Where's Nil Loc when you need him.

I skimmed the Atlantic article and thought it a waist of time with little substance.

They say you can't fake extroversion and it's a mistake to try because if it feels fake to you it will certainly feel fake to others and that is very off putting, which defeats the purpose of connecting with others, assuming that's the purpose. Instead it's recommended to work from the inside out, developing an inner calm, however that might be accomplished (I'm currently trying hypnotherapy with some success), developing a genuine liking for others and a desire to connect, and also being selective in the circumstances or environment of where you practice, choosing situations where you naturally feel most comfortable. Indeed the situation of working at a cash register might be optimal.

Barrett doesn't suggest that it's in any way new and in fact mentions studies dating back to at least the 50's. It is new for me. As a layman I seem to have been mislead by the so called 'classical view' of emotion.

There are two senses of me:

1. action, practice: such as
a : exercise or practice of an art, science, or skill
b : customary practice or conduct

2. practical application of a theory

When Trump was elected I sought to understand how it happened and read books like Strangers in Their Own Land by Arlie Hoshschild (sociologist). Apparently I'm so geography-illiterate that I still don't understand the significance of geography in relation to Trump. I read the Huffington article.

I can sympathize with Trump supporters, now that I understand their situation and beliefs a bit better. I'm a liberal from Southern California. But it seems to be the case that Trump simply uses his base against themselves via right-wing populism.

I'm not suggesting that geography literacy is unimportant, just that I don't see an obvious significance in relation to the election.

I'm only about halfway through the book but as I understand the theory so far even fear is a social construct. The general interoceptive baseline from which emotions are partially constructed is simply pleasant/unpleasant and degrees of simulation.

I'm currently reading a fascinating book about the theory of constructed emotion by Lisa Feldman Barrett. Emotions and their function in our lives may be more malleable than we tend to think.

Just as it is the case that we cannot doubt that that is(called) "a tree", likewise we have no ground to doubt that those people mean to do us harm and are to be avoided at all costs. We have no ability to question whether or not the teachings are true, because questioning that requires a baseline, and our initially adopted worldview is that baseline. — creativesoul

If you're talking about a maladaptive fear such as Islamophobia the baseline to reshape our concepts or social constructs are objective facts, I suppose. If the actual evidence doesn't support the attitude we can endeavor to change the attitude.

I said I don't know how the geography-illiterate think about where things are located. Geography is a science, so if a person has not thought geographically then maybe he/she thinks that the locations of things are random. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

To be clear, I'm geography-illiterate just as you describe in the OP and that's why I decided to participate.

To reiterate my uninformed understanding, I assume cities tended to develop organically around major transportation hubs (railroads for instance) or other beneficial natural resources such as bays in coastal areas, and perhaps large rivers in inland areas. For example, it makes sense to me that San Francisco is located in the Bay Area rather than Big Sur. I don't think there was actually a guy (the official city site chooser for California I guess) who flipped a coin, heads for Big Sur and tails for the Bay Area, and the shipping industry at the time just happened to get lucky.

As for the location of "soil and water," I believe this is more of a geology question. I assume you've heard of plate tectonics, erosion, and so on.

Sociology, economics, geology, biology, etc. can all be done without any reference to or account of latitude and longitude--without any reference to or account of location on the Earth. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I suppose they could be done this way but done badly. You have to admit it would at least lack a... how should I say, holistic perspective.

You prove the point of this thread with much of what you say. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Again I'm geography-illiterate just as you describe in the OP, yet I understand concepts like depended origination, the butterfly effect, etc. This apparently tends to disprove your point.

But before people can understand and appreciate the location of their settlement, they have to be aware of things like that network. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But eventually it comes down to a coin toss?

But you started out talking about the relationship between cities and ports (water). — WISDOMfromPO-MO

So etc. could be referring to any geographical element? Okay.

The geography-illiterate might be so provincial that they do not see the small range of latitude and longitude that they work and live in being affected by or affecting any other place. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yup, them there country folk are real morons.

Thereby allowing a significant portion of the population to engage in finding solutions to current dilemmas in all domains from science to spiritual to politics to psychological and social issues etc. — intrapersona

The ugly truth is that we have the time and resources to do this now, but we still don't do it. Don't expect that some fairy tail AI will make this possible.

I don't even know what the geography-illiterate think. They think that the locations of cities, soils, water, etc. were randomly determined by the flip of a coin, maybe? Places are in vacuums and do not affect each other, maybe? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Intuitively, the location of cities primarily developed around major ports or other hubs of transportation. Isn't the location of soils and water geology? Given the categorical disparity between cities and soil & water, I'm not sure what etc. may be referring to.

I not sure why anyone would think "places" are in vacuums that don't affect​ each other. Are these places very far apart?

More nonsense, apparently.

There's no hope because the way general beliefs about the mind are socially constructed are socially useful. You can't fight what culture wants you to believe as part of its own self-preserving mythology. — apokrisis

We can obviously resist what a culture wants us to believe. Culture doesn't dictate our metaphysics or scientific investiagions.

If we think of ourselves as freely choosing souls or rational beings, separate from our gross animal physicality (or Freudian unconscious), then that is exactly the myth by which we will learn - get into the habit of - acting. If you think about the nature of consciousness in the conventional fashion, then society is assured you will behave within the scope of that conventional construct. — apokrisis

Granted a faulty or limited understanding may effect our abilities, but this is beside the point of there being no hope of bettering our metaphysic and scientific foundations on the subject.

So the folk psychology term of consciousness has huge problems once you try to apply it in science. It confounds biology and sociology in believing things like introspection to be a biological function rather than a linguistically structured skill. It makes the big mistake of thinking awareness to be a running realtime representation of reality rather than having this complex internal temporal structure. It makes a big mistake in creating this homuncular self that is then witnessing the representation.

So consciousness - and all its crew: unconscious, non-conscious, subconscious, preconscious, semi-conscious - is a very familiar social construct that just ought to be junked so we can start over again on a better metaphysical and scientific basis.

But no hope of that of course. — apokrisis

Of course there's no hope because this is nonsense or can you explain why there's no hope?

I wonder if one can influence the unconscious. Suggest things to yourself? — Mongrel

You mean like hypnosis?

If ideals are to be found anywhere it would be in the desired ends, such as good financial health. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

A lean budget or good financial health do not in themselves express good leadership or a healthy populace. For instance, it may cost less to privatize the prison system but in doing so it may create an incentive to incarcerate citizens, which could lead to an increase in the prison population. In addressing the issue of crime and punishment, an alternative solution may be to spend on providing free higher education, which could reduce crime, and with increased workforce productivity raise revenue. That could offset the cost of the higher education and lead to a healthier country.

I suppose my general point is that these issues are not straightforward or even particularly rational because people are not particularly rational.

To me governing would be about identifying problems that can be solved and then using my authority to marshal and mobilize resources to find and implement solutions to those problems. I would be a facilitator living on the same level as the people I am serving and working with them on practical matters, not someone with privilege overseeing his subjects from above and producing top-down policy in conformity with theoretical language embedded in some ideology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

There's a difference between a leader and a facilitator. A leader may have a vision and a plan for a better future and have the capacity to rally support for that future. A facilitator might merely facilitate whatever vision or plan the emergent leader (in the absence of one a leader always emerges) provides. That plan could be great and lead to a better future for the people, or it could simply be the clandestine acquisition of personal wealth and power.

I try to not even think in terms of the binaries that things like that [Political Typology] test do. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I believe the U.S. is currently far too polarized but that's no reason to ignore our own values, even if that were possible.

You mean eliminating from budgets unnecessary expense like useless printer paper is my original idea? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If someone strives to maintain a lean budget then clearly their ideal is a lean budget.

If you're still not sure where you sit on the liberal/conservative spectrum you might try a test like this one.

Judging by the things you've said in this topic I'd guess that you're a bit left of center.

Doing good financial housekeeping and eliminating unnecessary expenses... — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I believe it's debatable what constitutes necessary and unnecessary, and that the determining factors center around personal and cultural values. Norwegians, for example, apparently believe that universal healthcare and free higher education is necessary.

Since when is maintaining a lean budget an ideological position? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Since your ideal of a lean budget first sprang to life, I imagine.

Conservatives want things like reduced spending for ideological reasons. I would want them for practical reasons. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I don't understand how you can say that a conservative view of spending is ideological and whereas your view is practical. Can you explain?

And conservatives' biggest hero, private business, would probably love it because it would treat businesses as equal partners in solving problems, not vilify them and treat them like enemies to be regulated and taxed. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Of course there's no such thing as a truly free-market, but conservatives generally want an absolute minimum of governmental intervention in business. I can only imagine the thought of being "equal parters" would be rather unappealing.

I would be looking for ways to cut costs, cut waste, cut spending, reduce debt, etc., so I doubt that any conservative would play the "unregulated free market" card against me. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Some specific items in your proposed approach:

"When trying to attract business to the area, look for employers who have liberal hiring practices and consider the complete package, not just the degree listed (or not listed) on a resume."
Businesses are usually attracted with tax breaks and other incentives, or a well funded public sector, which is all costly.

"As for the real polluters--industry--craft economic development policy that seeks to attract businesses that minimize emissions."
By economic development policy do you mean regulations?

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

On a second look your position seems to be more towards the center than left.

I don't know what my approach to leading and governing would make me--a political pragmatist, perhaps. But I sense that the people who now identify as "liberal" and "progressive" probably would not like it. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Your approach is essentially liberal. Conservatives would hate it because of the degree of political and economic manipulation it would require.

Apparently, conservatives believe that a free market is self-regulating or self-correcting, despite historical evidence, such as the great depression and the 2008 recession, to the contrary.

I suppose that I prefer practice over cure because it's something that must be continually practiced.

Improving metacognition (and the ability to see these 'frames') for one, but there are other related benefits.

Mindfulness, and attention I think is the cure. — Wosret

I don't know if it's a cure but it's certainly is a good practice.

I have noticed in my interactions on forums, that diehard materialists invariably reject the notion of the unconscious. However, I don't think they're really cognisant of their own reasons for so doing. — Wayfarer

What are their reasons?

There are things that are true of me but are not true of my brain and body. — nixu

Such as?

So what is it that I consider Evil. well. to put it in one word. Selfishness. — Shar

(Y)

No one has one meaning to their life.

Spirituality or spiritual experiences are about transcendence (of the self), essentially.

In respect of the philosophical point, though - yes, we have to 'alter our minds', but that is because they're mis-configured. They're not running properly. Getting that straight is 'praxis', — Wayfarer

Well, I do try.

I do love me some myths, and fables. They're my favorite thing. — Wosret

Then you'll love Campbell's. It's like chicken noodle soup for the soul.

I noticed the cage of course, but not explicitly. Now seeing what it's made of and what it surrounds, I'm uncomfortable.

Christianity is a guide to becoming fit. — Nils Loc

Or perhaps a good cookbook?

Who sounds a lot like Campbell.

If you seek your personal legend the entire universe will conspire to assist you. — the alchemist

My understanding is that philosophies may develop into a science.

He(?) [Jesus] even downgraded the Hindu gods into the realm of Samsara. Surprisingly, he never did the reverse of floating the idea of a supreme God a la Abrahamic religions. Why? — TheMadFool

Basically because in Buddhism there's two possibilities: nirvana or samsara. Any God, including a supreme God, can be in either. If God is samsaric then we're with God in samsara. If God is nirvanic then we'll be with God in nirvana. Alternatively I suppose you could interpret nirvana as God, in which case God would not be samsaric.

There can be no permanent heaven or hell because of impermanence, which you've described as an "undeniable truth." There are no souls, only emptiness, because of impermanence.

Indeed we do - but what I'm talking about is looking to science to provide a normative basis for values, which is often beyond it's legitimate scope. — Wayfarer

There seems to be a subtlety, or fundamental understanding, that I'm missing. Maybe if you could give a practical example.

Weber is worth reading in long form, to appreciate the rigour and erudition of his writing. — Wayfarer

I'm sure. Because my profession demands that I be in front of a computer screen all day I try to avoid additional eye strain and consume books in audio format when possible. Unfortunately Audible only has two Weber offerings, both short form.

While learning about The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism it crossed my mind, and WISDOMfromPO-MO's post reminds me of it now, the possibility that the polarity between liberal and conservative may parallel the Roman Catholic/Protestant split? Is there a conservative/liberal polarity in the East?

Rationalization destroyed the authority of magical powers, but it also brought into being the machine-like regulation of bureaucracy, which ultimately challenges all systems of belief. — Max Weber

Clearly we don't want to give power back to magicians, and we don't want to remain in the iron cage. So what can we do?