. However, I couldn't do this when I was really depressed. Perseverance took on a life of its own. Now, thankfully, depression has faded and I feel pretty good--mentally healthy. I am functioning very well, now. Mindfulness and yoga didn't produce that result. (I don't know what, exactly, is responsible. Probably retirement.)

I think it would be helpful to teach mindfulness to children in school. We need a way of monitoring what is going on in our heads, so we don't get carried away with our emotions before we even know what is happening.

As an aside, I believe that my Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, at this point in time anyway, is banking on eventually getting re-elected by the politics of race, gender and gender-bending, the three major social issues most enthusiastically covered by the overtly progressive Toronto Star and Metro newspapers.) — FrankGSterleJr

I'm pretty sure that there are too few gender-bending, anti-racist, and anti-sexist people in Canada to re-elect PM Trudeau--or to elect him in the first place. These issues (race/sex/gender identity)--which I am also sick and tired of hearing about, even though I am a leftist, are symbolic and for liberals they are a "watershed issue". Liberals want to be on one side of the watershed, conservatives on the other. Neither side has to be terribly invested in the details of the issues.

As for your OP title -- News Media Creates Much of Their Consumers' Reality -- that has been shown to be true for decades. For instance, people who get all of their news about "the world" and their city from local television media tend to greatly over-estimate the amount of violence being perpetrated in their city. Local media tends to focus on fires, shootings, gang activity, accidents -- that sort of thing. If it bleeds it leads.

The media -- even the best metropolitan newspapers like the New York Times or London Guardian or PBS / NPR, ProPublica, etc. -- tend to promote an overly simplified skewed view of political life. This is a problem during this time of political realignment. The old left, right, and center don't exist anymore. The political distribution has shifted rightward, and "upward" and "downward" so to speak, as other dividing lines come into play. Being "pro-environment" or "anti growth" aren't strictly liberal/conservative issues anymore. That, however, is too complicated when you have 130 seconds to present a story on the 7:00 pm news.

A local affiliate of National Public Radio chided the legislature for "acting like squabbling children in the sand box" because they were having difficulty deciding on the net biennial budget. No, they weren't behaving like children -- they were behaving like representatives of diverse and conflicting interests. Similarly, this station's news department (otherwise head and shoulders above the crowd) has been referring to "divided government" -- one party controlling the legislature, one party controlling the governor. It's misleading. Should one party have control of everything? I don't think so.

The PBS NewsHour has the right approach: A quick summary of the news then 3--at the most 4--stories during the hour long news broadcast. 15 to 20 minutes is enough time to present more complex information. Plus, they do this 5 nights a week. (I don't watch TV any more; I looked at the NewsHour a couple of years ago, and thought it seemed like the same program I had watched 5 or 10 years earlier. Kind of stale.

One last issue: the best newspapers and electronic media do cover environment, global warming, and science news reasonably well. However, the best newspapers and electronic media all have fairly limited audiences. (I'm not counting ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox among "the best".)

there are some countries in the Middle East and Africa that enforce Shiite law where it can be illegal to have even a picture of a woman in a two piece bathing suit on one's computer — dclements

I would guess it would be illegal to have a picture of a woman in even a ONE piece bathing suit in some countries. She might as well be naked. However, according to journalism I've read, lots of men in the middle east are viewing porn.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum.

Discarding the Ego as a Way to Happiness? — CasKev

Well, you can't discard your ego. As the term is used, it's "you". You may not like everything (or anything) about your self, but "you" is all you've got, so accept it. "Acceptance" is another piece of happiness. By acceptance, I don't mean either abject submission or a narcissistic celebration. "Acceptance" is just that -- accepting who you are, now, as the starting point, whatever comes next.

which was considered to be hypomanic by some — CasKev

IF ONLY we could just find the precise point where hypomania could go on forever! Unfortunately, we tend to either slide up into mania (which can be real trouble) or we slide down into depression, which can be just as much trouble.

But... maybe you had a reprieve. I'm a long term depression case (30+ years) and am very grateful that for the last 3 or 4 years I've felt normal, effective, healthy, and productive. Maybe retirement had something to do with that, I don't know, but it's been great.

Develop Awareness — CasKev

Oh yes! Got to have it. Know thyself, the unexamined life is not worth living, and so on, unto thy own self be true, etc.

Stop Judging — CasKev

Acceptance again. It helps, in as much as one can, to accept other people. If someone you know is a gauche obnoxious slob, there's probably nothing you can do about it other than arranging one's schedule to avoid this person. But gauche obnoxious slob they will probably stay. I, myself, have been a gauche obnoxious slob at times.

Discard the Ego — CasKev

I said it already, but you still can't discard your ego. Accept that you have it, and stop judging yourself so harshly. Why should you be perfect? Nobody else is. (Some therapists think that guilt in failing to live up to perfectionist expectations is a component of depression. Some validity to that idea, I think.)

Human Importance - humans are animals; our level of intelligence is what allows the ego to form Sense of Self - we build our sense of self out of beliefs, and attachment to material forms — CasKev

I don't know... I don't think I agree (not that my opinion should ruin your day).

"self" starts to form early in life, before beliefs, attachment to material things, and all that comes along. Indeed, I think our sense of self guides our acquisition of beliefs or how we feel about material things. Some of self is genetically programmed. All humans have it, and we have it early on. As we age into maturity, we find we have complex selves which contains contradictions. As Walt Whitman said of himself, "I contain multitudes". Not sure what all Whitman meant, but I mean we aren't just simple, little wrinkled up, peach-pit selves. We're full of stuff. A simple, little self is to us as an asparagus stem is to a head of cauliflower. We burst out.

What bothers me is that why do we still let those criminal elements of society to operate freely? Should we not clamp down on these elements? — Question

There are a couple of problems (at least). One is technical sophistication. When organized crime makes a lot of money in drug importing, the money has to be "cleaned up". It needs to be made to look like it is the product of legitimate business. Large international banks are presumed to be involved in this activity -- money laundering. It's complex, and there are only so many forensic accountants around.

Another, as Thorongil said, is police involvement or intimidation. A skilled crook could arrange to compromise a police department.

A third is flying under the radar -- maybe literally, but mostly as a figure of speech. If a criminal enterprise can effectively conceal the details of its operation, and if, for all intents and purposes, it appears to be legitimate, probably no one will come calling to have a look at the books.

A fourth is that tax evasion, fucking over the public good, and all sorts of corrupt and corrupting activities (that may not be, shall we say, "exactly illegal") are carried out by mainline institutions, maybe all the way up to at least two branches of the federal government.

I've always been under the impression that the porn world is full of cocaine users and criminal elements such as drug dealing, exploitation, and mafia type elements. — Question

I think it depends on where and at what economic level one is speaking of. High class prostitutes, for instance, usually have no connection with organized crime, gangs, or drugs. At the opposite end of the economy you definitely find drugs and organized crime--like human trafficking for purposes of prostitution, both within and across our borders. Gangs may combine drugs and prostitution.

Organized crime was not always been involved with casino gambling, like Las Vegas. They used to be more involved in local gambling, loan sharking, protection rackets (pay us or we'll beat you up) and so on. They weren't always involved in drug dealing either. They are opportunists. Tony Soprano and his waste management operation is a fictional good example. Aside from whacking somebody ever now and then, Soprano was mostly about municipal fraud. Loan sharking? How can you compete with VISA, MASTERCARD, et al? Or Wells Fargo? Political corruption? Hasn't that been professionalized, pretty much?

Porn... I suspect that it was much more involved in crime when it was a socially sanctioned product. I really don't know how anyone could make much money in porn these days -- there is so much of it, everywhere, catering to every sub-fetish there is--porn just doesn't command the prices it used to get. Plus, it's extremely easy to copy. Tumblr has a lot of gay subscribers who are mining the supply of old and new porn and distributing it free--and there are a lot of straight subscribers doing the same thing with straight porn.

Adult entertainment is akin to calling whores "sex workers". Some people think that "whore" is an oppressive term, like "sex work" is some sort of liberation. Some people think "prostitute" is a term of oppression--it demeans sex work, or something.

You might happen to live in a good market, or it may be that you are not seeking minimum wage jobs -- like office cleaner, fast food worker, fruits and vegetable canning factories, alfalfa drying, chicken slaughtering, or day labor landscaping, etc (I hope you are not).

Minnesota had a $3.50 minimum wage until 2008--it had been at that level for a long time. It went tup to $6.15. The metropolitan areas of MN are not particularly cheap -- not nearly as bad as NYC, Boston, or San Francisco, but high enough.

The purpose of increasing minimum wage remains lost on me... — Lone Wolf

Yes, it seems to be. The purpose of both an increased minimum wage and a living wage is to redistribute income downward to those who provide many of the less expensive products and services consumed by people across the spectrum of wages from poverty level to fifty rich.

There are two labor drives: One drive is to increase minimum wages (MW) and the other drive is to establish a living wage (LW).

Example: In 2014 the MN Legislature increased the MW from $6.15 hr (which was below the federal MW of $7.25 hr.) to $9.50 an hr, over a 3 year phase in. $9.50 hr. is now in effect and is for large employers. For smaller employers, the minimum wage topped out at $7.75. Beginning in 2018, the MW will be tied to inflation. It should be noted that as of July 1, 2017, the MN economy continues to do well, despite poor people getting a little more money.

A living wage (LW) is a more challenging concept, pegging the LW at a level required for one adult working full time to meet average expenses without assistance, and paying taxes. For an adult living alone, the LW = $11.53. For an adult with one child, the LW = $24.90. For two working adults with 3 children, the LW = $20 hr. for each of them. (Figures are from MIT for Hennepin County in Minnesota.)

True enough, a higher wage for fast food workers may well result in fewer jobs in that sector. There may be a small reduction in employees at a McDonald's, or an automated ordering kiosk might replace cashiers. However, minimum wages are generally across the board, so all employers are incurring this expense -- eliminating any competitive disadvantage.

Much more problematic is the case of cities establishing a living wage.

Example: Minneapolis has enacted a $15 living wage, to be phased in between now and 2024. I'm in favor of laws such as this, but they should be across the board (by state). Because Minneapolis is surrounded by 2,000,000 plus residents in its metropolitan area, this LW law might not work.

Anthropology, neuroscience, political science, psychology and sociology — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A good example of the matter of beliefs and behavior is voting. It isn't entirely clear what, exactly, the relationship is between the two. Some people who were at the time receiving significant benefit from the AHA and Medicaid voted for a candidate who promised to either radically change or get rid of the programs.

Were they voting against their self interest with respect to health care, or were they voting on the basis of beliefs or perceived self-interests apart from health care? It should be possible to sort out what the real reasons were for (a sample of) people voting contrary to expectations.

There are a lot of behaviors that are not well accounted for.

Conclusive evidence that all variables have been controlled and it was in fact belief that caused the action is never presented. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Perhaps because

There are a zillion other variables in play besides belief. Mood. Reflexes. Outlook. Goals. Pleasure and pain. Empathy or lack of empathy. Etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

The behaviorists (like B. F. Skinner) took the view that the mind is a black box. We can not observe what goes on inside. We can observe stimuli and we can observe response. We can not determine what the interplay of beliefs, mood, reflexes, outlook, goals, pleasure, pain, Empathy, prior conditioning, and other factors, might have on observed behavior.

EDIT: B. F. SKINNER died in 1990 at 86; I don't think he was still working in the field. At the time he developed his primary theories, the MRI/fMRI and CT scan had not been imagined yet. However, in 2017 we still don't know all that much about how an idea is born, comes to be influential for us, and begins to affect behavior (if it does). end edit

There is something to say for the behaviorist approach. "Just look at the observable facts of the matter; in most cases, we have very little proof of what people actually believe at any given moment, or what the relationship is between beliefs and behavior."

In your example, you were trespassing and the land owner shot you. A jury would need to decide -- based on material evidence -- whether you could have known you were trespassing (maybe there were no fences or signs in sight) and whether the landowner was justified in using deadly force against you (in some jurisdictions the land owner might be convicted of second degree murder and in others killer landlords might be exonerated). A lawyer might bring up the landlord's beliefs about the sanctity of private property, but another lawyer might point out that the landowner's beliefs were irrelevant. You were 11 years old, unarmed, and were (apparently) collecting butterflies. You could pose no conceivable threat to the 250 pound ex Navy Seal landowner or to his property.

I think you are correct: The existence of alleged or real beliefs doesn't prove very much.

No, never saw the Stuart Smalley bit. Of course it's more complicated than that -- James was referencing just one connection between thought, emotion, and behavior. His idea works well when the object or person is not actually dangerous but is imagined to be dangerous. Scratching the ears of a big snarling dog is likely to get one's hand bit off. Fearing all dogs, because one imagines them all to be dangerous, would be reduced by interacting with friendly dogs.

It turns out that if your self esteem is low enough, positive self talk can actually have a negative effect. — Reformed Nihilist

I don't want to defend the often vacuous self-help industry, but there is some truth to the notion of positive self-talk and visualization of a desired action (like visualizing pitching a baseball perfectly). Probably not a lot of truth, just some truth. 25% truth/75% baloney.

But getting back to the OP's problem: One can decide intellectually--to will--that one will care about people more. Say, one decides one ought to be more caring about homeless people. We can not just throw a switch, producing the fact of an emotional caring for the needs and suffering of the homeless. One has to involve one's self at some level with people who are homeless and interact with them.

This is a place where James' idea can work. By interacting with homeless people AS IF they were real people who might be interesting as well as unfortunate, we can develop emotional connections. (Of course, this can backfire. A homeless person can, like any other person, be intensely disagreeable.)

By interacting with homeless people, one can establish the necessary emotional connection to actually care.

On the other hand, one can be blinded by emotional connection.

Take the case of illegal immigrants and refugees. Some (maybe many) of the advocates for these groups of people have an intensely strong emotional connection. This can interfere with a more comprehensive view. Immigrant and refugee advocates sometimes can not see contradictions -- like opposing an effort to reduce human trafficking. "Cracking down on human trafficking will break up families." Trafficking wouldn't be going on if the families weren't already broken up, and human traffickers are NOT on the side of refugees or illegal immigrants. Traffickers are on the side of easy money, sometimes at the cost of the lives they are trafficking in.

Similarly, people who advocate for users of illicit drugs ALWAYS object to tighter enforcement and control of drugs because "that will just drive drugs users underground". Well, they already are underground, and are dying because of drug use, not because of law enforcement.

Another example of blinded advocates were gay men in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They were emotionally too close to the problem to recognize that some of their gay sexual behavior was causing very significant health problems -- even before AIDS appeared in 1981.

UPSHOT: It is necessary to have emotional involvement to care, but too much emotional involvement can interfere with perception, just as no emotional involvement can interfere.

Yes. William James observed that behavior affects emotion. Acting (he didn't mean on stage) as if something was fearsome would tend to enhance ones fearfulness. Conversely, acting as if something -- or someone -- was nothing to be feared might eliminate fear altogether.

"You can care about a life only if you can have an emotional connection with it." — River

Perhaps. As Reformed Nihilist pointed out, it's a tautology. but...

Can you choose to care--can your rational machinery direct your emotional machinery to care? Which part of your brain (rational/prefrontal cortex or emotional/limbic system) decides whether you are going to feel caring or not?

You (mercifully) don't have emotional connections with all 7,000,000,000+ people on earth, but you may very well care about their well being in a general sort of way--like, there are too many people, not enough resources, suffering will result, that is bad, woe is us. But what, exactly, is it that you care about? The individual, detailed suffering or the more abstract suffering of the many?

Good luck with your paper, whatever you rationally choose (or are driven by your emotions) to write about -- and will you be able to tell the difference?

It would appear that your tchotchkes are about to fall of the shelf. Better move them before Hanover's cat gets to them. Oh oh -- an empty bed.

Are you a woman or a weapon?

I am glad you asked and didn't assume like I did thinking of the produce named Cucumbers but sometimes shortened to Cukes. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Were we to devise new insults and use fruits and vegetables for slurs, which ones would we use?

So and so is such a __________________ for females, __________________ for males.
What a pile of compost!
You are a melonkopf.
You, Senator, are a rotten, stinking potato. (potatoes stink when they rot)
If you want to pass as a vegetable, you'll have to tone that fruitiness down.
Top banana
You don't amount to a hill of beans (about 3 beans)
A pain in the asparagus

Example: W.A.S.P — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Who the hell thought there was anything derogatory about being a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant? We are the apex of creation, the paragon of animals, the Supreme Beings. We used to run America! Alas...

W.A.S.P. = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

We try to eliminate criminals through punishment. However we rarely try to look at it through the angle of restoration and rehabilitation. — Rosalina

Yes, that's true, and we should practice restorative justice and rehabilitation.

Do you use the "N" word much? Is it because you are not comfortable using it, or maybe you are black and you are comfortable using it. — Cavacava

N for nigger, you mean? I'm a W.A.S.P. I would use 'nigger' more, but it upsets white people so much. We've gotten to the point where one can't even say niggardly (meaning an ungenerous person) in public. I'd think twice about ordering a negroni cocktail (named after Count Camillo Negroni) in an all white bar. I might be stabbed to death with swizzle sticks.

OK. I just consulted the Urban Dictionary (which is decidedly NOT authoritative): They said...

Cuck is a man who's a little bitch. Contrary to the beliefs of the liberal leaning crowd trying to explain something popularized by the conservatives, cuck is used by many races for someone who is spineless and IS derived from cuckold.
Her cuck boyfriend watched as a man flirted and felt up his girl in front of him.
She cheated on him and told him it would never happen again, he's such a cuck to believe that.

I'm an old man, and keeping up with the latest slang strains my already full memory.

I think that is pedantic and absurd. A person ought to be able to express themselves as they see fit, not according to any strictures or lack thereof — Cavacava

It might be pedantic, but I don't see absurdity. I'll drink to expression as people see fit, but I was mercifully responding to a cry for help:

sorry for those words but couldn't find a better alternative — Rosalina