Mike Leake wrote:
> Additionally, I dropped a couple of pounds
>that I'd somehow gained during the experiment once I resumed eating
>breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps.  But if nothing else, it shows that
>results from fasting or modified fasting can vary.

I have read that Sumo wrestlers gain weight by skipping breakfast and
eating a light lunch and heavy supper. Maybe there is more to breakfast
than generally thought.

Deane Williams

Williams, Deane G HS wrote:
> Mike Leake wrote:
>
>> Additionally, I dropped a couple of pounds
>> that I'd somehow gained during the experiment once I resumed eating
>> breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps.  But if nothing else, it shows that
>> results from fasting or modified fasting can vary.
>>
>
> I have read that Sumo wrestlers gain weight by skipping breakfast and
> eating a light lunch and heavy supper.

This makes sense to me because, when digesting the food during the
night, the body will have more tendency to turn it into fat and glycogen
(to store it) since it is not needed to energize the body. The way to
not gain weight is to eat only as much in the one meal as will then be
entirely used before the next meal. I would bet that, after not eating
all day, Mike was extra hungry at night and actually ate a little more
total food calories than he had on three meals-per-day. Either that or
he had less energy earlier in the day (with less food in him) and burned
fewer calories through exercise.

> Maybe there is more to breakfast than generally thought.
>
> Deane Williams
>

Until I began eating only once daily (only 11 months ago), I had always
been hungry immediately after rising and eaten a substantial breakfast,
which I thought from my personal experience and reading was the most
important meal of the day. (I expect there are old posts of mine stating
this.) However, now that I eat a large meal starting abut 6 hours
after arising, I have very little hunger then and any that I have is
easily satisfied by a combination of our morning supplements and the
tea combination that I drink immediately afterwards and throughout the
day.

Upon thinking about it, it seems to me that originally humans, as
hunter/gatherers, likely only ate at the end of the day after they had
completed their acquisition of food and brought it back to be shared
with the entire group. This would be particularly the case since they
had inadequate means to store those types of food. In fact, I wonder
just when, during the process of change from hunter/gatherer to
agriculture and market trade, humans adopted the three meals a day
regimen. If anyone has historical or archaeological information
bearing on this last point, I would be interested to see it.

--Paul

[I think others need to be clear about the timing of our meals in relationship
to our sleeping and awakening.

We go to sleep quite late - most often about 2am but its not unusual for it to
be 3 or 3:30am before turning off the lights. (This is partly maintained this
way because of our late dancing nights, but also because of Paul's tendency to
be more productive and least sleepy late in his waking period.) Occasionally we
retire earlier if we've had a shorter sleep the night before purposefully
because we had a specific purpose to be up and about early that morning.
Normally though, we awaken anywhere from 9:30 to 11:00 depending on when we
actually fell asleep. (I do my exercises, letting Paul linger in bed a bit
longer.) Our non-food pills are taken shortly thereafter and our meal begins
typically about 6 to 7 hours later, extending for usually 4 hours. The last of
our dessert is usually consumed no less than 3 hours before actual sleep for me
(who cannot eat so much at once), but usually 5 hours before sleep for Paul (who
sometimes actually feels a bit hungry again just before sleep - something that
actually inhibits me from sleeping, but does not bother him). During the rest of
the time before sleep we drink tea (usually sage within the last hour). **Kitty]

Funny you would mention the 3-meal-aday history as I just came across
this site the other day and found it interesting.  I have not checked
the sources, but at least it cites them.

http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq7.html#mealtimes

From this it looks like the modern 3-per-day is from the British
custom of a huge breakfast and dinner being pushed later in the day
so that a noon-time meal became more important.


--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Williams, Deane G HS wrote:
> > Mike Leake wrote:
> >
> >> Additionally, I dropped a couple of pounds
> >> that I'd somehow gained during the experiment once I resumed
eating
> >> breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps.  But if nothing else, it shows
that
> >> results from fasting or modified fasting can vary.
> >>
> >
> > I have read that Sumo wrestlers gain weight by skipping breakfast
and
> > eating a light lunch and heavy supper.
>
> This makes sense to me because, when digesting the food during the
> night, the body will have more tendency to turn it into fat and
glycogen
> (to store it) since it is not needed to energize the body. The way
to
> not gain weight is to eat only as much in the one meal as will then
be
> entirely used before the next meal. I would bet that, after not
eating
> all day, Mike was extra hungry at night and actually ate a little
more
> total food calories than he had on three meals-per-day. Either that
or
> he had less energy earlier in the day (with less food in him) and
burned
> fewer calories through exercise.
>
> > Maybe there is more to breakfast than generally thought.
> >
> > Deane Williams
> >
>
> Until I began eating only once daily (only 11 months ago), I had
always
> been hungry immediately after rising and eaten a substantial
breakfast,
> which I thought from my personal experience and reading was the
most
> important meal of the day. (I expect there are old posts of mine
stating
> this.) However, now that I eat a large meal starting abut 6 hours
> after arising, I have very little hunger then and any that I have
is
> easily satisfied by a combination of our morning supplements and
the
> tea combination that I drink immediately afterwards and throughout
the
> day.
>
> Upon thinking about it, it seems to me that originally humans, as
> hunter/gatherers, likely only ate at the end of the day after they
had
> completed their acquisition of food and brought it back to be
shared
> with the entire group. This would be particularly the case since
they
> had inadequate means to store those types of food. In fact, I
wonder
> just when, during the process of change from hunter/gatherer to
> agriculture and market trade, humans adopted the three meals a day
> regimen. If anyone has historical or archaeological information
> bearing on this last point, I would be interested to see it.
>
> --Paul
>
> [I think others need to be clear about the timing of our meals in
relationship to our sleeping and awakening.
>
> We go to sleep quite late - most often about 2am but its not
unusual for it to be 3 or 3:30am before turning off the lights. (This
is partly maintained this way because of our late dancing nights, but
also because of Paul's tendency to be more productive and least
sleepy late in his waking period.) Occasionally we retire earlier if
we've had a shorter sleep the night before purposefully because we
had a specific purpose to be up and about early that morning.
Normally though, we awaken anywhere from 9:30 to 11:00 depending on
when we actually fell asleep. (I do my exercises, letting Paul linger
in bed a bit longer.) Our non-food pills are taken shortly thereafter
and our meal begins typically about 6 to 7 hours later, extending for
usually 4 hours. The last of our dessert is usually consumed no less
than 3 hours before actual sleep for me (who cannot eat so much at
once), but usually 5 hours before sleep for Paul (who sometimes
actually feels a bit hungry again just before sleep - something that
actually inhibits me from sleeping, but does not bother him). During
the rest of the time before sleep we drink tea (usually sage within
the last hour). **Kitty]
>

Preston David Wright wrote:
> Funny you would mention the 3-meal-aday history as I just came across
> this site the other day and found it interesting.  I have not checked
> the sources, but at least it cites them.
>
> http://www.foodtimeline.org/foodfaq7.html#mealtimes
>
> From this it looks like the modern 3-per-day is from the British
> custom of a huge breakfast and dinner being pushed later in the day
> so that a noon-time meal became more important.


Thanks Preston, but most of the information at that link is about far
too modern times and does not answer the major part of my question,
which was more about the transition to regular meals as opposed to
either constant browsing for food (as many animals, even apes appear to
do) or irregular eating (as with most carnivores). The only informative
part of that link (from this point of view) was the part about ancient
Greeks:

"Meal times are variable, but a midday meal was usually called /ariston/
lunch... and an evening meal /deipnon/, dinner. The latter was perhaps
typically the biggest meal of the day, and for some the only meal."

The last part suggests (as I had thought) that far enough back in time
many people only ate one meal daily. I already had figured that when
regular meals began to be eaten the norm was most likely two daily and
then later became 3 for reasons such as you give. I expect the advent
of lighting after sunset, which enabled food preparation at that time,
caused dinner to be delayed until later (in Spain dinner is at 10 PM!)
and necessitated a luncheon in between.

I was interested because this information may be important from a
nutritional/evolutionary perspective, particularly regarding what
human bodies have been used to during most of their evolutionary
history, for the purpose of deciding which mode of eating is most
healthy (ie most appropriate to what human bodies are evolved/adapted for).

[snipped old message parts]

--Paul

The most recent upload to MoreLife.org took place  this afternoon,
consisting chiefly of:

     - Mental & Physical Activities page
     - Diet - beverages, etc page
     - Photo Index -  new page of Ontario cottage property projects
     - Supporting and Comments pages
     - Science Index
     - Link Index - Science Daily links
     - Practice Index - particularly the addition of Nathaniel
Branden's book Taking Responsibility: Self-Reliance and the
Accountable Life in both the Outlook and Interpersonal sections.

I highly recommend this book by Branden to everyone, even those who
think of themselves as self-responsible. It is not unusual that many
individuals, who view themselves as being responsible for their own
support/maintenance and in their work environment, do not act in a
self-responsible manner in regards to their relations with some one,
or maybe many others. And even for people who are mostly
self-responsible in their interactions with all others, there are
those instances and/or situations in which accountability is lacking.
One quick example that has been prominent news for the last few years,
and increasing monthly - obesity and its impact on cost of health
services. This is a major problem where government (tax payer)
financed health care is the standard, like the UK.  BBCNews online has
paid a great deal of attention to the subject, much of it addressing
the situation in the US; a very recent article on obesity in
Mississippi, "The Fattest State in the Union" -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7151951.stm
And the website's feature "Have Your Say" has had several items in the
past year addressing various aspects of obesity. (The latest -
http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3999&edition=2&ttl=200801040\
55745
) Some of the many reader/contributors do see as the major cause the
individual's lack of motivation and/or perseverance regarding
nutritious low calorie food intake and/or sufficient activity.
However, too few put the responsibility for an adult's health squarely
on that individual, rather than government, insurance companies,
physicians, schools, food processors, grocery stores, restaurants,
etc. The current culture of placing the blame everywhere but where it
logically belongs - for obesity, as well as numerous other individual
behaviors creating problems directly affecting others - is rampant in
the industrialized world and moving rapidly in that direction
everywhere else.

What Branden has also written about in this book as a "culture of
accountability" is sorely needed if total financial as well as
thinking/behavioral bankruptcy is to be avoided, not just in the US
but everywhere. The book's message may be too late to have any
beneficial influence on the majority of those in their 40s and beyond
(or even younger) who are not open to examining their thinking and
practices for lack of consistent self-responsibility. However I am
still somewhat optimistic for large numbers of people, at least those
who return to MoreLife.org and read what I and Paul write.

I definitely hope that those who have not read this book by Branden -
and especially those who have not read any of his books - will obtain
it and read it, giving serious attention to the ideas and to the
results that occur when self-responsibility (a characteristic of an
autonomous adult) in an individual is greatly inadequate in duration
or frequency. Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides
numerous examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-known
sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in one's
self and others, including one's children (of various ages), spouses,
co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even strangers. This
is an excellent resource for improving one's self, promoting character
growth in others with whom one has frequent interaction and serving as
intellectual ammunition in discussions on subjects related to
individual responsibility.

The subject of self-responsibility is one that is very fundamental to
MoreLife.org and the Self-Sovereign Individual Project and therefore
is always open to discussion here - something to which I and Paul look
forward to engaging in with others, especially who have read the above
book or others by Branden.
************

All updated pages can be reached via the home page, http://morelife.org

Our laboratory tests from mid-December will be updated when a missing
test for Paul is completed - seems LabCorp didn't do one of the
included tests in the male panel and Paul only just got the new
paperwork from LEF.

As usual, if anyone sees what they think is an error on the website,
please let me know by email.

**Kitty

Hello all,

My name is Steve Floyd.  This is my first post to morelife Yahoo.

I wanted to comment on a frustration shared by PaulW some time ago.
In a post regarding policosinol PaulW states about his and Kitty's
well-being:

> [Physically we are both very well. However, mentally, I,
> particularly, continue to get depressed from time to time, because I
> am convinced that I have major solutions to most of the clear ills of
> society, which solutions I cannot even get anyone to really consider
> and understand, much less energetically act on. Even with respect to
> many of my health recommendations to people, very few really want to
> hear the truth and few express or demonstrate any acknowledgement or
> appreciation. Still, there are some exceptions (you being one of
> them) and I guess I should be satisfied with the few positives that I
> get rather than dwelling on all the failures - but it is difficult at
> times. --Paul]

I strongly identify with Paul's frustration here.  I am quite young,
25, so with my limited wisdom I do not yet feel that I understand
solutions to society's ills as Paul cites.  However, I do think
solutions are possible.  My frustration is that it seems to me that
action is required to make changes, and motivating people to action
can be such a difficult task.  Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:

> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides
> numerous examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-
> known sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
> strangers.]

Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).

I have tried to encourage self-responsibility in my two younger
brothers, both now in their early 20s.  I have found them both to be
receptive when I ask:  "How do you feel about people who eat too
much, then have health problems that raise the cost of health care?"
They tell me that it is frustrating to them, and that it is unfair
that we (those without weight-related health problems) have to
subsidize the health problems of others who indulge themselves more
frequently.  Now that they state that it is frustrating, I then
encourage them to see the connection between that person with
unhealthy eating habits, and their own personal pocketbooks.  I then
go on to describe other ways in which an unknown person's behavior
can affect many other people, in ways both small and large.  The same
interaction between a smoker and non-smoker, albeit a bit smaller,
because many insurers will ask you to pay a higher premium if you
smoke, helping to subsidize the health-cost of your habit.  However,
I have not seen any health insurers that ask how many calories you
eat per day =P "Check this box if you eat donuts...premium goes up
$1.22" LOL.

I then finish the discussion with the question:  "Would you want to
be that person that you are frustrated with?  Because I sure don't.
This is one reason I try to take care of myself, so others don't have
to pay for it.  It is part of being a productive member of society".
This discussion has helped both of my brothers find some value in the
idea of self-responsibility.

Still, I have only had the opportunity to have this discussion with
my brothers, as they are open to listen to me for guidance and
advice.  The personal dynamic is often not the same with my other
relationships, so I have not used the same discussion, as I don't
want them to feel that I am proselytizing.

Does anyone know any other strategies to encourage self-
responsibility?  I will have to look for the book Kitty mentioned at
the local library.  It seems that so few people are instilled with
the value (economic, societal, personal) of self-responsibility.

My experience with people leads me to believe that directly
addressing the topic in conversation is a poor way to encourage the
behavior.  Instead, indirectly subjecting someone to the value of
self-reponsibility seems the best way to "get the gears turning" in
their head about self-responsibility.  For example, a few
acquaintences of mine frequently drink alcohol to the point of being
irresponsible and even dangerous.  I don't drink, but when they ask
my why don't I have a few drinks, I tell them: "I don't want the rest
of society to pay for my reckless behavior - if I drink, I'll drink
at home."  I have gotten a few thoughtful reactions from this
statement, and even several follow-up conversations with these
acquaintences.  They illustrated to me that they never thought of
their public drinking with that perspective.  These few described to
me their resolve to drink less in public, and if they continue to
drink, they'll do it at friends' houses where they can stay the
night.

I first mentioned in this post that change requires action.  Many
people are unmotivated to take action.  This rampant apathy,
or "blind eye", to society's problems is very frustrating for those
of us who ardently want to encourage improvement.  I have found that
humans only take action when they see something 'in it' for
themselves - some sort of self-benefit.  This may partly explain the
rampant apathy.  People don't see the connection between their eating
habits and the overall effect, or even, between their eating habits
and their quality of life in the future.  The anecdotes of others
regarding weight loss and habit change I have experienced almost
always mention a new 'perspective' on what they were doing to
themselves in their habits, followed by an intense desire to not harm
themselves anymore.  This is where they find the motivation to "take
action" and "make a change".

This is certainly a topic that needs discussion.

In conclusion, it seems that those of us who are aware of
consequences and motivated to make changes (i.e. morelife) must be
especially assertive, extra patient, and endlessly motivated -
because we can be the source of "awareness and motivation" for a huge
proportion of people.  At least for me, it seems that I have gained
the awareness and motivation through sheer randomness- I got lucky.
I accidentally had the right teachers, read the right books and
articles, and spoke to the right people.  However, now that we
(morelife and others) have that awareness, human-improvement no
longer has to be subject to randomness - we can deliberately
encourage it with our own action.

*Steve Floyd

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> My name is Steve Floyd.  This is my first post to morelife Yahoo.

An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the word
"misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have any "hatred
of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
dictionary definition of that word:

"misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature

/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in your
subject line.


> I wanted to comment on a frustration shared by PaulW some time ago.
> In a post regarding policosinol PaulW states about his and Kitty's
> well-being:
>
>
>> [Physically we are both very well. However, mentally, I,
>> particularly, continue to get depressed from time to time, because I
>> am convinced that I have major solutions to most of the clear ills of
>> society, which solutions I cannot even get anyone to really consider
>> and understand, much less energetically act on. Even with respect to
>> many of my health recommendations to people, very few really want to
>> hear the truth and few express or demonstrate any acknowledgement or
>> appreciation. Still, there are some exceptions (you being one of
>> them) and I guess I should be satisfied with the few positives that I
>> get rather than dwelling on all the failures - but it is difficult at
>> times. --Paul]
>>
>
> I strongly identify with Paul's frustration here.  I am quite young,
> 25, so with my limited wisdom I do not yet feel that I understand
> solutions to society's ills as Paul cites. However, I do think
> solutions are possible.

Until about 4 years ago, and then only hesitatingly - but with
increasing certainty since, I also did not think that I had a solution
to the interaction problems that have always plagued human society and,
in many ways, appear to get worse with increasing population and
technology rather than better. But like you I was always certain that
there was a solution. In my case I was certain because I have always
been convinced of the consistency of reality as a whole.

> My frustration is that it seems to me that
> action is required to make changes, and motivating people to action
> can be such a difficult task.

I agree, and the only effective approach that I have ever come up with
is to clearly state reasons why doing or refraining from doing certain
types of actions will be beneficial for both the actor and all others
(or, better, to ask questions leading to the person developing hir own
such reasons, as you describe below), and to set an example by acting
that way. However, this can be frustrating and ineffective for at
least two reasons.

1) The reasons for benefit may show that the benefit will be very long
range, be indirect and often only have benefit if others do the same
or at least respond reasonably (ie one's action will not "work" in
isolation, but is essentially dependent on the actions of others).

2) Because of the later part of 1), while my example can certainly
show the details and methods by which I take an action (or refrain),
it will not always show that I benefit in any clear sense from doing
so, at least not in the foreseeable future (ie. I am not viewed as a
"successful" role model). In fact, when I get frustrated and unhappy
as a result of my views about society, it merely strengthens the
opinion of some others that my views must then be incorrect. I think this
is what happened with my daughter, Erika, with respect to whom I was
once very close (or thought so), but from whom I have now been totally
disconnected for over 6 years - as her wish, not mine.

> Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
> post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
> Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
>
>> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides
>> numerous examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-
>> known sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
>> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
>> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
>> strangers.]
>>
>
> Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
> information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
> business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
> So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
> human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
> that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
> I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
> countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
> attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).

And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of a
dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of such
poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
each to begin to practice better such habits.

> I have tried to encourage self-responsibility in my two younger
> brothers, both now in their early 20s.  I have found them both to be
> receptive when I ask:  "How do you feel about people who eat too
> much, then have health problems that raise the cost of health care?"
> They tell me that it is frustrating to them, and that it is unfair
> that we (those without weight-related health problems) have to
> subsidize the health problems of others who indulge themselves more
> frequently.  Now that they state that it is frustrating, I then
> encourage them to see the connection between that person with
> unhealthy eating habits, and their own personal pocketbooks.  I then
> go on to describe other ways in which an unknown person's behavior
> can affect many other people, in ways both small and large.  The same
> interaction between a smoker and non-smoker, albeit a bit smaller,
> because many insurers will ask you to pay a higher premium if you
> smoke, helping to subsidize the health-cost of your habit.

Not helping to "subsidize" it, but instead helping to *fund* it for
the class of smokers. It would only be *subsidizing* the smoking group
if a non-smoker had to pay the same premium as a smoker.
Here are merely two general problems with health insurance related to
the present discussion:

1) Because the problem is so complex that it will never be fully
understood, it is fundamentally impossible to make sufficient fine
distinctions between people so that premiums are directly and
individually proportional to health cost risk.

2) Because everything is paid for in many policies, there is no
incentive for the insured to incur time, effort and other costs in
order to prevent usage of hir insurance (ie to stay completely
healthy). Health (actually catastrophic illness/injury) insurance with
a large deductible at low cost would greatly help this last. I, myself,
would likely elect to get such insurance, to cover those rare health
problems which I could not reasonably foresee or prevent, because no
one, including me, is omniscient.

> However,
> I have not seen any health insurers that ask how many calories you
> eat per day =P "Check this box if you eat donuts...premium goes up
> $1.22" LOL.

Yes, while total individuality of premiums according to health risk
will forever be impossible, a great deal could be done in this
direction which is not being done at all. OTOH, if this were done
then, in effect, everyone would be simply paying hir own direct health
risk cost, so there would be little point in having the insurance
except for those situations where the outlay was more than the
individual could afford either currently or to pay off. In other words,
once again, as with the large deductible, the only logical reason to
have insurance would be for those rare catastrophic problems that one
can neither prevent nor take care of by oneself.

[What has gone by the wayside since I was a child is the idea of "saving for a
rainy day" - those events that most likely would occur, like illnesses.
Insurance was only for something very unlikely, but not impossible. The
exception for many people was the idea of buying life insurance - death was/is a
certainty at some point - as the way of providing for their young families
before sufficient savings could be accumulated and mortgages on homes fully paid
off. Now health care insurance is really nothing more than prepaid health
services but done in a pool method where everyone shares the financial burden
for each other's health status. And life insurance is a poor longterm investment
alternative for the person who has an income in excess of necessary
expenditures. **Kitty]

> I then finish the discussion with the question:  "Would you want to
> be that person that you are frustrated with?  Because I sure don't.
> This is one reason I try to take care of myself, so others don't have
> to pay for it.  It is part of being a productive member of society".
> This discussion has helped both of my brothers find some value in the
> idea of self-responsibility.

This is a good approach, but it will only work with those people who
have sufficient self-esteem (pride) that they do not wish to mooch off
others. Those without sufficient pride will say, "why should I do the
work and subsidize other people? I will gain more clear and direct
benefit by not doing so and ignoring anyone who might be frustrated
with my irresponsible behavior and yet who still continues to
subsidize it by being a productive member of society." Actually, this
problem of how to deal with the moochers is the core theme of the book
"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. All the productive members of society
were the "Atlases" (holding up the world - society) and they all got
fed up with supporting the rest and "shrugged" - effectively said: "To
hell with you, I am not supporting you any longer!" - and the world -
society - fell off their shoulders.

> Still, I have only had the opportunity to have this discussion with
> my brothers, as they are open to listen to me for guidance and
> advice.  The personal dynamic is often not the same with my other
> relationships, so I have not used the same discussion, as I don't
> want them to feel that I am proselytizing.

Since your method above is essentially the "socratic method",

"the method of inquiry and instruction employed by Socrates especially
as represented in the dialogues of Plato and consisting of a series of
questionings the object of which is to elicit a clear and consistent
expression of something supposed to be implicitly known by all rational
beings"
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com,

it should be applicable to other people, albeit with a bit of
modification to make it clear that you are not implying that you know
all the answers.

> Does anyone know any other strategies to encourage self-
> responsibility?

I described above my methods for motivating people, but I too would
certainly like to hear from others on this subject.
My expectation is that there will be little feedback about this, since
most people simply refrain from trying to motivate others at all, except
for those in sales and advertising (who generally use whatever legal
methods work to gain the immediate benefit for themselves, regardless
of its long range effects on their "mark" or on the rest of society).

>   I will have to look for the book Kitty mentioned at
> the local library.

It is a paperback and not expensive to purchase online.

[The reference to _Taking Responsibility_ by Branden on the Practice Index
Outlook and Interpersonal sections includes a link to its purchase info at
Amazon (retailing currently at $10.40). If a person actually purchases it from
that link, a small amount of money is credited to us as associates of Amazon.
I've done this for just the few books that we recommend that are available
through Amazon. **Kitty]

> It seems that so few people are instilled with
> the value (economic, societal, personal) of self-responsibility.

As I stated above, this is because current society's feedbacks,
regarding interpersonal actions, provide people with little to no
benefit (and directly often disbenefit) from being self-responsible.
This is what I call a "chicken and egg problem". Each one is necessary
before the other can occur and thus there appears to be no way to get
either to happen. I think that my notion of "Social Preferencing" (see
http://selfip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html ) is a full and
effective solution to this social feedback problem, but, once again, I
appear to be unable to give sufficient numbers of people a
sufficiently good reason for even giving it a try.

> My experience with people leads me to believe that directly
> addressing the topic in conversation is a poor way to encourage the
> behavior.  Instead, indirectly subjecting someone to the value of
> self-reponsibility seems the best way to "get the gears turning" in
> their head about self-responsibility.

If this can be accomplished in some manner (one possible way is by
setting an example), then it is certainly better, since the result is
that the other person discovers the required beneficial change for and
by hirself, rather that being told. That is the basis of the value of
the socratic method - you lead the other person to hir own discovery
of the truth.

[More than talking about self-responsibility is the practice of consequences.
Branden explains this quite well in the book. It is something that everyone can
do and would benefit from, often even in the near term, if practiced.

If you are interacting with someone who is not, from your examination of the
evidence of the situation, acting in a manner that will provide benefit to both
of you, then let that be known to hir. Do not simply allow the situation to
continue. Now this requires that you first understand that *all* interactions
need to be to mutual benefit, though some are not immediately mutual to one
party but are more long range. (Parenting is a good example of this and its goal
- seen by me and Paul, to raise a child to become a self-responsible adult and,
hopefully, a friend of the parent - could be a topic of discussion on this
group.)  This is the underlying reason why mooching off others, including in a
non-monetary manner, is wrong - the person being mooched off of is not deriving
any benefit. If s/he were actually derivng benefit then it is not mooching -
such as when a parent receives affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/etc from a
dependent child for providing room/board/affection/guidance/etc to that child.
It will likley not be considered mooching by the parent when the no longer
dependent child returns affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/assistance with or
without monetary payment for previous room/board/affection/guidance/etc to that
child, or current when an adult offspring resides in the parent's home.

So when a situation is not mutually beneficial, bringing that out in the open
with discussion is the first step. This would include letting it be known what
you think is missing on the part of the other person and what you will do or not
do until the mutual benefit status returns - these then are the consequences. If
thinking this way is new to a person who attempts to use consequences with
someone with whom an existing relationship exists, it would likely be best to
let your new ideas on interactions be known and why they make very good sense to
you. This can encourage discussion, if the other parties are reasonable in their
thinking. If any is not, then you will find that out and decide how much and to
what degree you want to interact with that person. **Kitty]

> For example, a few
> acquaintences of mine frequently drink alcohol to the point of being
> irresponsible and even dangerous.  I don't drink, but when they ask
> my why don't I have a few drinks, I tell them: "I don't want the rest
> of society to pay for my reckless behavior - if I drink, I'll drink
> at home."  I have gotten a few thoughtful reactions from this
> statement, and even several follow-up conversations with these
> acquaintences.  They illustrated to me that they never thought of
> their public drinking with that perspective.  These few described to
> me their resolve to drink less in public, and if they continue to
> drink, they'll do it at friends' houses where they can stay the
> night.

Although a "designated driver" approach can solve the problem of
irresponsibility and danger with respect to driving (probably the worst
part of such irresponsibilities and dangers), you might also bring up
the health concerns with such drinking. Then you could make it clear
that you are not some kind of moralistic teetotaler, since you agree
that a few ounces of red wine (not enough to get a normal person
intoxicated) may actually be beneficial for health.

[Use of taxis or limo services when out partying is a reasonable idea, even if a
person never drinks to the point of being dizzy or doing anything most would
consider stupid. With many state/provincial laws determining DUI by having a
blood acohol level above certain (rather low) minimum, instead of by any actual
exhibited careless driving, it makes good sense to use a paid non-drinking
driver when actually consuming alcohol in a location where transportation to
somewhere else will be necessary. And it is considered quite permissable legally
in many jurisdictions to stop vehicles without any supposed probable cause, but
merely because the geographical law enforcement agency has deemed a period of
time for "enhanced enforcement". **Kitty]

> I first mentioned in this post that change requires action.  Many
> people are unmotivated to take action.  This rampant apathy,
> or "blind eye", to society's problems is very frustrating for those
> of us who ardently want to encourage improvement.  I have found that
> humans only take action when they see something 'in it' for
> themselves - some sort of self-benefit.  This may partly explain the
> rampant apathy.

Yes. With respect to society in general, it is not so much a "blind
eye" as it is despair about having any real ability to make any
difference (generally gained through previous experience of having
tried and gotten nowhere, or seeing others having done so), so why
try. This is a tendency that I constantly have to fight off. My way of
doing so is based on my great concern for seeing and experiencing such
social changes relative to any other activities that I might otherwise
do. But this is, of course, what leads to frustration, because if my
efforts are only of value if they have effect on others, then if they
have no effect, I would have been better to spend my time on more
directly ego-centric activities, even if these produce far less
happiness to me than any success at social change would. This is my
personal constant dilemma. The only solution to it that I have seen is
to choose only those social change activities that will also give me
more immediate happiness benefit.

> People don't see the connection between their eating
> habits and the overall effect, or even, between their eating habits
> and their quality of life in the future.  The anecdotes of others
> regarding weight loss and habit change I have experienced almost
> always mention a new 'perspective' on what they were doing to
> themselves in their habits, followed by an intense desire to not harm
> themselves anymore.  This is where they find the motivation to "take
> action" and "make a change".
>

Yes. It is by seeing the positive effects on someone close that people
will be best motivated (again the example approach). My personal problem
in this respect is that I have always been doing most of these good
health habits and I can rarely show any change to the better because
of some change of habit, or at least only in a minor way (such as
reducing my meat consumption was clearly the answer to lowering my and
Kitty's homocysteine, particularly after unsuccessfully trying many
other things). That I am generally extremely healthy and fit at age
almost 70 is not a sufficiently strong recommendation of my health
related lifestyle to most, because it could be due to simply good luck
and good genes (which is, unfortunately, logically true, especially
when only one person is involved).

> This is certainly a topic that needs discussion.
>
> In conclusion, it seems that those of us who are aware of
> consequences and motivated to make changes (i.e. morelife) must be
> especially assertive, extra patient, and endlessly motivated -
> because we can be the source of "awareness and motivation" for a huge
> proportion of people.

This is very true and your writing so actually has reduced my level of
frustration, so I thank you. My biggest motivation problem is that I
generally receive so little feedback that I am not even sure that anyone
is *reading* what I write, much less thinking about it seriously and
deeply with a view to actually taking some action.

[Actually I know when and how many visits there are to a very few pages at
MoreLife.org and SelfSIP.org (on which I have placed tracking code) - and
actually if these are repeats. But that is no way to really know how much of a
page is being read and what effect it has, unless the reader lets me and/or Paul
know via a post here, or an email. **Kitty]

In this respect I am going to quote from your email to me which I just
now read since it went to my yahoo email inbox which I rarely examine.

-------------------------
>   My next comment might be of specific interest to you, Paul.
> Recently you responded to Francois .... Your somewhat frustrated
> response to Francois' inquiry is what spurred me to become more
> active in morelife.  The conversation can be found here:
> http://tinyurl.com/2s4qzv.
>
>   More specifically, I strongly identified with your frustration
> with humans' general lack of motivation to investigate solutions to
> society's current problems, including health problems.  I thought
> it might be useful for you to know that your act of vocalizing your
> frustration can inspire others to be active.  I am always trying to
> identify the consequences of my actions, and I identified that one
> consequence of your action to share your frustrations was to
> inspire someone else to become more active in the material that
> you, Paul, care about (inspiring me to be more active in exploring
> solutions).  What complicated webs we weave!
>
>   So, I am registering with morelife yahoo so that I may reply
> thoughtfully to your frustrations, as I strongly identify with
> them.  Of course, there are a great many other things I would like
> to comment on as well, but, as for all of us, time is a limiting
> factor.
-------------------

My response to this is both pleasure and the earnest hope that you
find it worthwhile to use some of your time to read, analyze and
comment on more of the subject matter from MoreLife.org SelfSIP.org
and the related posts to MoreLife Yahoo.


> At least for me, it seems that I have gained
> the awareness and motivation through sheer randomness- I got lucky.
> I accidentally had the right teachers, read the right books and
> articles, and spoke to the right people.

While this (accidental benefit) is true, there is also an important
element of your own personal decisions to analyze and act on these
random benefits that came your way. Think about the many others, with
essentially the same inputs, who did not gain the same perspective as
you. The result is that you are fully entitled to be proud of your
thinking rather then merely think of yourself as being lucky.

> However, now that we
> (morelife and others) have that awareness, human-improvement no
> longer has to be subject to randomness - we can deliberately
> encourage it with our own action.

And others can choose whether or not to think more long range just as
you did.

>
> *Steve Floyd
>

--Paul

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > My name is Steve Floyd.  This is my first post to morelife Yahoo.
>
> An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the
word
> "misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
> message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have
any "hatred
> of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
> dictionary definition of that word:
>
> "misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature
>
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>
> If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in
your
> subject line.

Regarding the use of the word "misanthropy" - I meant to use the word
with a largely different context.  I source my definition from
wikipedia, which may have changed since I first discovered the word.
The definition I had in mind was "a person who has a dislike of
certain overarching characteristics of humankind."  However, I want
to be clear that I do not harbor "hatred of mankind", although I may
have feelings of general "distrust of human nature".  So, this latter
definition you cited above may be closer to my intended useage.  The
current wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy)
cites: "Subtler expressions [of misanthropy] are far more common,
especially for those pointing out the shortcomings of humanity."  It
is from this definition that I might point out that we are all
participating in some form of misanthropy, as far as the wikipedia
definition is accurate.  In my previous post I believe I was pointing
out perceived "shortcomings of humanity", such as lack of action,
lack of self-responsibility, etc.  This is how I feel my last posting
was related to the word "misanthropy".

> > I wanted to comment on a frustration shared by PaulW some time
ago.
> > In a post regarding policosinol PaulW states about his and
Kitty's
> > well-being:
> >
> >
> >> [Physically we are both very well. However, mentally, I,
> >> particularly, continue to get depressed from time to time,
because I
> >> am convinced that I have major solutions to most of the clear
ills of
> >> society, which solutions I cannot even get anyone to really
consider
> >> and understand, much less energetically act on. Even with
respect to
> >> many of my health recommendations to people, very few really
want to
> >> hear the truth and few express or demonstrate any
acknowledgement or
> >> appreciation. Still, there are some exceptions (you being one of
> >> them) and I guess I should be satisfied with the few positives
that I
> >> get rather than dwelling on all the failures - but it is
difficult at
> >> times. --Paul]
> >>
> >
> > I strongly identify with Paul's frustration here.  I am quite
young,
> > 25, so with my limited wisdom I do not yet feel that I understand
> > solutions to society's ills as Paul cites. However, I do think
> > solutions are possible.
>
> Until about 4 years ago, and then only hesitatingly - but with
> increasing certainty since, I also did not think that I had a
solution
> to the interaction problems that have always plagued human society
and,
> in many ways, appear to get worse with increasing population and
> technology rather than better. But like you I was always certain
that
> there was a solution. In my case I was certain because I have
always
> been convinced of the consistency of reality as a whole.
>
> > My frustration is that it seems to me that
> > action is required to make changes, and motivating people to
action
> > can be such a difficult task.
>
> I agree, and the only effective approach that I have ever come up
with
> is to clearly state reasons why doing or refraining from doing
certain
> types of actions will be beneficial for both the actor and all
others
> (or, better, to ask questions leading to the person developing hir
own
> such reasons, as you describe below), and to set an example by
acting
> that way. However, this can be frustrating and ineffective for at
> least two reasons.
>
> 1) The reasons for benefit may show that the benefit will be very
long
> range, be indirect and often only have benefit if others do the
same
> or at least respond reasonably (ie one's action will not "work" in
> isolation, but is essentially dependent on the actions of others).
>
> 2) Because of the later part of 1), while my example can certainly
> show the details and methods by which I take an action (or
refrain),
> it will not always show that I benefit in any clear sense from
doing
> so, at least not in the foreseeable future (ie. I am not viewed as
a
> "successful" role model). In fact, when I get frustrated and
unhappy
> as a result of my views about society, it merely strengthens the
> opinion of some others that my views must then be incorrect. I
think this
> is what happened with my daughter, Erika, with respect to whom I
was
> once very close (or thought so), but from whom I have now been
totally
> disconnected for over 6 years - as her wish, not mine.
>
> > Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
> > post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel
Branden.
> > Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
> >
> >> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides
> >> numerous examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-
> >> known sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility
in
> >> one's self and others, including one's children (of various
ages),
> >> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
> >> strangers.]
> >>
> >
> > Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
> > information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
> > business; I have earned a master's in business administration
(MBA).
> > So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
> > human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated
is
> > that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's
post
> > I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of
developed
> > countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can
be
> > attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).
>
> And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of
a
> dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
> responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of
such
> poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
> each to begin to practice better such habits.


This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of or read about,
Paul.  I guess the reason I had not made this seemingly obvious
connection is that I am very doubtful that the vast majority of
people can change their own lifestyle habits.  I have watched a
number of my family members struggle with bad health from smoking,
atrocious eating habits, and lack of exercise.  I have had a great
many discussions with them using different methods, including the
socratic method, questioning, asking them about their desired
outcomes from habit changes for the better, and even criticism.  My
well-intentioned discussions have generally met with resistance, and
even anger (met with anger most notably when applying criticism, by
the way).  So, as you might imagine, or have likely experienced
yourself, this resistance is discouraging.

> > I have tried to encourage self-responsibility in my two younger
> > brothers, both now in their early 20s.  I have found them both to
be
> > receptive when I ask:  "How do you feel about people who eat too
> > much, then have health problems that raise the cost of health
care?"
> > They tell me that it is frustrating to them, and that it is
unfair
> > that we (those without weight-related health problems) have to
> > subsidize the health problems of others who indulge themselves
more
> > frequently.  Now that they state that it is frustrating, I then
> > encourage them to see the connection between that person with
> > unhealthy eating habits, and their own personal pocketbooks.  I
then
> > go on to describe other ways in which an unknown person's
behavior
> > can affect many other people, in ways both small and large.  The
same
> > interaction between a smoker and non-smoker, albeit a bit
smaller,
> > because many insurers will ask you to pay a higher premium if you
> > smoke, helping to subsidize the health-cost of your habit.
>
> Not helping to "subsidize" it, but instead helping to *fund* it for
> the class of smokers. It would only be *subsidizing* the smoking
group
> if a non-smoker had to pay the same premium as a smoker.

In using the word "subsidize" here, I'm assuming that the added
premium added to a smoker's insurance premium vastly underestimates
the "damage done" (in health care costs) to the person by smoking.
Therefore, the higher premium only 'partly' covers the costs of the
person's smoking habit.  In this regard, everyone else who pays their
premium and does not smoke will partly pay for the health problems of
the smokers.  I understand this to also be "subsidization", even if
it is only partly.  Perhaps I am incorrect here?

> Here are merely two general problems with health insurance related
to
> the present discussion:
>
> 1) Because the problem is so complex that it will never be fully
> understood, it is fundamentally impossible to make sufficient fine
> distinctions between people so that premiums are directly and
> individually proportional to health cost risk.
>

The system does seem very complicated.  I agree completely.

> 2) Because everything is paid for in many policies, there is no
> incentive for the insured to incur time, effort and other costs in
> order to prevent usage of hir insurance (ie to stay completely
> healthy). Health (actually catastrophic illness/injury) insurance
with
> a large deductible at low cost would greatly help this last. I,
myself,
> would likely elect to get such insurance, to cover those rare
health
> problems which I could not reasonably foresee or prevent, because
no
> one, including me, is omniscient.
>

I found this idea also quite interesting.  After reading and
reflecting on the above, it seems quite odd to me that humans have
the kind of 'nationalized' health care that they do (in certain
countries).  It would seem that encouraging individuals to care for
themselves (preventative behaviors) to lower health-related cash
outlays would be best for humanity, as it would precipitate less
problems such as invalidity and unhappiness (associated with poor-
health), as well as good habits being passed onto later generations
during family education.  However, society has been moving toward a
system where everyone's ailments should be taken care of, regardless
of their cause.

I think perhaps this mentality is an extention of the "all men are
created equal" and other related creed.  Under this "equality"
philosophy, it would be "immoral" to allow someone lacking the
preventative education, or funds to pay for treatment, to
be "ignored" by the health-system.  Not taking care of this person
would be in breach of this "equality" doctrine, since other people
with better education and better income opportunities would have
access to treatment.  So, to resolve this possible conflict we
have "health care for all".

> > However,
> > I have not seen any health insurers that ask how many calories
you
> > eat per day =P "Check this box if you eat donuts...premium goes
up
> > $1.22" LOL.
>
> Yes, while total individuality of premiums according to health risk
> will forever be impossible, a great deal could be done in this
> direction which is not being done at all. OTOH, if this were done
> then, in effect, everyone would be simply paying hir own direct
health
> risk cost, so there would be little point in having the insurance
> except for those situations where the outlay was more than the
> individual could afford either currently or to pay off. In other
words,
> once again, as with the large deductible, the only logical reason
to
> have insurance would be for those rare catastrophic problems that
one
> can neither prevent nor take care of by oneself.


I see what you are saying here Paul, and it makes sense.  If we were
to accurately quantify into dollars the costs of a certain behavior
(i.e. smoking, over-eating, etc) on health-care costs, we would
essentially be paying our own personalized insurance premiums,
tailored to our various healthy and non-healthy habits.
Interesting.

> [What has gone by the wayside since I was a child is the idea
> of "saving for a rainy day" - those events that most likely would
> occur, like illnesses. Insurance was only for something very
> unlikely, but not impossible. The exception for many people was the
> idea of buying life insurance - death was/is a certainty at some
> point - as the way of providing for their young families before
> sufficient savings could be accumulated and mortgages on homes fully
> paid off. Now health care insurance is really nothing more than
> prepaid health services but done in a pool method where everyone
> shares the financial burden for each other's health status. And life
> insurance is a poor longterm investment alternative for the person
> who has an income in excess of necessary expenditures. **Kitty]


Kitty, I agree with you entirely here.  It is quite frustrating to me
that most of my peers believe that any extra money in the bank is to
be spent on entertainment.  They simply do not understand that bad
things can happen to them, and they are not prepared for these
occurrences.  My general feeling on your last few sentences above is
that people are uneducated on the alternatives.  I mean alternatives
such as disease-prevention through healthy habits, and alternative
investment vehicles outside of life insurance.  Some people simply
opt to take what is presented to them (the life-insurance salesperson
comes by and they buy it).

This is another interesting topic to me:  the kinds of information
one allows oneself to be subjected to.  I mentioned in my previous
post that I felt "lucky" to have connected a number of ideas that,
over time, allow me to feel a sense of "awareness" of the human
condition.  I feel that my "luckiness" is a direct result of the
value I place on seeking new information.  I know of a number of
people who specifically avoid seeking new information, or simply
don't spend time learning.  I think "not learning" makes a person
static.  They cease to evolve and grow when they are no longer
subjected to the ideas of others.

In my notes above, and likely well into the future, please keep in
mind that I have limited experience with people.  I am not a recluse,
but I do not interact with very many people.  Therefore, my
observations regarding human behavior may be limited and therefore
biased.

> > I then finish the discussion with the question:  "Would you want
to
> > be that person that you are frustrated with?  Because I sure
don't.
> > This is one reason I try to take care of myself, so others don't
have
> > to pay for it.  It is part of being a productive member of
society".
> > This discussion has helped both of my brothers find some value in
the
> > idea of self-responsibility.
>
> This is a good approach, but it will only work with those people
who
> have sufficient self-esteem (pride) that they do not wish to mooch
off
> others. Those without sufficient pride will say, "why should I do
the
> work and subsidize other people? I will gain more clear and direct
> benefit by not doing so and ignoring anyone who might be frustrated
> with my irresponsible behavior and yet who still continues to
> subsidize it by being a productive member of society." Actually,
this
> problem of how to deal with the moochers is the core theme of the
book
> "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. All the productive members of society
> were the "Atlases" (holding up the world - society) and they all
got
> fed up with supporting the rest and "shrugged" - effectively
said: "To
> hell with you, I am not supporting you any longer!" - and the
world -
> society - fell off their shoulders.
>
> > Still, I have only had the opportunity to have this discussion
with
> > my brothers, as they are open to listen to me for guidance and
> > advice.  The personal dynamic is often not the same with my other
> > relationships, so I have not used the same discussion, as I don't
> > want them to feel that I am proselytizing.
>
> Since your method above is essentially the "socratic method",
>
> "the method of inquiry and instruction employed by Socrates
especially
> as represented in the dialogues of Plato and consisting of a series
of
> questionings the object of which is to elicit a clear and
consistent
> expression of something supposed to be implicitly known by all
rational
> beings"
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com,


Even though my reading on the subject is limited, I am a bit of a fan
of Socrates, or at least, the Socratic method.  If I did not mention
before, I am a college lecturer.  I teach a number of business-
related topics at several colleges in the Toledo, Ohio area.  I teach
mainly accounting classes.  My experiences as an elder brother, and
teaching, have driven me toward the use of this effective method for
helping others to discover the truth within themselves.

> it should be applicable to other people, albeit with a bit of
> modification to make it clear that you are not implying that you
know
> all the answers.


I will try to refine my method in hopes that I can guide others
toward truth.  More specifically, I have to find a way by which I can
avoid implying that I know all the answers.  People I interact with
view me as a very studious, albeit somewhat anti-social,
intellectual.  In this regard, they expect me to say things that are
well-researched, and I think some people resent me for being so well-
informed.  This makes it difficult for me to discuss things with
them, as they have a strangely negative preconception of me.

> > Does anyone know any other strategies to encourage self-
> > responsibility?
>
> I described above my methods for motivating people, but I too would
> certainly like to hear from others on this subject.
> My expectation is that there will be little feedback about this,
since
> most people simply refrain from trying to motivate others at all,
except
> for those in sales and advertising (who generally use whatever
legal
> methods work to gain the immediate benefit for themselves,
regardless
> of its long range effects on their "mark" or on the rest of
society).
>
> >   I will have to look for the book Kitty mentioned at
> > the local library.
>
> It is a paperback and not expensive to purchase online.
>
> [The reference to _Taking Responsibility_ by Branden on the
> Practice Index Outlook and Interpersonal sections includes a link to
> its purchase info at Amazon (retailing currently at $10.40). If a
> person actually purchases it from that link, a small amount of money
> is credited to us as associates of Amazon. I've done this for just
> the few books that we recommend that are available through Amazon.
> **Kitty]
>

Thank you for the reference to the book.  I will consider purchasing
it through the link you've mentioned.

> > It seems that so few people are instilled with
> > the value (economic, societal, personal) of self-responsibility.
>
> As I stated above, this is because current society's feedbacks,
> regarding interpersonal actions, provide people with little to no
> benefit (and directly often disbenefit) from being self-
responsible.
> This is what I call a "chicken and egg problem". Each one is
necessary
> before the other can occur and thus there appears to be no way to
get
> either to happen. I think that my notion of "Social Preferencing"
(see
> http://selfip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html ) is a full
and
> effective solution to this social feedback problem, but, once
again, I
> appear to be unable to give sufficient numbers of people a
> sufficiently good reason for even giving it a try.
>
> > My experience with people leads me to believe that directly
> > addressing the topic in conversation is a poor way to encourage
the
> > behavior.  Instead, indirectly subjecting someone to the value of
> > self-reponsibility seems the best way to "get the gears turning"
in
> > their head about self-responsibility.
>
> If this can be accomplished in some manner (one possible way is by
> setting an example), then it is certainly better, since the result
is
> that the other person discovers the required beneficial change for
and
> by hirself, rather that being told. That is the basis of the value
of
> the socratic method - you lead the other person to hir own
discovery
> of the truth.
>
> [More than talking about self-responsibility is the practice of
> consequences. Branden explains this quite well in the book. It is
> something that everyone can do and would benefit from, often even
> in the near term, if practiced.
>
> If you are interacting with someone who is not, from your
> examination of the evidence of the situation, acting in a manner
that
> will provide benefit to both of you, then let that be known to hir.
> Do not simply allow the situation to continue. Now this requires
that
> you first understand that *all* interactions need to be to mutual
> benefit, though some are not immediately mutual to one party but are
> more long range. (Parenting is a good example of this and its goal -
> seen by me and Paul, to raise a child to become a self-responsible
> adult and, hopefully, a friend of the parent - could be a topic of
> discussion on this group.)  This is the underlying reason why
> mooching off others, including in a non-monetary manner, is wrong -
> the person being mooched off of is not deriving any benefit. If s/he
> were actually derivng benefit then it is not mooching - such as when
> a parent receives affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/etc from a
> dependent child for providing room/board/affection/guidance/etc to
> that child. It will likley not be considered mooching by the parent
> when the no longer dependent child returns
> affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/assistance with or without
> monetary payment for previous room/board/affection/guidance/etc to
> that child, or current when an adult offspring resides in the
> parent's home.

I agree here Paul.  I have found this same interaction philosophy
from 3 different sources, you being one of them.  The other two
philosophies I am acquainted with both use the term "win-win".  I
strongly agree with this philosophy, as it makes the most rational
sense to discover what it is the other person wants, then "trade".
In these other philosophies, "win-win" encourages people to only
engage in agreements or situations where all parties to the situation
benefit.  This, in turn, will create greater contentment for all
parties involved, and just as importantly, will minimize
discontentment with the interaction.  As a side-note related to this,
I read the "self-responsibility" link Kitty sent me for a few hours
last night.  I found the material most interesting, although it
requires much more time for me to fully understand it.

In my limited experience with encouraging "win-win" situations, I
have found there to be at least 2 problems with the model.  You begin
to discuss them below.  I will discuss my problems with implementing
the model after your discussion below.

> So when a situation is not mutually beneficial, bringing that out
> in the open with discussion is the first step.

This is the first problem:  the communication of non-mututal
benefit.  In my experience, some people have a very difficult time
accepting communication of the situation not being mutually
beneficial.  In the circumstances where people dislike my
communication, it is usually where they find my communication to be
offensive, critical, or just out of alignment with their own personal
philosophy.

For an illustration, let's say that a family member asks me to borrow
$1000.  I feel that I would like to help this family member and I
have the funds to let the person borrow the money.  However, I also
earn interest on this money, as I currently have it invested.  I then
tell the person that I am uncomfortable allowing them to borrow the
money for nothing in return, since it is such a large amount and I am
losing the opportunity to earn interest on it.  They are offended by
this, apologize for asking, and state that they will never ask
again.  In this situation I am at a loss for ways in which I could
have better handled the situation.  I am not proficient at asking for
an equal value payment (especially non-monetary payments) to make the
situation a "win-win" situation for both of us, and this may partly
be reason for the impasse.

> This would include
> letting it be known what you think is missing on the part of the
> other person and what you will do or not do until the mutual benefit
> status returns - these then are the consequences. If thinking this
> way is new to a person who attempts to use consequences with someone
> with whom an existing relationship exists, it would likely be best
> to let your new ideas on interactions be known and why they make
> very good sense to you. This can encourage discussion, if the other
> parties are reasonable in their thinking. If any is not, then you
> will find that out and decide how much and to what degree you want
> to interact with that person. **Kitty]


The second problem I have encountered with this "win-win" philosophy
is that it seems foreign to others.  They find me to be strangely
meticulous in wanting to make the situation "win-win", even to the
point of harming the relationship.  One person has stated to me that
describing the "win-win" situation in explicit, verbal terms
diminishes a trust-related aspect of the relationship.  I'm assuming
that this person implies that I should "trust" the person to help me
in the future, if I let them borrow the money now.  In
this "accounting for favors" aspect of a relationship, it seems that
I consistently come up short, hence my reason for declining
interaction with most people my age (this age group seems to be
especially poor in regards to keeping track of their duties to
reciprocal altruism).  If you are unfamiliar with reciprocal
altruism, I found a good discussion on wikipedia
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism). Also, the
book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright is an excellent discussion.

It seems that your selfSIP philosophies encourage the explicit
discussion of the *trade* of acts of benefit, where reciprocal
altruism leaves it for the receiving party to "remember" to help the
giving party in the future.  Is this accurate?  If so, I believe I
prefer explicit discussion, as I have most often been left empty-
handed when I do something for others, as they forget that I helped
them.  Again, this may be a source of my reluctance to interacting
with most people, me having accumulated many experiences of
benefitting others and receiving no benefit in return.

> > For example, a few
> > acquaintences of mine frequently drink alcohol to the point of
being
> > irresponsible and even dangerous.  I don't drink, but when they
ask
> > my why don't I have a few drinks, I tell them: "I don't want the
rest
> > of society to pay for my reckless behavior - if I drink, I'll
drink
> > at home."  I have gotten a few thoughtful reactions from this
> > statement, and even several follow-up conversations with these
> > acquaintences.  They illustrated to me that they never thought of
> > their public drinking with that perspective.  These few described
to
> > me their resolve to drink less in public, and if they continue to
> > drink, they'll do it at friends' houses where they can stay the
> > night.
>
> Although a "designated driver" approach can solve the problem of
> irresponsibility and danger with respect to driving (probably the
worst
> part of such irresponsibilities and dangers), you might also bring
up
> the health concerns with such drinking. Then you could make it
clear
> that you are not some kind of moralistic teetotaler, since you
agree
> that a few ounces of red wine (not enough to get a normal person
> intoxicated) may actually be beneficial for health.
>
> [Use of taxis or limo services when out partying is a reasonable
> idea, even if a person never drinks to the point of being dizzy or
> doing anything most would consider stupid. With many state/provincial
> laws determining DUI by having a blood acohol level above certain
> (rather low) minimum, instead of by any actual exhibited careless
> driving, it makes good sense to use a paid non-drinking driver when
> actually consuming alcohol in a location where transportation to
> somewhere else will be necessary. And it is considered quite
> permissable legally in many jurisdictions to stop vehicles without
> any supposed probable cause, but merely because the geographical law
> enforcement agency has deemed a period of time for "enhanced
> enforcement". **Kitty]
>
> > I first mentioned in this post that change requires action.  Many
> > people are unmotivated to take action.  This rampant apathy,
> > or "blind eye", to society's problems is very frustrating for
those
> > of us who ardently want to encourage improvement.  I have found
that
> > humans only take action when they see something 'in it' for
> > themselves - some sort of self-benefit.  This may partly explain
the
> > rampant apathy.
>
> Yes. With respect to society in general, it is not so much a "blind
> eye" as it is despair about having any real ability to make any
> difference (generally gained through previous experience of having
> tried and gotten nowhere, or seeing others having done so), so why
> try. This is a tendency that I constantly have to fight off. My way
> of doing so is based on my great concern for seeing and experiencing
> such social changes relative to any other activities that I might
> otherwise do. But this is, of course, what leads to frustration,
> because if my efforts are only of value if they have effect on
> others, then if they have no effect, I would have been better to
> spend my time on more directly ego-centric activities, even if these
> produce far less happiness to me than any success at social change
> would. This is my personal constant dilemma. The only solution to it
> that I have seen is to choose only those social change activities
> that will also give me more immediate happiness benefit.

I can relate to this also, Paul, except in a different personal
motivation.  I will explain my motivation and rationalization here.

I want to be helpful to society.  I understand that my accumulation
of knowledge will allow me to be more helpful to society.  However,
accumulation of knowledge does not usually translate into immediate
benefit to society.  Therefore, it is a struggle for me to spend the
maximum amount of time I can learning, as I do not see immediate
benefits.  I could go about trying to apply the knowledge I've gained
to manifest a benefit to society.  However, I am still currently
trying to find ways in which I can do this, taking into account my
limited free time and limited resources. So, until I am allowed more
free time and I accumulate more resources, I find that the best
activity I can engage in is learning.

> > People don't see the connection between their eating
> > habits and the overall effect, or even, between their eating
habits
> > and their quality of life in the future.  The anecdotes of others
> > regarding weight loss and habit change I have experienced almost
> > always mention a new 'perspective' on what they were doing to
> > themselves in their habits, followed by an intense desire to not
harm
> > themselves anymore.  This is where they find the motivation
to "take
> > action" and "make a change".
> >
>
> Yes. It is by seeing the positive effects on someone close that
people
> will be best motivated (again the example approach). My personal
problem
> in this respect is that I have always been doing most of these good
> health habits and I can rarely show any change to the better
because
> of some change of habit, or at least only in a minor way (such as
> reducing my meat consumption was clearly the answer to lowering my
and
> Kitty's homocysteine, particularly after unsuccessfully trying many
> other things). That I am generally extremely healthy and fit at age
> almost 70 is not a sufficiently strong recommendation of my health
> related lifestyle to most, because it could be due to simply good
luck
> and good genes (which is, unfortunately, logically true, especially
> when only one person is involved).
>
> > This is certainly a topic that needs discussion.
> >
> > In conclusion, it seems that those of us who are aware of
> > consequences and motivated to make changes (i.e. morelife) must
be
> > especially assertive, extra patient, and endlessly motivated -
> > because we can be the source of "awareness and motivation" for a
huge
> > proportion of people.
>
> This is very true and your writing so actually has reduced my level
of
> frustration, so I thank you.

I am quite glad that my writing has reduced your level of
frustration, as that is part of what I had intended, as might also be
evidenced in the email you cite below.

> My biggest motivation problem is that I
> generally receive so little feedback that I am not even sure that
anyone
> is *reading* what I write, much less thinking about it seriously
and
> deeply with a view to actually taking some action.
>
> [Actually I know when and how many visits there are to a very few
> pages at MoreLife.org and SelfSIP.org (on which I have placed
> tracking code) - and actually if these are repeats. But that is no
> way to really know how much of a page is being read and what effect
> it has, unless the reader lets me and/or Paul know via a post here,
> or an email. **Kitty]
>
> In this respect I am going to quote from your email to me which I
just
> now read since it went to my yahoo email inbox which I rarely
examine.
>
> -------------------------
> >   My next comment might be of specific interest to you, Paul.
> > Recently you responded to Francois .... Your somewhat frustrated
> > response to Francois' inquiry is what spurred me to become more
> > active in morelife.  The conversation can be found here:
> > http://tinyurl.com/2s4qzv.
> >
> >   More specifically, I strongly identified with your frustration
> > with humans' general lack of motivation to investigate solutions
to
> > society's current problems, including health problems.  I thought
> > it might be useful for you to know that your act of vocalizing
your
> > frustration can inspire others to be active.  I am always trying
to
> > identify the consequences of my actions, and I identified that one
> > consequence of your action to share your frustrations was to
> > inspire someone else to become more active in the material that
> > you, Paul, care about (inspiring me to be more active in exploring
> > solutions).  What complicated webs we weave!
> >
> >   So, I am registering with morelife yahoo so that I may reply
> > thoughtfully to your frustrations, as I strongly identify with
> > them.  Of course, there are a great many other things I would like
> > to comment on as well, but, as for all of us, time is a limiting
> > factor.
> -------------------
>
> My response to this is both pleasure and the earnest hope that you
> find it worthwhile to use some of your time to read, analyze and
> comment on more of the subject matter from MoreLife.org SelfSIP.org
> and the related posts to MoreLife Yahoo.
>
>
> > At least for me, it seems that I have gained
> > the awareness and motivation through sheer randomness- I got
lucky.
> > I accidentally had the right teachers, read the right books and
> > articles, and spoke to the right people.
>
> While this (accidental benefit) is true, there is also an important
> element of your own personal decisions to analyze and act on these
> random benefits that came your way. Think about the many others,
with
> essentially the same inputs, who did not gain the same perspective
as
> you. The result is that you are fully entitled to be proud of your
> thinking rather then merely think of yourself as being lucky.


I tend to believe that my "own personal decisions" you cite above
also come from luck.  That is, in a way, my disposition, decision-
making ability, and other personal characteristics are also either a
result of environment or genetics.  This might be my being
excessively modest, as I do tend to be.  I'm not sure if I believe
that I have an internal, or external, locus of control
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control).  I am still
contemplating the possibility of self-directed human behavior, or
more specifically, which decisions are purely self-directed.  I think
it might be possible that we, and all of our decisions, are each
wholly a product of our experiences and genetics, and that there is
little to no real autonomous decision-making at all.  But boy, that
would really take the magic out of life, wouldn't it?

>> However, now that we
>> (morelife and others) have that awareness, human-improvement no
>> longer has to be subject to randomness - we can deliberately
>> encourage it with our own action.
>
> And others can choose whether or not to think more long range just
> as you did.

I hope they do have a choice.  I hope more of them make the choice to
act.

>
> >
> > *Steve Floyd
> >
>
> --Paul

Note: So that the length of message in this thread does not get too
long, I will be breaking my response to this message into parts,
perhaps changing the subject lines as necessary to be more relevant
to the content.

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the word
>>
>> "misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
>> message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have any "hatred
>>
>> of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
>> dictionary definition of that word:
>>
>> "misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature
>>
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>>
>> If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in your
>>
>> subject line.
>>
>
> Regarding the use of the word "misanthropy" - I meant to use the word
> with a largely different context.  I source my definition from
> wikipedia, which may have changed since I first discovered the word.
> The definition I had in mind was "a person who has a dislike of
> certain overarching characteristics of humankind."  However, I want
> to be clear that I do not harbor "hatred of mankind", although I may
> have feelings of general "distrust of human nature".  So, this latter
> definition you cited above may be closer to my intended useage.

I will start by saying that I should have stated that the definition
that I gave for "misanthropy" was *a* dictionary definition, rather
than *the* dictionary definition. There are many English language
dictionaries, of both current and past publication, all of which have
different definitions of any particular word - some subtly different and
some substantially different (particularly so if the dictionaries are
published far apart in time). While the purpose of a dictionary is
generally purported to be to express and describe the current common
usage of a word, this purpose is fraught with potential problems right
from the start, since this means that dictionaries can easily foster
the  distorted (from origins) and ambiguous (multiple, quite different)
word meanings that they are also trying to prevent. I have often thought
that a far better purpose for a dictionary should be to clearly describe
the unambiguous etymologically original meanings of the words, and even
to frown upon and discourage other usages (except for totally newly
coined words, of course). Being a dynamic, non-scholarly, not-for-profit
dictionary, I consider the Wikipedia dictionary to be the very worst
around in this regard. While Wikipedia is a large, easily accessible
source of information, one should always keep in mind that there is no
guarantee that a scholarly approach has been taken to any of the
information presented there (as opposed to for-profit dictionaries and
encyclopedias who pay scholars for the work that is placed there and
which work is backed by the name of the scholarly author being clearly
attached to hir work).

Before continuing I will note the meaning of "scholar" and scholarly"
that I am using:

: one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of
knowledge in some special field along with accuracy and skill in
investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such
knowledge.
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

For this reason, while Wikipedia is a good place to make a quick start
and get some quick ideas about a word meaning or a subject (and I
sometimes use it for that purpose), it should only be a beginning of
one's investigation and not something that one should take as any kind
of definitive exposition. Since I have already written elsewhere of my
thoughts about Wikipedia (search for it in this group), this is all
that I will say right here.

Regarding your thoughts about the meaning of "misanthropy", here is a
dictionary meaning and the etymology of the word "misanthrope" to help
understand what meaning is more appropriate to give it.

Etymology: Greek /misanthromacrpos /hating mankind, from /mis- /^2 mis-
+ /anthromacrpos /man, human being -- more at ANTHROP-
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=anthrop-\
>
*:* one who hates or despises mankind <a /misanthrope/, whose only
strong emotions are those of disgust, rage, occasional sex hunger --
Richard Plant>
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

Note that Wikipedia does not give any of the etymology of words in its
dictionary, which is one sense in which it is not scholarly. The
result of this is that a reader has no sense of the origin of a word
or what its former meanings were. And the result of that is to
foster a continuous "morphing" and corruption of the language, so that
ultimately any word can have any meaning at all.

As I said before, I do not think that you are a misanthrope as described
by this meaning and its origins. Unfortunately, "misanthropy" is but one
of a vast number of words that have become distorted away from their
clear and unambiguous origins, by the tendency toward hyperbole of
sales-type persons and their mimickers and followers. With its secondary
meaning of "distrust of human nature" Merriam-Webster is already guilty
of that (they should be trying to thwart this tendency to warp and
distort meanings rather than fostering it), but Wikipedia is, front and
center, a major part of the problem and the exponentially increasing
speed with which clear and unambiguous communication in the English
language is being made impossible, is something about which I am
increasingly concerned.

>   The
> current wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy)
> cites: "Subtler expressions [of misanthropy] are far more common,
> especially for those pointing out the shortcomings of humanity."

It is incorrect to use the word "cite" here. A "cite" is a reference
from some written work to some scholarly work. More correctly, you
should have used instead the simpler word "states" or  "maintains".  If
you think a Wikipedia article is sufficiently authoritative then you
could cite it as your source for some statement that is a quote from it.

However, I totally reject the above statement as any reasonable meaning
for "misanthropy". Such a description is a total and extremely dangerous
distortion of any reasonable meaning of that word. It is particularly
dangerous, because whether intentionally or unintentionally it seeks to
place anyone who dissents from the norms of society into the same
category as a misanthrope as described above. This is simply one more
clear attempt to suppress any free thought and critical analysis. I
expect that you did not see this, but this an example of why you need to
carefully study and analyze ideas before accepting them. Otherwise you
will be suckered in like a fish taking the bait on the hook.

> It is from this definition that I might point out that we are all
> participating in some form of misanthropy, as far as the wikipedia
> definition is accurate.

The Wikipedia notion is totally wrong and the vast majority of people
are not practicing misanthropy, least of all not I and Kitty.

> In my previous post I believe I was pointing
> out perceived "shortcomings of humanity", such as lack of action,
> lack of self-responsibility, etc.

No. Please try to remember that humans are all individuals, different
from one another to greater or lesser degree. There is no collective
that has any human attributes at all, much less "shortcomings". Rather
you were "pointing out perceived shortcomings" of some adult humans. And
these shortcomings are, once again, more or less in type and degree
within different humans.

>   This is how I feel my last posting
> was related to the word "misanthropy".

I understand now and have no criticism beyond what I have written here.
I look forward to your reply (but I would appreciate it if you would
wait until I have finished my multiple replies to your message, since
they may be relevant to one another).

--Paul

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>

[snipped part about misanthropy, already addressed and other parts about
frustration not responded to]

>>> Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
>>> post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
>>>
>>> Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
>>>
>>>> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides
>>>> numerous examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-
>>>> known sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
>>>> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
>>>> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
>>>> strangers.]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
>>> information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
>>> business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
>>>
>>> So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
>>> human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
>>> that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
>>> I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
>>> countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
>>> attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).
>>>
>> And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of a
>> dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
>> responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of such
>> poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
>> each to begin to practice better such habits.
>>
>
> This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of or read about,
> Paul.

I am quite amazed that you had not, since this idea of choices causing
feedback of their harms and benefits to, in turn, moderate future
choices (or choices of onlookers) that will more likely enhance their
net benefit is the basic mode of action of all life-forms and, in fact,
the mechanism of all positive change, including evolution. While the
application of this principle to eliminate cradle to grave socialism
is widespread in the libertarian literature (see http://mises.org for
examples - but we don't agree with everything there), this shows that
such writings are not getting through to the general public where the
paradigm of government support programs, paid by assets forcibly
extracted from citizens, is fully accepted as being the current reality,
and solutions to its problems are only examined if they remain within
the context of that paradigm. Another rampant example of this kind of
thinking is the physician who knows that alteration of lifestyle habits
and some supplements will greatly benefit those with a tendency to
cardiovascular problems, but, since the current reigning paradigm is
that patients cannot and will not change their lifestyle habits and
therefore, that telling them about such information is a waste of time,
the physician prescribes statins (usually even without supplementary
CoQ10, even though he knows - or should know - that statins reduce
endogenous production of CoQ10).

So I guess in retrospect I am not so amazed, as I am more disappointed
(mainly at the media than at you), that you have not read of such an
application of this basic principle of human action. However, I am
even more disappointed that you and others are not able to see the
application of general principles to areas remote from their
derivation, but this is simply one more example of the failure of the
government education system to teach critical and analytical thinking.
Governements, of course, place no value in such thinking because it
does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects.

[An excellent book that I have recommended before is "Science of Thinking" by
Henry Hazlitt - listed with others at:
http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#improvingthinking
This short article from comments in early MoreLife Yahoo post is given as a link
from the Practice Index Outlook section for improving one's thinking while
increasing vocabulary. Although this book has been out of print for many years,
there are used copies available via Internet.  I first saw it among Paul's
collection and then acquired a copy via the Internet for a relative.
(Unfortunately, that person has not demonstrated in recent communication with me
that he makes use of Hazlitt's excellent ideas, and since the disconnection
between us began even before I gave him the copy, he has likely never even
opened it.) **Kitty]

> I guess the reason I had not made this seemingly obvious
> connection is that I am very doubtful that the vast majority of
> people can change their own lifestyle habits.

This is a highly negative approach on 3 counts, at least:
1) Every human *can* (is physically capable) of changing any of their
habits. (Note the use of the word "own" in your sentence above is
redundant, since it is certain that one human cannot directly change
the habits of another - without the use of force, that is.)
2) Without even trying to effect such change, it is premature and
certainly scientifically incorrect to conclude that the vast majority
of people will not ever change their lifestyle habits.
3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
ever change their lifestyle habits, this does not imply that any given
human will not. Therefore, one should always try to help each human do
so, particularly since those who will change for the better are in an
important sense more "worthy" than those who will not (ie they will be
more capable of and likely to return value which enhances your life).

[A short item has been included in the Outlook section of MoreLife for over 3
years on reprogramming emotions, which is also applicable to behaviors -
http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#reprogrammingemoti\
ons
And a search of the group's archives on "habits" and/or "emotions" and
"reprogram" will show several messages with this subject discussed. Others can
be found using "change" instead of "reprogram". **Kitty]

> I have watched a
> number of my family members struggle with bad health from smoking,
> atrocious eating habits, and lack of exercise.  I have had a great
> many discussions with them using different methods, including the
> socratic method, questioning, asking them about their desired
> outcomes from habit changes for the better, and even criticism.  My
> well-intentioned discussions have generally met with resistance, and
> even anger (met with anger most notably when applying criticism, by
> the way).  So, as you might imagine, or have likely experienced
> yourself, this resistance is discouraging.

Yes, it is discouraging, but I think it is also very typical. Though it
was hard to give up on, I have come to the conclusion that a genetic
connection is not an attribute that implies any of the essential
character attributes that I seek to find in others, and without which
I cannot call a person a friend. Still, as a result of being a sperm
donor in the early 1980s, I have maybe 20 children with whom I have no
connection whatsoever, nor it seems any means to connect, but with
respect to whom I still have some hope (only very weakly and
non-essentially to my lifetime happiness) of finding a kindred spirit.

My answer is therefore, to constantly, frankly, directly and publicly
state my most cherished and important personal thoughts and ideas, so
that others reading them will know whether or not they match,
complement and/or harmonize with their own ideas, and will therefore
be attracted to read more about me and make a connection (as you did
and as a very few others, who I now call friend, have done). In
effect, making your essential personal character and convictions
publicly very clear becomes a method to attract those people with whom
you are compatible and on whom you can have some positive effect (and
they on you) and to filter out the others who will be less likely to
benefit your life.

--Paul

[I too have found that biological connection is no guarantee of philosophical
agreement on fundamental issues. And if I am truly at odds with someone
(biologically related or not) on the most basic of principles - and they have no
desire to discuss the subject(s) to see if agreement can actually be reached, or
if exchanges by them are not based on logic - then there is no way I will spend
any of my precious time engaged in an activity including them that brings me no
immediate benefit. For those where such philosophical opposition does not exist
- or has not shown itself to exist - I am willing to invest my time for the
strong - or possible, respectively - likelihood of future benefit to me (not as
much time for those I am not sure of). And for those individuals who equate
benefit only with money, I try to make it clear that benefit is anything that
adds to my lifetime happiness. (But since such "clarity" of received
information, like harm, is only evaluatable by the receiver, success is not
guaranteed.)

So, the persons with whom I am in closest agreement are not biologically related
to me at all - they are chosen friends. Among those people with whom I have had
interactions in my lifetime, those to whom I am biologically related are among
the ones with whom I am most philosophically opposed. **Kitty]

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>

[snip of previously addressed material]

>>> The same interaction between a smoker and non-smoker, albeit a bit smaller,
>>>
>>> because many insurers will ask you to pay a higher premium if you
>>> smoke, helping to subsidize the health-cost of your habit.
>>>
>> Not helping to "subsidize" it, but instead helping to *fund* it for
>> the class of smokers. It would only be *subsidizing* the smoking group
>> if a non-smoker had to pay the same premium as a smoker.
>>
>
> In using the word "subsidize" here, I'm assuming that the added
> premium added to a smoker's insurance premium vastly underestimates
> the "damage done" (in health care costs) to the person by smoking.
> Therefore, the higher premium only 'partly' covers the costs of the
> person's smoking habit.  In this regard, everyone else who pays their
> premium and does not smoke will partly pay for the health problems of
> the smokers.  I understand this to also be "subsidization", even if
> it is only partly.  Perhaps I am incorrect here?

First, it needs to be made clear that the whole notion of "subsidy" is
one that can only arise within a government or otherwise restricted
social/market context, since, by its very definition, it is not to
mutual advantage between individuals and would not, therefore,
voluntarily be made. Even though ostensibly non-government, the health
insurance market in the US is heavily regulated, and for that reason,
and, in addition, because of the current social environment of gross
irrationalism (particularly, inadequate social and market preferencing
actions), it is effectively an area of highly restricted choice. (For
more on the meaning of social preferencing - which includes market
preferencing - see: http://selfsip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html )

I have looked in several sources at definitions of "subsidize" and
"subsidy" and find no reference to it being only partial, but on the
other hand, only in one place does it say that it is full.

: /broadly/ *:* an entire payment from a government for services (as for
carrying mail) which includes both compensation for actual services and
a subsidy proper
/Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

In addition, although your assumption that insurers are not charging
sufficient additional premiums to smokers to cover the full health
costs of their habit, may be correct, I see no reason to think that it
is. In fact, since the insurers have been allowed by the government
to make this distinction between customers (most other distinctions
are not allowed), I can see no reason why they would not be charging
for the full amortized risk/cost.

>> Here are merely two general problems with health insurance related to
>> the present discussion:
>>
>> 1) Because the problem is so complex that it will never be fully
>> understood, it is fundamentally impossible to make sufficient fine
>> distinctions between people so that premiums are directly and
>> individually proportional to health cost risk.
>>
>
> The system does seem very complicated.  I agree completely.

I want to make it clear that was referring to the complexity of human
biology and the plethora and interactions of factors relating to health.
If these were known in full detail, then the charging of premiums
according to the risk/cost related to such factors would not be too
complex a problem.

>> 2) Because everything is paid for in many policies, there is no
>> incentive for the insured to incur time, effort and other costs in
>> order to prevent usage of hir insurance (ie to stay completely
>> healthy). Health (actually catastrophic illness/injury) insurance with
>> a large deductible at low cost would greatly help this last. I, myself,
>> would likely elect to get such insurance, to cover those rare health
>> problems which I could not reasonably foresee or prevent, because no
>> one, including me, is omniscient.
>>
>>
>
> I found this idea also quite interesting.  After reading and
> reflecting on the above, it seems quite odd to me that humans have
> the kind of 'nationalized' health care that they do (in certain
> countries).

I think the major reason for this is the current medical establishment
paradigm regarding the occurrence of illness and dysfunction. Namely,
that such occurrence is essentially random and without causes, or, at
the least, without causes that can be moderated by any socially
acceptable means.

[There is *some* move in mainstream medicine to acknowedgement that a person's
lifestyle is a contributor to poor health and even specific disorders. There are
also some indications that this will increase, but it is so slow and heavily
opposed by others that I won't hold my breath (or bank my happiness or change my
recommendations to others) while I wait for it to supercede the reigning
paradigm that Paul has described above. For example, obesity is officially
listed as a contributing factor in many illnesses - in actuality, it is likely a
factor in most. However, the reason for the obesity in the vast majority of
cases is glossed over - the fact of these individuals simply eating more than a
healthy body requires at the activity level required by that person to live a
productive life (optimize hir lifetime happiness). But as Paul states, far too
many people still think that their bad or good health is just a matter of luck -
random  plus some influence of their genes. These individuals disregard the
effect of their own choices on what happens to their body. And the call for
"tolerance" by so many is so great, and so effective at countering any pressure
for self-responsibility, that without a full philosophical change to
acknowleging their internal power over themselves by large numbers, the outlook
is bleak. Of course if I were as pessimistic as this last sentence sounds, I
wouldn't bother to write what I am now or do regularly. **Kitty]

> It would seem that encouraging individuals to care for
> themselves (preventative behaviors)

The current medical establishment and therefore the "advice" given to
and the treatment of the vast majority of patients/people by physicians
is that most illness and dysfunction is effectively not preventable.

[While many doctors will readily treat disorders, very few put emphasis on
prevention. One could logically conclude that those who ignore or at least
minimize prevention are more interested in keeping a steady stream of disorder
sufferers who seek treatment. **Kitty]

> to lower health-related cash
> outlays would be best for humanity, as it would precipitate less
> problems such as invalidity and unhappiness (associated with poor-
> health), as well as good habits being passed onto later generations
> during family education.

It is important to understand that it would be best for all precisely
*because* it would also be best for each. The individual's benefit
logically comes first because only s/he has the special access to hir
own desires and value structures which enable hir to better evaluate
that benefit (even though such evaluation is entirely subjective) than
anyone else can. With respect to the benefit for all, no one is in any
better position than anyone else to evaluate it, with the result that such
evaluation is fraught with even more subjective bias and inaccuracy than
is any evaluation of an individual's benefit by hirself.

> However, society has been moving toward a
> system where everyone's ailments should be taken care of, regardless
> of their cause.

The important factor here is the word "should", because it implies the
obligation of a necessary agent to cause the "taken care of" actions.
However, while some people do voluntarily accept unilaterally stated
obligations, most people quite rightly do not. Therefore, such
obligations can ultimately only be incurred by or assigned to everyone
by being *imposed* on most people by force, threat of force or theft,
which is clearly not beneficial to the persons on which it is
perpetrated (by their evaluation, since if it were so beneficial, then
they would have done it voluntarily).

> I think perhaps this mentality is an extention of the "all men are
> created equal" and other related creed.

Yes, this change in the US over the last 200+ years from negative rights
political equality, to positive rights social equality, is a major part
of the problem. In fact, the reason why socialized medicine is further
advanced in other countries than in the US is precisely because they
do not have the same history of the clear negative rights political
equality concept.

>   Under this "equality"
> philosophy, it would be "immoral" to allow someone lacking the
> preventative education, or funds to pay for treatment, to
> be "ignored" by the health-system.

The major mistake in this thinking is that there is no such
independently existing thing as "the health-system" which can provide
anything. Ultimately, all human benefits can only be attained by
individuals providing assets from their productive endeavors.
Therefore, any "health-system" can be nothing more than the
combination of individual assets distributed in some manner to
increase the average health of members of that system. The only real
questions are whether each member of the system is also a receiver of
assets and the extent to which each is a receiver of assets
proportional to hir input of assets. If someone is to be provided with
something that hir funds are insufficient to provide, then this can
only be done by the voluntary provision or coerced taking of such
funds from others. Therefore the ultimate question to be resolved is
whether or not conflicts in personal desires between rational
individuals must ultimately exist, and if so whether or not it is
justified (in some manner) to resolve such conflicts by taking
from some (and which ones) to give to others (and more, who gets to
decide which ones are taken from and which are given to).

As for "immoral", this is not an arbitrary concept to be determined by
one or even a group of persons for another. Any reasonable notion of
the concept "moral" must come directly from the nature of humans and
their relationship to reality. Although I do not use the word "moral"
(I consider it to be a "lost" word, because it means too many
different things to people so that it is currently impossible to
reclaim any single and more reality-bound meaning), I do derive the
basis of the reality-related natural and "proper" actions of human
individuals in my essay "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal
Interaction" at: http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html
and use that basis for all my statements about human action. Perhaps
the most important conclusion of all that is derived from my analysis
is that ultimately (in particular under the social system that I
describe in detail and call the "Freeman Society") there need be no
need for any conflict of the interests of rational humans.

> Not taking care of this person
> would be in breach of this "equality" doctrine, since other people
> with better education and better income opportunities would have
> access to treatment.

As is their natural entitlement because they have earned it. The one
needing care without the assets to afford it is has not earned such care
and therefore has no natural entitlement (entitlement based on and
derived from reality) to it.

> So, to resolve this possible conflict we have "health care for all".


If you read and carefully think about the above essay, you will
hopefully come to understand that, with the correct basis for
entitlements and actions, no such conflict will exist.

>>> However,
>>> I have not seen any health insurers that ask how many calories you
>>> eat per day =P "Check this box if you eat donuts...premium goes up
>>> $1.22" LOL.
>>>
>> Yes, while total individuality of premiums according to health risk
>> will forever be impossible, a great deal could be done in this
>> direction which is not being done at all. OTOH, if this were done
>> then, in effect, everyone would be simply paying hir own direct health
>> risk cost, so there would be little point in having the insurance
>> except for those situations where the outlay was more than the
>> individual could afford either currently or to pay off. In other words,
>> once again, as with the large deductible, the only logical reason to
>> have insurance would be for those rare catastrophic problems that one
>> can neither prevent nor take care of by oneself.
>>
>
> I see what you are saying here Paul, and it makes sense.  If we were
> to accurately quantify into dollars the costs of a certain behavior
> (i.e. smoking, over-eating, etc) on health-care costs, we would
> essentially be paying our own personalized insurance premiums,
> tailored to our various healthy and non-healthy habits.
> Interesting.

Yes. The end result that there would be no money being taken from one
and given to another. Each person would be paying entirely and only for
hirself (plus a small amount to fund the insurer).

--Paul

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:

[snip of previous items responded to separately by Paul]

>> [What has gone by the wayside since I was a child is the idea
>> of "saving for a rainy day" - those events that most likely would
>> occur, like illnesses. Insurance was only for something very
>> unlikely, but not impossible. The exception for many people was the
>> idea of buying life insurance - death was/is a certainty at some
>> point - as the way of providing for their young families before
>> sufficient savings could be accumulated and mortgages on homes fully
>> paid off. Now health care insurance is really nothing more than
>> prepaid health services but done in a pool method where everyone
>> shares the financial burden for each other's health status. And life
>> insurance is a poor longterm investment alternative for the person
>> who has an income in excess of necessary expenditures. **Kitty]
>>
>
> Kitty, I agree with you entirely here.  It is quite frustrating to me
> that most of my peers believe that any extra money in the bank is to
> be spent on entertainment.  They simply do not understand that bad
> things can happen to them, and they are not prepared for these
> occurrences.  My general feeling on your last few sentences above is
> that people are uneducated on the alternatives.  I mean alternatives
> such as disease-prevention through healthy habits, and alternative
> investment vehicles outside of life insurance.  Some people simply
> opt to take what is presented to them (the life-insurance salesperson
> comes by and they buy it).

My conclusion is that the vast majority of people who do not save/invest
part of their income and instead spend all of it on possessions and
services of various types because they currently have no incentive to do
otherwise. It wasn't that many years ago that the fable of the
grasshopper and the ant had real relevance to society - that if an
individual chose to spend/use all of his assets (including time)
during the present, then s/he would have accumulated nothing for the
inevitable winter and the fates (likely death) would prevail. Is this
a fable with which you are even familiar?

[Steve, have you never heard of "the school of hard knocks"? By far the most
effective method of learning about reality occurs when a person is allowed to
suffer the real and often hard concequences of hir actions. "Reality is the best
teacher" is another maxim used in this regard. The problem with current society
is that reality is not allowed to be a teacher to any except those who are
productive and get their hard earned assets stolen by governments. --Paul]

There has been an enormous increase in the past 30 to 40 years of what
began in the 1930s - payment through tax money to people for all types
of avoidable situations. Tax money-backed health care is just one of
many provided services that were/are labeled by politicians as part of a
caring society.  Another is unemployment. Now losing one's current job
may not be avoidable - companies can go into a reduction of force mode
and even out of business - but being without any income *is* avoidable.
That once common "rainy day fund" was also thought of as "tide over"
money, in case of job loss, to be used for that short period of time
until the individual established another source of income - another
employer or his own endeavors as a provider of a product or services
willing to be bought by others. This is rarely done anymore and it is
common to read or hear about persons who have been on unemployment
benefits (government paid from tax money) for more than a year - or
the person files for and receives a grant from one of many government
agencies and/or declares personal bankruptcy. The original idea of
government sponsored unemployment insurance was that money was to be
withheld from a person's paycheck, invested in some trust and then paid
out for a specific period of time to those who became unemployed through
no fault of their own - something that could be arranged by the
individual and employer on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately government
has preempted this type of voluntary arrangement or the decision of the
individual to do his own savings for such an event by its mandatory
federal program.

These government programs - social welfare - are akin to a penny in a
fuse in 2 ways: economical and philosophical. The economics can be seen
without too much explanation and there are a growing number of online
sources pointing out the enormous debt that the US government has
acquired. This debt of course is really held by every man, woman and
child citizen in the US ($30,253.09 per person as of this writing) since
the government as an entity cannot be responsible for any debt - it will
come out of taxes or in the devaluation of the US currency. (US national
debt has increased on an average of $1.48 billion per day since
September 29, 2006!) http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
It is the philosophical disintegration that results from the idea of
government provision of social well being that is not so easy for most
people to actually recognize. This requires more reading, thought,
evaluation, assessment and judgment. Bottom line though, when the
government is given (assumes) the responsibility by legislators for
providing anything (via tax money) to the individual, the individual
loses a part of hirself, even though s/he may not be immediately aware
of this loss of self - it is self-esteem that is lost.

[Note that using a nominal 5% interest rate, on the average each US citizen is
paying about $1500 yearly just to maintain the current national debt. Since that
is an average, some taxpayers are paying a lot more and those citizens who pay
no federal income taxes are paying none directly. --Paul]


> This is another interesting topic to me:  the kinds of information
> one allows oneself to be subjected to.  I mentioned in my previous
> post that I felt "lucky" to have connected a number of ideas that,
> over time, allow me to feel a sense of "awareness" of the human
> condition.  I feel that my "luckiness" is a direct result of the
> value I place on seeking new information.

From your use of quotes around "lucky", I am concluding that you are
not really - or at least not now - thinking of yourself as lucky to be
thinking the way you do. Luck is simply what happens and each
individual has significant control of what happens. For this reason I
do not even use the word "luck" in a serious manner - though I did at
times before joining with Paul and, since then, having many
discussions with him on this and other non-concepts.

I think a better way of viewing what you stated above is that the
connections you have found are a direct result of the value you place
on seeking new information. Note how this obviates the need for the
non-concept of luckiness. And what you do with that new information
and those connections is also a result of *your* decisions. Using the
word luck associated with knowledge, decisions, consequences, etc. is
not helpful for discussing what really takes place. But maybe your use
of quote marks here around luck is to signify that this is possibly a
non-concept to you...I can't be sure of this without you saying more,
which you have done in the last of your response to Paul and which he
will address in a later segment. So we can delay further discussion on
this till then.

[Luck is a non-concept in the following sense (similar to the non-concept of
natural rights, but very different in attempted meaning of course).  The notion
of "luck", for a life-form, does not have any existing referent, category of
referents or relationship between existents, nor is it an action or state.
("Probability" and even "chance" certainly have a well-defined meanings, but
they are very different than what the attempted meaning of "luck".) Luck
therefore has no place in the metaphysical basis of existence that I have
briefly laid out at the beginning of the Natural Social Contract and its
annotations (see http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html ), which metaphysical
basis, I maintain describes all of existence and derivatives from it. If you
disagree then please show me where my metaphysical basis falls short and produce
one that is both more complete and still is self-consistent. --Paul]

> I know of a number of
> people who specifically avoid seeking new information, or simply
> don't spend time learning.  I think "not learning" makes a person
> static.  They cease to evolve and grow when they are no longer
> subjected to the ideas of others.

Currently there is little to no incentive for a person to continue to
learn about reality. Consequences to the individual for failing to
prepare for undesirable results from interactions of various aspects
of reality are distorted and often effectively voided by governments -
consequences still occur but they are not as easily ascribable to a
particular cause. It is like all the things that could have come into
existence but have not because of government regulations. Since they
did not come into existence, no one sees them nor even thinks about
them - certainly no one but imaginary thinkers like Paul misses them.

[I and Kitty recently, for the first time, saw the movie _Tucker_ which is a
fine example of what might have been but for government. It gives me enormous
sorrow every time that I think of what the state of the world could be but for
the enormous burden on all producers and subversion of progress by governments
everywhere. --Paul]

Just as a child will never become an autonomous self-responsible adult
if hir parent is of the hovering protective type who prevents reality
from occurring by moving the child, picking up after, paying for losses,
excusing bad behavior, doing tasks for, etc, so will a chronologically
adult individual never seek new knowledge when s/he accepts the idea
that there is no need to be any more knowledgeable than at some point in
time, mainly because the government welfare supports hir in that state.
For instance, why bother to start preparing by gaining new knowledge in
a productive field when one first suspects a possible change beginning
in the market if the government welfare system will pay unemployment
insurance for extended periods of time. And this type of reasoning
cannot help but creep into a person's view of knowledge as a whole. And
yes, such persons are static in growth of what really counts in humans,
their ability to reason.

It is unfortunate that a significant number of people do not recognize
that exposing themselves - I think that a better phrasing than
"subjecting" - to various ideas enables them to exercise their brains
*only if* they analyze, evaluate and judge. Too many want to simply do
what their parents did or what their friends do without any mental
exertion on their part or having to be responsible for a view that
they hold being different from others. I would not be surprised,
however, if these same individuals are among ones who will spend many
hours each week exercising the rest of their body (from the neck down)
in the gym :)

[Perhaps Steve is familiar with the expression "there is no royal road to
learning" (if not, google it). This effectively means that learning must
necessarily take effort. No amount of money, titles or power will enable true
learning to effortlessly appear in one's brain. --Paul]

> In my notes above, and likely well into the future, please keep in
> mind that I have limited experience with people.  I am not a recluse,
> but I do not interact with very many people.  Therefore, my
> observations regarding human behavior may be limited and therefore
> biased.

One doesn't need to physically interact with a great many people in
order to reach reasonable conclusions from observations. There are
also enormous opportunities for observation of large numbers and types
of people on the Internet as well as simply watching behaviors of
strangers in public. Asking questions on-line of a participant in
public forums after reading various statements and replies will
provide you with various amounts of information (depending on your
questions) on which to decide whether to increase your interactions
with that person.

I would not use the word "biased" (root meaning "oblique") in regard
to your observations of human behavior. Maybe your intention is to
convey that your current conclusions may not be objective because of
your "limited experience with people". However, if you think about it
you will see that no one is or even can be purely objective, since all
individuals can bring to their written and/or spoken words only
elements of their own experience and currently held ideas. However a
person seeking objectivity will not refuse to examine ideas that are
different, even counter to ones to which s/he has been associated. And
s/he will examine them all against the facts of reality, not simply on
what are the most accepted ideas or behaviors in society at the time.
It is evaluations of personal harm, benefit and happiness that are
necessarily the most subjective, but "biased" is not a good
descriptive word for this either.

Hopefully as you gain more understanding of why your good ideas are good
- beneficial to optimizing your lifetime happiness - and replace those
that are not with ones that are, you will acquire greater self-esteem
and be more comfortable with discussing life-outlook subjects
(philosophy) with others who are not immediately in agreement with you.

**Kitty

[This is the 5th and last partial response to Steve's message #1715]

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>

[snipped all previously addressed and preliminary previously posted text]

>>> Still, I have only had the opportunity to have this discussion with
>>> my brothers, as they are open to listen to me for guidance and
>>> advice.  The personal dynamic is often not the same with my other
>>> relationships, so I have not used the same discussion, as I don't
>>> want them to feel that I am proselytizing.
>>>
>> Since your method above is essentially the "socratic method",
>>
>> "the method of inquiry and instruction employed by Socrates especially
>> as represented in the dialogues of Plato and consisting of a series of
>> questionings the object of which is to elicit a clear and consistent
>> expression of something supposed to be implicitly known by all rational
>> beings"
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com,
>>
>
> Even though my reading on the subject is limited, I am a bit of a fan
> of Socrates, or at least, the Socratic method.  If I did not mention
> before, I am a college lecturer.  I teach a number of business-
> related topics at several colleges in the Toledo, Ohio area.  I teach
> mainly accounting classes.  My experiences as an elder brother, and
> teaching, have driven me toward the use of this effective method for
> helping others to discover the truth within themselves.

Thanks for providing this additional information. Knowing more about a
person's background always aids the effectiveness of intellectual
discussion. Providing this is an indication of frankness and openness
of character (both of which I seek in others) and is certainly a
refreshing contrast to so many others on the Internet.

>> it should be applicable to other people, albeit with a bit of
>> modification to make it clear that you are not implying that you know
>> all the answers.
>>
>
> I will try to refine my method in hopes that I can guide others
> toward truth.  More specifically, I have to find a way by which I can
> avoid implying that I know all the answers.  People I interact with
> view me as a very studious, albeit somewhat anti-social,
> intellectual.  In this regard, they expect me to say things that are
> well-researched, and I think some people resent me for being so well-
> informed.  This makes it difficult for me to discuss things with
> them, as they have a strangely negative preconception of me.

This sounds a lot like I have experienced, so I certainly understand and
sympathize. BTW, I was also already a college teacher at your age and
became an Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto at age 26.
With respect to my family it has always been the fact that they agreed
that I knew a lot about the narrow fields which I had studied at
University, but with respect to anything relating to life and other
parts of learning/reality they never respected my views - actually, in
retrospect, it appears most of them thought I was wacko, except for my
mother, who unfortunately died at far too young an age and while alive
did not have the courage to buck my father.

Two additional things here.
1) On factual things you can and should present information as something
that you know to be true, but about evaluations and methods of learning,
behaving, interacting, etc. you should admit that you are just beginning
and what you state is only your current considered opinion backed by the
reasoning that you present.
2) You need to learn that not all people are amenable to the influence
of reason, or at least not by your methods. This means that you need
to learn when to cut your losses and not bother trying any longer with
a given person. Whether such a person is a relative or not is
immaterial to this decision. The only thing that is germain to the
decision is how the extended set of positive and negative attributes
of the person add up.

[Snipped part about Branden's book _Taking Responsibility_]

>>> It seems that so few people are instilled with
>>> the value (economic, societal, personal) of self-responsibility.
>>>
>> As I stated above, this is because current society's feedbacks,
>> regarding interpersonal actions, provide people with little to no
>> benefit (and directly often disbenefit) from being self-responsible.
>> This is what I call a "chicken and egg problem". Each one is necessary
>> before the other can occur and thus there appears to be no way to get
>> either to happen. I think that my notion of "Social Preferencing" (see
>> http://selfip.org/solutions/Social_Preferencing.html ) is a full and
>> effective solution to this social feedback problem, but, once again,
>> I appear to be unable to give sufficient numbers of people a
>> sufficiently good reason for even giving it a try.
>>
>>
>>> My experience with people leads me to believe that directly
>>> addressing the topic in conversation is a poor way to encourage the
>>> behavior.  Instead, indirectly subjecting someone to the value of
>>> self-reponsibility seems the best way to "get the gears turning" in
>>> their head about self-responsibility.
>>>
>> If this can be accomplished in some manner (one possible way is by
>> setting an example), then it is certainly better, since the result is
>> that the other person discovers the required beneficial change for and
>> by hirself, rather that being told. That is the basis of the value of
>> the socratic method - you lead the other person to hir own discovery
>> of the truth.
>>
>> [More than talking about self-responsibility is the practice of
>> consequences. Branden explains this quite well in the book. It is
>> something that everyone can do and would benefit from, often even
>> in the near term, if practiced.
>> If you are interacting with someone who is not, from your
>> examination of the evidence of the situation, acting in a manner that
>> will provide benefit to both of you, then let that be known to hir.
>> Do not simply allow the situation to continue. Now this requires that
>> you first understand that *all* interactions need to be to mutual
>> benefit, though some are not immediately mutual to one party but are
>> more long range. (Parenting is a good example of this and its goal -
>> seen by me and Paul, to raise a child to become a self-responsible
>> adult and, hopefully, a friend of the parent - could be a topic of
>> discussion on this group.)  This is the underlying reason why
>> mooching off others, including in a non-monetary manner, is wrong -
>> the person being mooched off of is not deriving any benefit. If s/he
>> were actually derivng benefit then it is not mooching - such as when
>> a parent receives affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/etc from a
>> dependent child for providing room/board/affection/guidance/etc to
>> that child. It will likley not be considered mooching by the parent
>> when the no longer dependent child returns
>> affection/honor/appreciation/esteem/assistance with or without
>> monetary payment for previous room/board/affection/guidance/etc to
>> that child, or current when an adult offspring resides in the
>> parent's home.
>>
>
> I agree here Paul.

The last part above (starting with the "[") was written by Kitty and I
will leave it to her to initially address your remarks.

> I have found this same interaction philosophy
> from 3 different sources, you being one of them.  The other two
> philosophies I am acquainted with both use the term "win-win".  I
> strongly agree with this philosophy, as it makes the most rational
> sense to discover what it is the other person wants, then "trade".

[I don't think it is necessary to go through some discovery process to determine
what it is that the person with whom you are interacting wants in order to trade
to mutual benefit. It can simply be assumed when dealing with an adult that the
individual is acting on what s/he considers to be in hir best interest. In fact,
making such an assmuption is entailed in granting such human the entitlement to
freedom of independent action and working to "discover" what another *really*
wants (rather that what s/he says s/he wants) would effectively be treating such
a person as an inferior, but perhaps that is not what you meant by "discover".
Guiding one's child (a dependent, not a self-supporting autonomous adult who is
more properly called one's "offspring") would include teaching hir this
principle of interaction. However, if there is some lack of information on the
part of one or both parties, then some discussion would hopefully provide that
and result in a mutually beneficial trade (perhaps that is simply what you meant
by "discover").  This last may be the case in an employment or consulting
situation where initially one or both parties is not definite about
expectations. The solution to this when there are assets to be exchanged is a
written contract - so that all expectations for transferral are thought about in
advance and clearly stated. (It just came to mind the 3 copies of a contract I
found recently among papers made out by my previous husband, Ed, and then 12 1/2
year old son, Andy, in January 1986 regarding payment for a video game system.
Both had signed it and there was a place for my signature as witness but I don't
remember why I did not sign it (or even if I ever saw it before). I also do not
remember whether the specifics of the contract actually took place.
Unfortunately, this example of self-responsibility being taught by a parent to a
child and an indication of successful influence on the child did not continue
from either of them, at least not in regards to me, as is evident by major
events starting in 2000.) **Kitty]


> In these other philosophies, "win-win" encourages people to only
> engage in agreements or situations where all parties to the situation
> benefit.  This, in turn, will create greater contentment for all
> parties involved, and just as importantly, will minimize
> discontentment with the interaction.  As a side-note related to this,
> I read the "self-responsibility" link Kitty sent me for a few hours
> last night.  I found the material most interesting, although it
> requires much more time for me to fully understand it.
>
> In my limited experience with encouraging "win-win" situations, I
> have found there to be at least 2 problems with the model.  You begin
> to discuss them below.  I will discuss my problems with implementing
> the model after your discussion below.

Although I recognize that the "win-win" notion is an attempt to create
a snappy term for what I (and others before me) call "voluntary exchange
of value (trade) to mutual advantage", unfortunately this is but one
of many many examples in society of people coining phrases without
adequately thinking about the root meanings and therefore, the
distortions that they are perpetrating, even though their action is
well intended. The term "win-win" is a poor choice since the essence
of the meaning of "win" (root meanings "struggle", "fight", "conquer"
- leading also to "overcome", "prevail", "beat") requires that there
also be loss (someone conquered, beaten or prevailed over). Win is
only correctly usable for games of skill or chance where there is a
clear winner and a clear loser, at least with respect to the
definition of the game itself. Of course, each participant may gain
benefit from the game (particularly if merely playing it benefits
one's life in some manner), but nevertheless there is only one winning
individual player or team of players.

Using "win" in this situation as a synonym for "gain" creates one more
instance of distortion and ambiguity of the language. But worst of all
it prolongs and promotes that idea that where two individuals are
involved there must always be conflicting desires (wanting to win can
only mean that one also wants one's opponent to lose), whereas as I
have stated before, a basic tenet of my social philosophy is that
there are no conflicts of interest among rational humans. So for these
reasons I do not like the term "win-win" and would far prefer to see
it replaced by "gain-gain", which is the essence of trade to mutual
advantage.

Yes, current dictionaries do say that "win" can also mean "succeed",
"gain", "get" and even "earn". but if this allowance of a word to have
such distinctly different meanings continues, the English language
with become a "tower of babel" all by itself. I often wonder if such
enormous ambiguities of meaning are as rampantly expanding in other
languages or is English the worst (and if so, why?).

>> So when a situation is not mutually beneficial, bringing that out
>> in the open with discussion is the first step.
>>
>
> This is the first problem:  the communication of non-mututal
> benefit.  In my experience, some people have a very difficult time
> accepting communication of the situation not being mutually
> beneficial.  In the circumstances where people dislike my
> communication, it is usually where they find my communication to be
> offensive, critical, or just out of alignment with their own personal
> philosophy.
>
> For an illustration, let's say that a family member asks me to borrow
> $1000.  I feel that I would like to help this family member and I
> have the funds to let the person borrow the money.

[Maybe the first thing to be clear on for yourself is *why* you "feel that [you]
would like to help this family member". You are the only one who can answer this
question, but I think it is pertinent to examine yourself. When asked for a loan
or assistance of a major type by a person for whom you have not already
evaluated for yourself their worth to you, then this is what is needed to be
done first. You can always just say that you will get back with them on that
request. If the person demonstrates annoyance or even surprise that you want to
delay an answer, that is more information to keep in mind about hir. And
evaluating a person's value to you is an essential part of the mechanism of
trade to mutual benefit - your time and affection/caring are assets that you
return for either something of the same type from the other party or as
effectively an investment in that person (albeit somewhat speculative if
unilaterally decided and not contracted for return), as is done by a parent with
hir child. **Kitty]

> However, I also
> earn interest on this money, as I currently have it invested.  I then
> tell the person that I am uncomfortable allowing them to borrow the
> money for nothing in return, since it is such a large amount and I am
> losing the opportunity to earn interest on it.  They are offended by
> this, apologize for asking, and state that they will never ask
> again.  In this situation I am at a loss for ways in which I could
> have better handled the situation.  I am not proficient at asking for
> an equal value payment (especially non-monetary payments) to make the
> situation a "win-win" situation for both of us, and this may partly
> be reason for the impasse.

[For those individuals who have demonstrated that they want you to give them
something for nothing - use of your money with no interest payments (thus,
effectively at a monetary cost to you) - you have learned a great deal. I don't
think you could have done anything different *except* to *first* establish a
relationship that included agreement on the principle of trade to mutual
benefit, not just in theory but in practice. Now the return to you may not need
to be as interest payments. Maybe there is something else that the person could
trade with you - work on your vehicle, computer or house for instance. But
having this all agreed on and in a written contract will then avoid any later
misunderstandings and possible loss of friendship. So I would say, do not even
consider offering or agreeing to make a loan to a person with whom you do not
have at least this principle as a common value. **Kitty]


>> This would include
>> letting it be known what you think is missing on the part of the
>> other person and what you will do or not do until the mutual benefit
>> status returns - these then are the consequences. If thinking this
>> way is new to a person who attempts to use consequences with someone
>> with whom an existing relationship exists, it would likely be best
>> to let your new ideas on interactions be known and why they make
>> very good sense to you. This can encourage discussion, if the other
>> parties are reasonable in their thinking. If any is not, then you
>> will find that out and decide how much and to what degree you want
>> to interact with that person. **Kitty]
>
>
> The second problem I have encountered with this "win-win" philosophy
> is that it seems foreign to others.  They find me to be strangely
> meticulous in wanting to make the situation "win-win", even to the
> point of harming the relationship.  One person has stated to me that
> describing the "win-win" situation in explicit, verbal terms
> diminishes a trust-related aspect of the relationship.  I'm assuming
> that this person implies that I should "trust" the person to help me
> in the future, if I let them borrow the money now.  In
> this "accounting for favors" aspect of a relationship, it seems that
> I consistently come up short, hence my reason for declining
> interaction with most people my age (this age group seems to be
> especially poor in regards to keeping track of their duties to
> reciprocal altruism).

[There is always some initial investment by both parties in a beginning
relationship which is essentially speculative ("on spec" - merely hoping to get
a return), but each party's investments are often quite different in type and
amount and such speculative and sometimes even "loss leaders" are not at all
limited to business relationships. Most people, however, do not examine what is
taking place when they spend time with and demonstrate their affection/caring
for another person. It is not unusual that they do not analyze their reasons for
why they experience a desire to spend time with and show affection towards
another person - beyond maybe that the other person's presence/attention makes
them feel good in some way. Examining why this "feel good" emotion is occurring
is an important thing to do initially if one has not already developed the
ability/skill of having one's emotions as tools of cognition (or as a refresher
for consistency).

So part of the investment in a new (or maybe renewed/revisited) relationship is
time spent with that person during which time you (in addition to the activity
in which you are both engaged) gather information on what values that person
holds that you do also, or at least that you admire and respect - and what
values that person holds which you think are objectionable. A lot of this can be
done by simple observation and occasional questions; no grilling is needed.
Finding out about the person from other sources is always a good idea and this
is where positive and negative social preferencing by others can be extremely
helpful. Analyzing and evaluating the information on your own, properly should
include whether and to what degree further speculative investment on your part -
spending assets without immediate or contracted return - will actually result in
you optmizing your lifetime happiness. And your happiness is the purpose of your
life - not each and every single hour or with each and every action, but when
using wide view, long range thinking.

A great number of people (?the current majority?) do not yet think this way and
so as a result, those who do will find that they will "come up short", as you
put it, when you try to create a relationship with the majority of people -
without the successful return on your investment of educating them on the
principle of their desire and responsibility for trade to mutual benefit in all
aspects of human interactions. **Kitty]

> If you are unfamiliar with reciprocal
> altruism, I found a good discussion on wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism). Also, the
> book "The Moral Animal" by Robert Wright is an excellent discussion.
>
> It seems that your selfSIP philosophies encourage the explicit
> discussion of the *trade* of acts of benefit, where reciprocal
> altruism leaves it for the receiving party to "remember" to help the
> giving party in the future.  Is this accurate?  If so, I believe I
> prefer explicit discussion, as I have most often been left empty-
> handed when I do something for others, as they forget that I helped
> them.  Again, this may be a source of my reluctance to interacting
> with most people, me having accumulated many experiences of
> benefitting others and receiving no benefit in return.

[Explicit discussion and actual contracts will go a long way towards preventing
any later misunderstandings - if the parties are being fully open and
forthright. And as before, this is meant to apply to all relationships, not
simply business related. **Kitty]

I am well familiar with the term "reciprocal altruism" - it is
constantly used in studies of animal interactions as well as human. In
my opinion, the term is not only an oxymoron, but actually a far, far
more dangerous corruption of meaning than even the term "win-win". The
origin of the word "altruism" is "other". So that word literally means
"otherness", thus having no reference to or concern with oneself in
any manner. OTOH, the word "reciprocal" means "consisting of or
functioning as a return in kind", which by its very nature *does*
refer to oneself (the person to whom some value is conveyed in
return). Therefore this term is self-contradictory. However more than
that, it is dangerous because it attempts to continue to legitimize the
entire notion of altruism, which notion, at its very core, is
antithetical to life. The nature of all life requires that the
individual life-form maintain itself first, and anything else,
including other life-forms of its own species or family, second. This
must be so or else the life-form would not continue to exist. The
conveyance of one's values/assets to others is only rational in the
context of evaluation that doing so will in the long run return more
to oneself than one has conveyed (again trade to mutual advantage, but
this time over a much longer and likely more risk filled term - risk
of not getting any return, but matched by the magnitude of the
potential return or the investment would not be undertaken).

Getting back you your question above, yes, I suppose that is one way
to describe the difference between what is called "reciprocal
altruism" and "trade to mutual advantage". OTOH, I and Kitty also
espouse and practice what we call value-for-value exchanges (see
http://morelife.org/supporting.html ) which, while close to your
description of reciprocal altruism, we certainly do not call that,
partly because we specifically describe a mechanism by which a person
can evaluate just how much value s/he should return for what is
received. In summary, while there does not always need to be a written
contract for every exchange or conveyance of value, there does need to
be some understood mechanism for the accounting of the values and
particularly who is the judge of the worth of what is conveyed.

Another problem with your statement above is your use of the word
"duties" (involuntarily incurred obligations). No one ever wants to
and few are even willing to have duties imposed upon them by others.
That is why a written contract of understanding is so important,
wherein which these understandings are called the entitlements (what
is gained from the other party) and the responsibilities (what is
conveyed to the other party) of each party. Once this is agreed and
attested to, there is no longer any thought of duties.

[snipped completed part about drinking too much]

>>> I first mentioned in this post that change requires action.  Many
>>> people are unmotivated to take action.  This rampant apathy,
>>> or "blind eye", to society's problems is very frustrating for those
>>> of us who ardently want to encourage improvement.  I have found that
>>> humans only take action when they see something 'in it' for
>>> themselves - some sort of self-benefit.

I missed this last very important line before, so will address it now.
Yes, it is completely natural and right that the vast majority of
people will "only take action when they see something 'in it' for
themeselves - some sort of self-benefit". To me this is very positive
because it shows that most people have not yet abandoned the essence
of their nature as life-forms. The only thing wrong here (and it is a
very big only thing) is that they do not know how to correctly
evaluate what is and is not to there self-benefit. Mainly, they take
a very narrow, short-range almost hedonistic approach to this
evaluation, rather than a wider-viewed, longer-range approach (what I
call a rational approach  because it takes examines all of reality,
only limitied by the trade-off of the cost of time involved in
decision making).

>>> This may partly explain the rampant apathy.
>>>
>> Yes. With respect to society in general, it is not so much a "blind
>> eye" as it is despair about having any real ability to make any
>> difference (generally gained through previous experience of having
>> tried and gotten nowhere, or seeing others having done so), so why
>> try. This is a tendency that I constantly have to fight off. My way
>> of doing so is based on my great concern for seeing and experiencing
>> such social changes relative to any other activities that I might
>> otherwise do. But this is, of course, what leads to frustration,
>> because if my efforts are only of value if they have effect on
>> others, then if they have no effect, I would have been better to
>> spend my time on more directly ego-centric activities, even if these
>> produce far less happiness to me than any success at social change
>> would. This is my personal constant dilemma. The only solution to it
>> that I have seen is to choose only those social change activities
>> that will also give me more immediate happiness benefit.
>>
>
> I can relate to this also, Paul, except in a different personal
> motivation.  I will explain my motivation and rationalization here.
>
> I want to be helpful to society.  I understand that my accumulation
> of knowledge will allow me to be more helpful to society.  However,
> accumulation of knowledge does not usually translate into immediate
> benefit to society.  Therefore, it is a struggle for me to spend the
> maximum amount of time I can learning, as I do not see immediate
> benefits.  I could go about trying to apply the knowledge I've gained
> to manifest a benefit to society.  However, I am still currently
> trying to find ways in which I can do this, taking into account my
> limited free time and limited resources. So, until I am allowed more
> free time and I accumulate more resources, I find that the best
> activity I can engage in is learning.
>

For you at your age, this is the best long range approach. I did the
same at that age and for many decades more. The difference is that I am
now convinced that I have learned and thought enough, in certain areas,
to have some clear answers and practical solutions. I am certainly not
finished learning, but I have some general solutions which, if
implemented, would vastly increase the learning, progressing and
happiness gaining abilities of humans adopting this approach. So for
that reason, I think it is a worthwhile investment to attempt to find
methods of getting sufficient numbers of people to understand the truths
that I have discovered, to practice them and to teach them, or at least
their practices, to others.

[snipped parts not needed to be addressed]

>>> At least for me, it seems that I have gained
>>> the awareness and motivation through sheer randomness- I got lucky.
>>> I accidentally had the right teachers, read the right books and
>>> articles, and spoke to the right people.
>>>
>> While this (accidental benefit) is true, there is also an important
>> element of your own personal decisions to analyze and act on these
>> random benefits that came your way. Think about the many others, with
>> essentially the same inputs, who did not gain the same perspective as
>> you. The result is that you are fully entitled to be proud of your
>> thinking rather then merely think of yourself as being lucky.
>
>
> I tend to believe that my "own personal decisions" you cite above
> also come from luck.

Refer again to my previous discussion of the vacuousness of the "luck"
notion.

> That is, in a way, my disposition, decision-
> making ability, and other personal characteristics are also either a
> result of environment or genetics.  This might be my being
> excessively modest, as I do tend to be.  I'm not sure if I believe
> that I have an internal, or external, locus of control
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control).

As with most of them, this wikipedia article is generally factual, but
is mistaken in its interpretion of some of what it presents. Although
the article needs some critical analysis, years ago I decided to not
spend my limited time critiquing writing that is either not attributed
at all, or not attributed to an author who has written some generally
valid and important (by my evaluation) articles. Therefore I will only
make one important point which bears on the title of the article.

The author(s) of the article are confused about the meaning and nature
of "control". Control is always an attribute of action. This is
because without action taking place (even if only a thought) the
entire notion of control is meaningless. Since humans act, the notion
of an internal locus of control (the place/locality of something
inside the body of the human, which in some manner determines or
effects the action) is quite valid. Since a human's environment can
act on hir, the notion of an external locus of control (the
place/locality of something outside the body which in some manner
determines or effects an action upon or by it) would also be valid.
However, "chance" is a mathematical term relating to the probablity of
an occurrence. It is not something that determines or effects an action
(although one may use its result to then control an action) and it
certainly has no place/locality associated with it. Therefore chance
has no direct relationship to control.

> I am still
> contemplating the possibility of self-directed human behavior, or
> more specifically, which decisions are purely self-directed.  I think
> it might be possible that we, and all of our decisions, are each
> wholly a product of our experiences and genetics, and that there is
> little to no real autonomous decision-making at all.  But boy, that
> would really take the magic out of life, wouldn't it?


This problem of "free will" is one that I wrestled with since at least
my early 20s. However, for some years now I have been quite satisfied
with the solution that I now briefly describe here. (For other of my
writings on this topic do an advanced google search of the SelfSIP.org
website using "free will".)

1) All scientific evidence shows that in the macroscopic sphere of
reality (ie. the sphere of interactions in which all quantum
fluctuations are averaged out to having an insignificant amount of pure
randomness) determinism reigns supreme. Therefore, there is no place for
anything in reality *directly* relating to humans which is not fully
determined by its antecedent states. Thus, the notion of "free will",
in its simplest conception of some determinant of human action that is
not itself determined by anything else, is effectively non-existent
(or supernatural if you wish to believe in such).
2) Another way to see that such non-determinism has no place even in the
macroscopic world of life-forms, is based on an evolutionary argument
that I formulated in my early 20s. Here is how it goes. Neither non-life
nor the simplest life-forms (all of whose actions can be fully
understood and predicted) have any attribute which could be described
as "free will". Since all more complex life-forms, including humans,
have evolved step-wise from simple life-forms, there is no clear place
(and therefore no place at all) for "free will" to become a part of
the reality of human nature?
3) In spite of 1 & 2, humans find it useful to think of themselves as
having something called "free will", or more simply the ability to
choose one course of action over another, even though most thoughtful
people will agree that such choices are still highly limited and
regulated by antecedent genetic and environmental experiences, and the
thoughts and evaluations of harm and benefit that come from those
antecedents. I agree with this estimation of usefulness.
4) This usefulness is likely the result of the joint features of chaos
and complexity that are inherent in and applicable to the human brain.
Fairly recently there has been the development of a science of
complexity and chaos, which has shown that when the complexity of a
system is large enough (and the "large enough" is defined by the
science), fully determined prediction of future states of the system
from a given state is not possible even with any conceivable computer
(the system is inherently chaotic - the Earth's weather is one example)
- and this can be true even though such future states are fully
determined by their antecedent states. I am convinced that the
complexity of the human brain (and probably that of some other animals)
has exceeded that "large enough" value and that this inherent
unpredictability is the only valid meaning of "free will". This is
also the sense in which free will may be described as an "emergent
property" of certain types of complex systems. (The concept of an
emergent property is actually quite easy to understand. One very
simple example is the emergent property of "chairness" as distinct
from any of the properties of the wood from which the chair is made.)
5) With respect to analyzing and evaluating human action, there is no
need for any concept of free will at all. As I have made clear in my
SelfSIP writings, it is the results of actions which bear on the purpose
of any human's life (to optimally increase hir lifetime happiness), not
the reasons for or even the intentions of such actions.
6) Therefore, it is not whether someone chooses to act in a certain
manner (eg to lose weight) which matters, or even that they take actions
which they think will cause them to lose weight, but only that they do
actually lose weight - ie. in terms of practical reality, only results
count, not intending, trying, etc.

Because of all the above (and more), I rarely think about free will any
more and I do not fret over whether or not people "really" have choices.
What I care about is only the actions that I see people taking, and
which affect me.

>>> However, now that we
>>> (morelife and others) have that awareness, human-improvement no
>>> longer has to be subject to randomness - we can deliberately
>>> encourage it with our own action.
>>>
>> And others can choose whether or not to think more long range just
>> as you did.
>>
>
> I hope they do have a choice.

This is the free will problem again.
Note that your sentence "I hope they do have a choice" implicitly
assumes a mind/body dichotomy, in as much as each entity making a choice
(the "they") is being thought of as separate from the body/brain which
ultimately implements and manifests the action of the choice (without
an
ensuing action - even if only the action of a thought - the whole notion
of choice is meaningless). In addition, the "choice" is being
considered as taking place *prior to* any physical action (again even
including thought), of which neurophysiological measurements have
shown no evidence. In fact, the opposite appears to occur - the brain
begins to act even before the consciousness is aware of the
decision/action. Therefore, any such notion of whether or not someone
has a choice (is able to choose) is not based in reality and is bound
to lead to errors of thought.

> I hope more of them make the choice to act.

If such choice were impossible, then your hope would be pointless.
However, since all humans have essentially similar DNA, it is highly
unlikely that some humans are free will beings and have real choice,
while others are purely automatons, and since experience shows us that
it is possible for some humans to change their actions from some
previous mode, it must therefore be possible for all humans to do so.
Yes, changing specific habits is harder for some than for others, but
it is *possible* for anyone.

--Paul

[Deane's post has been held in the queue until now because Paul requested at the
end of his first message in reply to Steve that Steve wait until he (Paul) had
completed his full reply which would take several posts. This request to hold
comments until finished was meant for everyone, but was not well worded. Deane
was notified that this hold would occur, plus a little longer in order to give
Steve the opportunity for first response. **Kitty]

  Paul wrote,

> 3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
> habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
> ever change their lifestyle habits,

I found it interesting that Mike Huckaby ( who lost 100 lbs. after
receiving a detailed picture of obesity and how he would slowly die from
it from his doctor) has stated he is in favor of greatly reducing the
nations health care problem by mass education about the dangers of the
current American diet/lifestyle.

This is a great idea. I wonder what would happen if the Federal
government announced that everyone is "on their own" and would get no
financial help from the government with lifestyle diseases.
Would that "scare" the majority into change?
What percentage would change? I would guess only about 30%.

Deane Williams

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Leake" <maleake@...> wrote:
>
> I did some self-experimentation awhile back involving meal frequency
> that yielded unexpected results for me involving blood sugar levels.

I have been experimenting with water fasting for 36 hours (7PM-7AM)
once a week for several months.  Every morning I measure my glucose
with an Accucheck Compact Plus meter.  My baseline reading started out
at about 100, and I have had similar unexpected results.

> Throughout my adult life it has been my pattern to have a small
> breakfast about 7:00 am, a small lunch around noon and much larger
> dinner around 7:00 pm. Sometimes I will have a very small snack
around
> 9:00 pm. Bedtime is about midnight. For several years I've monitored
> blood sugar levels using the One Touch Ultra, which has matched up
> well with my annual fasting blood glucose lab readings. My glucose
> levels usually clock in around 90 first thing in the morning prior
to
> eating. Off and on I've also monitored the effects of various meals
on
> blood sugar spikes and how long it takes my levels to return to
baseline.
>
> Knowing that glycation is a significant factor in aging, I thought
it
> would be a great idea to try skipping the small breakfast each day
and
> essentially going about 17 hours without food, from dinner one day
to
> lunch the following day. Initially I was absolutely famished by
> mid-morning on this eating schedule and had difficulty concentrating
> at work the last couple of hours before lunch. After about a month,
> however, I noticed one morning that I had absolutely no appetite
upon
> arising, no desire for food whatsoever. I noted with some
satisfaction
> that my body was adjusting to my newly adopted eating schedule.
>
> That satisfaction soon vanished, however. About a week or 10 days
into
> this new development I took my FBG reading for the first time in
> several weeks. I was astonished to note that it was 115 upon first
> arising. I thought at first that it must be a fluke, as I'd never
had
> such a high reading. The next day I got a similar reading. I
> immediately suspected that my test strips were going bad. I examined
> the expiration date and found it to be marginal, so I got some new
> test strips. Same result. I was running between 112 and 118 each
> morning. I was alarmed.
>
> About this time I came across abstracts from a couple of small
studies
> that suggested that skipping breakfast might worsen insulin
> sensitivity. I believe these were the ones:
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15699226
>
> I then returned to my former eating schedule. I had to force myself
to
> eat breakfast at first, as I really had no morning appetite any
> longer. But after about 6-8 weeks that appetite had returned and my
> fasting blood sugar readings at the start of the day resumed their
> habitual 88-92.
>
> I don't know for sure if I'd actually had a worsening of blood sugar
> control during that time or if my body simply decided that if I
wasn't
> going to supply it fuel in the morning as I'd always done, it would
> manufacture the sugar from glycogen stores instead. However, as I
> recall, my blood sugars at other times of the day--a few hours
> following meals--were in fact not as good as they used to be for
> whatever reason. That also soon corrected itself once I resumed my
> former eating schedule. Additionally, I dropped a couple of pounds
> that I'd somehow gained during the experiment once I resumed eating
> breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps.  But if nothing else, it shows that
> results from fasting or modified fasting can vary.
>
> Mike Leake

After about 3 months of once a week 36 hr fasting, I found that my
average morning glucose levels increased to about 115.  But after 2-3
weeks without fasting, my glucose went back to my previous baseline
of 100.

I spent a lot of time checking and rechecking my glucose meter
to see if that was the problem.  But after trying new strips and
new control solution, I was unable to find any problem with the
meter.

Then I read Mike's post and I was struck by our similar experiences,
despite the fact that our fasting periods were quite different.

I am not sure whether to return to the once a week, 36 hr fasting.  I
had previously tried 24 hour, once a week fasting without
experiencing this elevated glucose problem, so I may return to that.
I plan to get a blood test for a1c levels to see what my long term
glucose levels have been during the months of weekly 36 hour fasting.

Dave Saum

Williams, Deane G HS wrote:
>  Paul wrote,
>
>
>> 3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
>> habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
>> ever change their lifestyle habits,
>>

My complete sentence above was:

"Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
ever change their lifestyle habits, this does not imply that any given
human will not."

And I now realize that the tentative assumption of the first part needs
explanation in respect to two points, at least.

First, I am not convinced that the end result is "that the vast
majority of them will not ever change their lifestyle habits".

But second, I should have been clearer whether this "vast majority"
applies to only those who are currently adult or applies to all future
adults as well. With respect to all future adults, I am much more
certain that the vast majority can and will change their lifestyle
habits if enabled to experience the feedback that reality will
generate, rather than being isolated from those effects or having them
distorted to appear as something else.


> I found it interesting that Mike Huckaby (who lost 100 lbs. after
> receiving a detailed picture of obesity and how he would slowly die from
> it from his doctor) has stated he is in favor of greatly reducing the
> nations health care problem by mass education about the dangers of the
> current American diet/lifestyle.
>
> This is a great idea.

Hi Deanne,

Since you put this last sentence ("this is a great idea") in a new
paragraph containing a new idea entirely different idea than that of
Huckaby, I am not certain which idea you are calling great. If it is
Huckaby's idea (which I think was your most likely intention), then I
agree that it is a better use of government funds than simply trying
to fix the bad health results of the Standard American Diet and
Lifestyle (SADL - US society is currently "saddled" - in the sense of
burdened - with the SADL). However as with all government projects, it
still takes money from the more responsible (mostly without their
agreement) to pay for the less, and in doing so does not as
effectively enable the less responsible to learn the lessons of the
folly of their choices.

> I wonder what would happen if the Federal
> government announced that everyone is "on their own" and would get no
> financial help from the government with lifestyle diseases.
> Would that "scare" the majority into change?
> What percentage would change? I would guess only about 30%

An immediate or near term change by 30% is far more optimistic than I
would guess.
Older people will not change, because of any one or combinations of
several possible reasons:
1) They think it is too late to help much.
2) Just because it worked for others does not mean that it will work
for me, so why should I make the effort for no certain benefit.
3) They think they are too old to be able to change.
4) They are comfortable with their current lifestyle and convinced
that their overall happiness will be reduced by any required change.

Young adults will not change because:
1) Such change takes effort and reduces their time spent and enjoyment
obtained from other more enjoyable (to them) pursuits - actually this
is not much different from 4 above, only the enjoyable pursuits are
generally quite different between young and old.
2) The potential problems are many decades off and not of any
immediate concern.
3) Once past early teen years and well into early adulthood, many
people feel very potent and invincible. This is partly because they
have experienced little decline of function themselves and/or have
witnessed few health problem or dysfunction in their peer group.

However, in the longer term, I am very confident. Once people either
know that they must bear the full costs (the negatives relating to all
happiness attributes, not just money) and see around them examples of
others bearing these full costs, I think the percentage changing for
the better (particularly within the newer generations of future
adults) will be the vast majority. Eventually as the change resisters
die off with their reinforcing negative examples taken in by others,
and as the positive results of those who *are* practicing good diet
and lifestyle reinforce positively, practically everyone will from
childhood be automatically conducting their lives so as to prevent as
many diseases and disabilities as possible and to live as long and
healthy a life as possible.


--Paul

[I see the results of such a change much the same way as Paul. Initially though,
in such a situation where a government has withdrawn from the practice and
policy of providing funds (taken from taxpayers) for health treatment/care, I
think a great number of individuals will refuse to believe that they will not be
treated at some hospital/clinic/doctor's office if they do not arrange payment
themselves (including their own private or employment benefit insurance which
may also have increased restrictions).

I think there will be considerable initial "testing" of the new paridigm
(intentional or merely because of ingrained bad habits) by those who do not want
to change their habits for any of the above reasons Paul gave. It will be
necessary for firmness in the direction of self-responsibility and not weakness
for pleas of "I can't help it!" and "I have no money. What do I do?" But I have
confidence that over time (how much? I'd guess at 2 or 3 decades), the majority
of people would change their lifestyle practices when they live in a society
that truly promotes and rewards self-responsibility, at least in this area.

Self-responsibility limited to just this one segment of a person's life will not
be of optimum value to the individual hirself and all others with whom s/he
interacts - but it is a start and something on which to build further growth
towards being a truly autonomous adult. **Kitty]

David Saum wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Leake" <maleake@...> wrote:
>
>> I did some self-experimentation awhile back involving meal frequency
>> that yielded unexpected results for me involving blood sugar levels.
>>
>
> I have been experimenting with water fasting for 36 hours (7PM-7AM)
> once a week for several months.  Every morning I measure my glucose
> with an Accucheck Compact Plus meter.  My baseline reading started
> out at about 100, and I have had similar unexpected results.
>
>
>> Throughout my adult life it has been my pattern to have a small
>> breakfast about 7:00 am, a small lunch around noon and much larger
>> dinner around 7:00 pm. Sometimes I will have a very small snack
>> around 9:00 pm. Bedtime is about midnight. For several years I've
>> monitored blood sugar levels using the One Touch Ultra, which has
>> matched up well with my annual fasting blood glucose lab readings.
>> My glucose levels usually clock in around 90 first thing in the
>> morning prior to eating. Off and on I've also monitored the effects
>> of various meals on blood sugar spikes and how long it takes my
>> levels to return to baseline.
>>
>> Knowing that glycation is a significant factor in aging, I thought
>> it would be a great idea to try skipping the small breakfast each
>> day and essentially going about 17 hours without food, from dinner
>> one day to lunch the following day. Initially I was absolutely
>> famished by mid-morning on this eating schedule and had difficulty
>> concentrating at work the last couple of hours before lunch. After
>> about a month, however, I noticed one morning that I had absolutely
>> no appetite upon arising, no desire for food whatsoever. I noted
>> with some satisfaction that my body was adjusting to my newly
>> adopted eating schedule.
>>
>> That satisfaction soon vanished, however. About a week or 10 days
>> into this new development I took my FBG reading for the first time in
>> several weeks. I was astonished to note that it was 115 upon first
>> arising. I thought at first that it must be a fluke, as I'd never
>> had such a high reading. The next day I got a similar reading. I
>> immediately suspected that my test strips were going bad. I examined
>> the expiration date and found it to be marginal, so I got some new
>> test strips. Same result. I was running between 112 and 118 each
>> morning. I was alarmed.
>>
>> About this time I came across abstracts from a couple of small
>> studies that suggested that skipping breakfast might worsen insulin
>> sensitivity. I believe these were the ones:
>>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15220950
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15699226
>>
>> I then returned to my former eating schedule. I had to force myself
>> to eat breakfast at first, as I really had no morning appetite any
>> longer. But after about 6-8 weeks that appetite had returned and my
>> fasting blood sugar readings at the start of the day resumed their
>> habitual 88-92.
>>
>> I don't know for sure if I'd actually had a worsening of blood sugar
>> control during that time or if my body simply decided that if I
>> wasn't going to supply it fuel in the morning as I'd always done,
>> it would
>> manufacture the sugar from glycogen stores instead. However, as I
>> recall, my blood sugars at other times of the day--a few hours
>> following meals--were in fact not as good as they used to be for
>> whatever reason. That also soon corrected itself once I resumed my
>> former eating schedule. Additionally, I dropped a couple of pounds
>> that I'd somehow gained during the experiment once I resumed eating
>> breakfast. Coincidence? Perhaps.  But if nothing else, it shows
>> that results from fasting or modified fasting can vary.
>>
>> Mike Leake
>>
>
> After about 3 months of once a week 36 hr fasting, I found that my
> average morning glucose levels increased to about 115.  But after 2-3
> weeks without fasting, my glucose went back to my previous baseline
> of 100.
>
> I spent a lot of time checking and rechecking my glucose meter
> to see if that was the problem.  But after trying new strips and
> new control solution, I was unable to find any problem with the
> meter.
>
> Then I read Mike's post and I was struck by our similar experiences,
> despite the fact that our fasting periods were quite different.
>
> I am not sure whether to return to the once a week, 36 hr fasting.
> I had previously tried 24 hour, once a week fasting without
> experiencing this elevated glucose problem, so I may return to that.
> I plan to get a blood test for a1c levels to see what my long term
> glucose levels have been during the months of weekly 36 hour fasting.
>
> Dave Saum
>

Hi Dave,

Your report is certainly interesting, but I do not plan to spend any
time trying to analyze and explain why you got the results that you
did for the same reasons that I did not analyze Mike Leake's report
(and I should have explained then instead of ignoring it).

Insufficient data has been supplied on which to make any reasonable
analysis. One would need to know all such parameters as:
1) How many calories per each eating time were being consumed before
and after the dietary timing changes.
2) What types of calories and nutrients (carbs - and their GI, fibre,
fats, proteins, supplements) were being consumed.
3) What exercise changes were there, if any.
4) Exactly when were the glucose readings taken in relationship to all
other daily lifestyle factors (for example blood glucose generally
rises after exercise, even when done in a fasted state, due to
exercise induced release of glycogen and increased gluconeogenesis).

The only way to really usefully monitor blood sugar is by sampling
very frequently to arrive at a daily average, or taking one's
hemoglobin A1c reading after 6 months on a given regimen. Furthermore,
while the A1c reading is a good measure of glycation "pressure", there
are many other factors involved in one's rate of generation of AGE's
and protein crosslinks (which are what really do the harm).
Unfortunately, there are as yet no standard tests for either the state
of these last or their rate of accumulation, particularly not in
various tissues where they are important negative influences on health
and longevity.

Additionally, as long as it does not worsen these rates of accumulation
(and perhaps to a certain extent even if it does), the most important
benefit of fasting (of various kinds - essentially lengthening the
average time when the body had no energy substrates obtainable from
its intestines) is the loss of accumulated fat (for those who are
overweight - but it only occurs if the total calorie intake is also
reduced) and the recycling of proteins many of which are AGEs or have
accumulated glycation adducts and would soon become AGEs (through the
process know as autophagy - literally the body feeding on itself).

BTW, it may well be that Dave's choice of only water to drink during
his fast was negative. There is good evidence that green tea (zero
calories and therefore not interfering with fasting) both helps abate
the hunger and alters the metabolism toward a more beneficial state in
several ways.

--Paul

I don't usually post messages about some news item, but this one is
something I thought was really good - I just smiled widely as I read
it. And the message is about doing something different that benefits
the doer.

"Ballet dancer, 88, takes to stage"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cambridgeshire/7185908.stm

Now this gentleman states he has been exercising, which made the
ballet easier, but he decided to do something atypical for people of
his gender and his age, and maybe his socio-economic group. He dared
to be different. I think this is great!

I was only ~42 when I took my first ballet lesson but it did surprise
a lot of people who thought of it only for young girls. (And my son
Andy, then in high school, also took lessons for a year - even
performing in the Nutcracker in the character role (one with limited
actual dance required) of the Uncle. I had only suggested the lessons,
being given by a local ballet master first at the health club we
belonged to at the time. Andy acknowledged that the lessons gave him
some added control of his body, good for football, and I noticed at
the time and afterwards that he always had good standing posture - he
easily stepped right into the pose of the dancer.)

This article brings out another aspect of self-responsibility -
identifying and carrying through on a desire by an individual after
s/he has determined its value to hir lifetime happiness. It is the
person hirself who is responsible for hir own happiness. John Lowe is
a person who knows that and acts on it. I'd love to see him in a
performance! Better yet, I'd love to be in the performance with him :>)

**Kitty

Note: I have threaded this message to the topic of the subject line
because it definitely is related. But, since it is not a response to
any of the specific text of the thread to date, I have snipped all
that text.

In today's Science daily was the following article:
"People With Anorexia Less Likely To Be Blamed When Biology, Genetics
Explained"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080111100639.htm

The problem with this article, and which is so rampant in the thinking
of so many people in current society, is the confusion between assigning
responsibility for some action or lack of action, and blaming,
censuring, stigmatizing or denigrating the person who bears that
responsibility.
While anorexia nervosa may have some genetic/biological components, so
do all other diseases, disorders and dysfunctions both of the body and
the brain, and for that matter all actions that a person takes. All of
these also include numerous environmental influences. Nevertheless,
the prevention, treatment and elimination/cure of all such diseases,
disorders and dysfunctions are greatly under the control of the person
who has them, even if not as much directly as many actions of mere
evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, if one is truly interested in
attempting to help a person with any such problems, it does no good at
all (it is quite ineffective at accomplishing anything positive) to
blame, shame, and denigrate such a person, particularly since what the
person needs most is to have hir confidence in hirself built up so
that s/he *can* take control of hir problem. If consulting/advising is
done correctly (and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy - CBT - is such an
approach), then the person can be helped to understand that they both
are responsible for and have control over their problem without any
blame, shame and stigma being generated or felt by the person being
advised.

Unfortunately the article referred to above is merely trying to
continue and reinforce, for anorexia nervosa, the myth that humans are
helpless automatons, some of whom were just unfortunate to be the
recipient of such negative genetic and environmental determinants of
what they are.

Here is something to think about for Steve Floyd and others who think
of themselves as merely having been *lucky* to be as intelligent,
thoughtful and self-responsible as they are. *If* you really believe
that thought then its logical flip-side is that anyone else who is not
thinking rationally or being self-responsible is that way entirely as
a result of being *unlucky* and *not* getting the right genes and
environmental input to be intelligent, thoughtful and self-responsible.
If so then they cannot be held accountable or assigned responsibility
for their negative actions any more than you (the lucky one) can take
*credit* for your actions. Of course after reading my previous
messages on this thread, you will be aware that I reject this view
entirely and, instead, assign responsibility for all actions to
everyone whether positive (to whom I also give credit and esteem) or
negative (to whom I give discredit, blame and eventually contempt -
but only after such people have been given adequate time for change
after being provided with information and explanations).

--Paul

Phloridzin, a chalcone found in apple peels and strawberries, lowers
  fasting glucose by inhibiting renal reabsorbtion of glucose.  Apart  from
  possible over-excretion of phosphorus, there seem to be no negative
  effects reported.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phloridzin+diabetes&sourceid=navclient&hl=en

The most economical source for small quantities I have found is an
  extract from apple peels, standardized to 6% phloridzin, from
  www.beyond-a-century.com .  I am considering self-experimentation to see if I
can
  lower my fasting glucose to reduce the rate of gluose-caused cellular
  damage.  My fasting glucose has been marginal, though a glucose challenge
  showed good insulin response. I doubt that meters intended for
  diabetics will be accurate enough at the low end of their range and will need
  to have a lab perform testing.

I would be interested if anyone has experience with this substance, or
  with apple-polyphenols that contain it.


Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)






      
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

This is interesting.  What dosage levels should be tried?  It sounds
promising to reverse insulin resistence.

My son has diabetes, and the meters he's used for testing his blood
glucose over the past years are all very accurate down to about 30 or
so, which is well below the level you will ever be at if you are not
diabetic.  So there is no need to get outside testing.

Brant

On Jan 14, 2008 1:00 PM, Max Watt <maxwatt2002@...> wrote:

>   Phloridzin, a chalcone found in apple peels and strawberries, lowers
> fasting glucose by inhibiting renal reabsorbtion of glucose. Apart from
> possible over-excretion of phosphorus, there seem to be no negative
> effects reported.
>
>
>
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phloridzin+diabetes&sourceid=navclient&hl=en
>
> The most economical source for small quantities I have found is an
> extract from apple peels, standardized to 6% phloridzin, from
> www.beyond-a-century.com . I am considering self-experimentation to see if
> I can
> lower my fasting glucose to reduce the rate of gluose-caused cellular
> damage. My fasting glucose has been marginal, though a glucose challenge
> showed good insulin response. I doubt that meters intended for
> diabetics will be accurate enough at the low end of their range and will
> need
> to have a lab perform testing.
>
> I would be interested if anyone has experience with this substance, or
> with apple-polyphenols that contain it.
>
> Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer paul@ wrote:
> >
> >> An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the word
> >> "misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
> >> message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have any "hatred
> >> of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
> >> dictionary definition of that word:
> >>
> >> "misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature
> >>
> >> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> >> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
> >>
> >> If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in your
> >> subject line.
> >>
> >
> > Regarding the use of the word "misanthropy" - I meant to use the word
> > with a largely different context. I source my definition from
> > wikipedia, which may have changed since I first discovered the word.
> > The definition I had in mind was "a person who has a dislike of
> > certain overarching characteristics of humankind." However, I want
> > to be clear that I do not harbor "hatred of mankind", although I may
> > have feelings of general "distrust of human nature". So, this latter
> > definition you cited above may be closer to my intended useage.
>
> I will start by saying that I should have stated that the definition
> that I gave for "misanthropy" was *a* dictionary definition, rather
> than *the* dictionary definition. There are many English language
> dictionaries, of both current and past publication, all of which have
> different definitions of any particular word - some subtly different and
> some substantially different (particularly so if the dictionaries are
> published far apart in time). While the purpose of a dictionary is
> generally purported to be to express and describe the current common
> usage of a word, this purpose is fraught with potential problems right
> from the start, since this means that dictionaries can easily foster
> the distorted (from origins) and ambiguous (multiple, quite different)
> word meanings that they are also trying to prevent. I have often thought
> that a far better purpose for a dictionary should be to clearly describe
> the unambiguous etymologically original meanings of the words, and even
> to frown upon and discourage other usages (except for totally newly
> coined words, of course). Being a dynamic, non-scholarly, not-for-profit
> dictionary, I consider the Wikipedia dictionary to be the very worst
> around in this regard. While Wikipedia is a large, easily accessible
> source of information, one should always keep in mind that there is no
> guarantee that a scholarly approach has been taken to any of the
> information presented there (as opposed to for-profit dictionaries and
> encyclopedias who pay scholars for the work that is placed there and
> which work is backed by the name of the scholarly author being clearly
> attached to hir work).

I understand and agree with your frustration with ambiguous usage of
words.  I have not considered this seemingly rampant problem in
written and spoken language.  After reading your posts on this
subject in the past week I have realized how large of a problem this
has become.  I mentioned before that I teach college accounting
classes.  As might be assumed, many young people are in my classes,
having recently finished high school.  I have noticed some of their
slang words actually have dictionary meanings quite different than
their usage.  However, they seem totally oblivious to the fact that
they are misusing these words.

I agree that this deviation from an `agreed-upon' meaning of a word
(purposefully defined by a dictionary) distorts communication and
creates problems during communication.  I have resolved to improve my
own accurate use of words.  When I communicate, I feel it very
important to be as accurate as possible for a number of reasons,
including the fact that words are used to convey meaning, or even
feeling, which might not be easily communicated.  I also agree with
your philosophy of `social-preferencing' and its reliance on the
evaluation of a person's characteristics.  An accurate evaluation is
highly-dependent on another person's accurate portrayal of hirself
during communication.

> Before continuing I will note the meaning of "scholar" and scholarly"
> that I am using:
>
> : one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of
> knowledge in some special field along with accuracy and skill in
> investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such
> knowledge.
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>
> For this reason, while Wikipedia is a good place to make a quick start
> and get some quick ideas about a word meaning or a subject (and I
> sometimes use it for that purpose), it should only be a beginning of
> one's investigation and not something that one should take as any kind
> of definitive exposition. Since I have already written elsewhere of my
> thoughts about Wikipedia (search for it in this group), this is all
> that I will say right here.
>
> Regarding your thoughts about the meaning of "misanthropy", here is a
> dictionary meaning and the etymology of the word "misanthrope" to help
> understand what meaning is more appropriate to give it.
>
> Etymology: Greek /misanthromacrpos /hating mankind, from /mis- /^2 mis-
> + /anthromacrpos /man, human being -- more at ANTHROP-
>
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=anthrop-\
>
> *:* one who hates or despises mankind <a /misanthrope/, whose only
> strong emotions are those of disgust, rage, occasional sex hunger --
> Richard Plant>
> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com

The example you make of my use of the word "misanthrope" to describe
myself is an excellent argument for the proper use of words as
defined by etymology.  I appreciate you taking the time to describe
this to me.  Now that I read the dictionary definition of the
word "misanthrope" I am pleased that I have not used it to describe
myself very often.  Doing so would have distorted others' perception
of what I believe in.  I do not identify with the definition you
referenced above.  Reading this definition I feel an urge to be more
careful with how I describe myself, as I would not want someone well-
acquainted with the dictionary definition of the word to find that I
describe myself as such.  This would be quite inaccurate and may
bring about inaccurate, negative social-preferencing against me.

> Note that Wikipedia does not give any of the etymology of words in its
> dictionary, which is one sense in which it is not scholarly. The
> result of this is that a reader has no sense of the origin of a word
> or what its former meanings were. And the result of that is to
> foster a continuous "morphing" and corruption of the language, so that
> ultimately any word can have any meaning at all.
>
> As I said before, I do not think that you are a misanthrope as described
> by this meaning and its origins. Unfortunately, "misanthropy" is but one
> of a vast number of words that have become distorted away from their
> clear and unambiguous origins, by the tendency toward hyperbole of
> sales-type persons and their mimickers and followers. With its secondary
> meaning of "distrust of human nature" Merriam-Webster is already guilty
> of that (they should be trying to thwart this tendency to warp and
> distort meanings rather than fostering it), but Wikipedia is, front and
> center, a major part of the problem and the exponentially increasing
> speed with which clear and unambiguous communication in the English
> language is being made impossible, is something about which I am
> increasingly concerned.
>
> > The
> > current wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misanthropy)
> > cites: "Subtler expressions [of misanthropy] are far more common,
> > especially for those pointing out the shortcomings of humanity."
>
> It is incorrect to use the word "cite" here. A "cite" is a reference
> from some written work to some scholarly work. More correctly, you
> should have used instead the simpler word "states" or "maintains". If
> you think a Wikipedia article is sufficiently authoritative then you
> could cite it as your source for some statement that is a quote from it.

I have since looked-up the definition of the word "cite" and agree
with your above statement.

> However, I totally reject the above statement as any reasonable meaning
> for "misanthropy". Such a description is a total and extremely dangerous
> distortion of any reasonable meaning of that word. It is particularly
> dangerous, because whether intentionally or unintentionally it seeks to
> place anyone who dissents from the norms of society into the same
> category as a misanthrope as described above. This is simply one more
> clear attempt to suppress any free thought and critical analysis. I
> expect that you did not see this, but this an example of why you need to
> carefully study and analyze ideas before accepting them. Otherwise you
> will be suckered in like a fish taking the bait on the hook.

The problem of words being used to describe ideas they are not
intended to describe is a frustrating one.  It seems to me that few
humans use a well-researched dictionary as their reference when
deciding whether to use a word in a given context.  Every instance a
person references the well-researched definition of a word and finds
they would have used it inappropriately, that person learns from
their potential mistake and the language retains a small bit of its
integrity.  In my experience with others, this referencing process
takes place quite infrequently.  Instead, people rely on their
perception of the meaning of a given word (as I had
with "misanthrope") and the language loses a bit of its integrity.
It seems that if we want to improve the current situation of this
problem, it may be helpful to continue to encourage others to
reference unfamiliar words before use as you have done with me, and
as I will do in the future.  It is also helpful that we (you, and now
I) correct our own use of words using an agreed-upon reference.

> > It is from this definition that I might point out that we are all
> > participating in some form of misanthropy, as far as the wikipedia
> > definition is accurate.
>
> The Wikipedia notion is totally wrong and the vast majority of people
> are not practicing misanthropy, least of all not I and Kitty.
>
> > In my previous post I believe I was pointing
> > out perceived "shortcomings of humanity", such as lack of action,
> > lack of self-responsibility, etc.
>
> No. Please try to remember that humans are all individuals, different
> from one another to greater or lesser degree. There is no collective
> that has any human attributes at all, much less "shortcomings". Rather
> you were "pointing out perceived shortcomings" of some adult humans. And
> these shortcomings are, once again, more or less in type and degree
> within different humans.
>
> > This is how I feel my last posting
> > was related to the word "misanthropy".
>
> I understand now and have no criticism beyond what I have written here.
> I look forward to your reply (but I would appreciate it if you would
> wait until I have finished my multiple replies to your message, since
> they may be relevant to one another).
>
> --Paul
>

---
Steve

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> > --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> >>
> >>> Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
> >>> post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
> >>>
> >>> Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
> >>>
> >>>> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides numerous
> >>>> examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-known
> >>>> sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
> >>>> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
> >>>> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
> >>>> strangers.]
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
> >>> information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
> >>> business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
> >>>
> >>> So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
> >>> human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
> >>> that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
> >>> I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
> >>> countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
> >>> attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).
> >>>
> >> And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of a
> >> dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
> >> responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of such
> >> poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
> >> each to begin to practice better such habits.
> >>
> >
> > This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of or read about,
> > Paul.
>
> I am quite amazed that you had not, since this idea of choices causing
> feedback of their harms and benefits to, in turn, moderate future
> choices (or choices of onlookers) that will more likely enhance their
> net benefit is the basic mode of action of all life-forms and, in fact,
> the mechanism of all positive change, including evolution. While the
> application of this principle to eliminate cradle to grave socialism
> is widespread in the libertarian literature (see http://mises.org for
> examples - but we don't agree with everything there), this shows that
> such writings are not getting through to the general public where the
> paradigm of government support programs, paid by assets forcibly
> extracted from citizens, is fully accepted as being the current reality,
> and solutions to its problems are only examined if they remain within
> the context of that paradigm. Another rampant example of this kind of
> thinking is the physician who knows that alteration of lifestyle habits
> and some supplements will greatly benefit those with a tendency to
> cardiovascular problems, but, since the current reigning paradigm is
> that patients cannot and will not change their lifestyle habits and
> therefore, that telling them about such information is a waste of time,
> the physician prescribes statins (usually even without supplementary
> CoQ10, even though he knows - or should know - that statins reduce
> endogenous production of CoQ10).
>
> So I guess in retrospect I am not so amazed, as I am more disappointed
> (mainly at the media than at you), that you have not read of such an
> application of this basic principle of human action.

> However, I am even more disappointed that you and others are not able
> to see the application of general principles to areas remote from their
> derivation, but this is simply one more example of the failure of the
> government education system to teach critical and analytical thinking.
> Governements, of course, place no value in such thinking because it
> does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects.

I am going to comment on your note above:

"Governements, [sic] of course, place no value in such thinking
because it does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects"

By this statement it seems you are convinced that the majority of
government is motivated to encourage complacency and obedience.  This
seems like a pessimistic view of government motivation.  However, I feel
that you have far more experiences than I to draw a conclusion from, and
that your conclusion is likely to be more accurate.  Do you have any
current examples of this?  Otherwise, I assume your feelings are based
on philosophical works describing the relationship between government
and subjects – works that I am not very familiar with.

I question this because I would guess that at least a small number of
people in government are motivated to find the "best way", which
would involve critical and analytical thinking.  Therefore, these people
would encourage critical and analytical thinking and not seek to create
an obedient population.  This would leave the situation not as
disheartening as you describe.

> [An excellent book that I have recommended before is "Science of
> Thinking" by Henry Hazlitt - listed with others at:

>
http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#improvingt\
hinking
> This short article from comments in early MoreLife Yahoo post is
> given as a link from the Practice Index Outlook section for improving
> one's thinking while increasing vocabulary. Although this book has been
> out of print for many years, there are used copies available via
> Internet.  I first saw it among Paul's collection and then acquired a
> copy via the Internet for a relative. (Unfortunately, that person has
> not demonstrated in recent communication with me that he makes use of
> Hazlitt's excellent ideas, and since the disconnection between us began
> even before I gave him the copy, he has likely never even opened it.) **Kitty]
>
> > I guess the reason I had not made this seemingly obvious
> > connection is that I am very doubtful that the vast majority of
> > people can change their own lifestyle habits.
>

> This is a highly negative approach on 3 counts, at least:

> 1) Every human *can* (is physically capable) of changing any of hir

[Note above correction of previous error on my part. Third person plural pronoun
"their" changed to singular neutral "hir". --Paul]


> habits. (Note the use of the word "own" in your sentence above is
> redundant, since it is certain that one human cannot directly change
> the habits of another - without the use of force, that is.)

When considering using the word "own" in my statement above I
had considered its possible redundancy.  However, I had decided to use
it because I felt that people usually would not change their habits
without the influence of someone else.  Perhaps this would have been
clearer if I had said "…majority of people can change their habits
on their own".  Before replying to this comment, to avoid
repetition, please see my comment after the completion of your list of
(3) below, as I continue my discussion related to this section.


> 2) Without even trying to effect such change, it is premature and
> certainly scientifically incorrect to conclude that the vast majority
> of people will not ever change their lifestyle habits.

> 3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
> habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
> ever change their lifestyle habits, this does not imply that any given
> human will not. Therefore, one should always try to help each human do
> so, particularly since those who will change for the better are in an
> important sense more "worthy" than those who will not (ie they will be
> more capable of and likely to return value which enhances your life).

After reading your 3 statements above I realized that perhaps my
disheartened comment was an unnecessary lapse of frustration or despair.
After reading your criticisms I realized that I have changed my
lifestyle habits without the input of others.  It seems contradictory
for me to feel that others can not change their lifestyle habits without
the input of others, while I have done exactly that.  Most of my life I
had been overweight (5'9" and 210lbs as of May 2007 –
currently 165 lbs).  Without the criticism or encouragement of others
(as I recall) I researched a number of dietary topics, including
trans-fats, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.  As I began accumulating
knowledge I realized that I largely had the ability to decide my level
of health.  I also realized that my level of health was directly
proportionate to the food and drink I consumed.  When I reflect on this
experience I feel that it is my desire for knowledge that led me to
healthier habits, and not the input of others.

This leads me to another idea that Paul recently posted on:
self-responsibility and randomness (message 1726).  Paul makes a
thoughtful argument to me in message 1726:

"*If* you really believe that thought [that I am as intelligent,
thoughtful, and self-responsible as I am because of *luck*] then its
logical flip-side is that anyone else who is not thinking rationally or
being self-responsible is that way entirely as a result of being
*unlucky* and *not* getting the right genes and environmental input to
be intelligent, thoughtful and self-responsible."

In order for me to re-evaluate my position on this topic, I must first
consider the question:  "Do I desire knowledge by choice or by genes
and environmental input?"  I must then ask:  "Is it entirely by
one or the other?"  Even after I find answers to these questions, I
must ask:  "Even if I have the desire to seek knowledge solely
because of genes and environmental input, do my decisions and actions
entirely come from the same, or do I have a choice in the matter?"
These are difficult questions I am still seeking answers to.


> [A short item has been included in the Outlook section of MoreLife for
> over 3 years on reprogramming emotions, which is also applicable to
> behaviors -
> http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#reprogramm\
ingemotions

> And a search of the group's archives on "habits" and/or "emotions" and
> "reprogram" will show several messages with this subject discussed.
> Others can be found using "change" instead of "reprogram". **Kitty]

I am also interested in the idea of "reprogramming" oneself, as
might be apparent.  I am in the middle of a book called "Looking for
Spinoza" that discusses the biological and physiological processes
of programming and reprogramming.  I find it quite interesting.
Editorial reviews listed on amazon.com, as well as a link to purchase
the book, can be found here:  http://tinyurl.com/2zdjyu
<http://tinyurl.com/2zdjyu> .

> > I have watched a
> > number of my family members struggle with bad health from smoking,
> > atrocious eating habits, and lack of exercise.  I have had a great
> > many discussions with them using different methods, including the
> > socratic method, questioning, asking them about their desired
> > outcomes from habit changes for the better, and even criticism.  My
> > well-intentioned discussions have generally met with resistance, and
> > even anger (met with anger most notably when applying criticism, by
> > the way).  So, as you might imagine, or have likely experienced
> > yourself, this resistance is discouraging.
>
> Yes, it is discouraging, but I think it is also very typical. Though it
> was hard to give up on, I have come to the conclusion that a genetic
> connection is not an attribute that implies any of the essential
> character attributes that I seek to find in others, and without which
> I cannot call a person a friend.

I agree strongly with your statement above regarding genetic
connections, attributes, and the designation of a friend.  In my
experience this idea seems quite unpopular, as genetic relationships are
usually considered to be the closest and most important.  Yet, we are
encouraged by those who are genetically connected to us to seek a
life-partner who holds view similar to our own.  Does this not imply we
should avoid spending a large portion of our time with people we
fundamentally disagree with?  This then leads to the conclusion:  you
should avoid spending time with people you ultimately disagree with,
regardless of genetic connection.

> Still, as a result of being a sperm
> donor in the early 1980s, I have maybe 20 children with whom I have no
> connection whatsoever, nor it seems any means to connect, but with
> respect to whom I still have some hope (only very weakly and
> non-essentially to my lifetime happiness) of finding a kindred spirit.
>
> My answer is therefore, to constantly, frankly, directly and publicly
> state my most cherished and important personal thoughts and ideas, so
> that others reading them will know whether or not they match,
> complement and/or harmonize with their own ideas, and will therefore
> be attracted to read more about me and make a connection (as you did
> and as a very few others, who I now call friend, have done). In
> effect, making your essential personal character and convictions
> publicly very clear becomes a method to attract those people with whom
> you are compatible and on whom you can have some positive effect (and
> they on you) and to filter out the others who will be less likely to
> benefit your life.
>
> --Paul

Well spoken here, Paul.  I find your statement above a strong argument
for being open about my views.  I have stated previously that I have
been reluctant to share my views with others, for reasons I will try to
elaborate on in another post.  However, if I am to attract people into
my life who share thoughts similar to my own, it makes great sense to
communicate those thoughts publicly, so others may view and evaluate
them.  The more people who are exposed to my views, the better my
chances of finding someone who agrees with them.  They can then decide
if I would be a positive part of their life – and they a positive
part of mine.


> [I too have found that biological connection is no guarantee of
> philosophical agreement on fundamental issues. And if I am truly at
> odds with someone (biologically related or not) on the most basic of
> principles - and they have no desire to discuss the subject(s) to see
> if agreement can actually be reached, or if exchanges by them are not
> based on logic - then there is no way I will spend any of my precious
> time engaged in an activity including them that brings me no immediate
> benefit. For those where such philosophical opposition does not exist -
> or has not shown itself to exist - I am willing to invest my time for
> the strong - or possible, respectively - likelihood of future benefit
> to me (not as much time for those I am not sure of). And for those
> individuals who equate benefit only with money, I try to make it clear
> that benefit is anything that adds to my lifetime happiness. (But since
> such "clarity" of received information, like harm, is only evaluatable
> by the receiver, success is not guaranteed.)
>
> So, the persons with whom I am in closest agreement are not
> biologically related to me at all - they are chosen friends. Among
> those people with whom I have had interactions in my lifetime, those to
> whom I am biologically related are among the ones with whom I am most
> philosophically opposed. **Kitty]

Thank you for sharing this insight with me Kitty.  I am frustrated that
those to whom I am biologically related also tend to be among the ones
with whom I am most philosophically opposed.  As Paul stated earlier and
I agree with, these biological relationships are hard to give up on.  I
take solace in finding that you and Paul, whose philosophies I am
compelled to agree with, also have philosophical differences with those
you are biologically related to.  I see that I am not alone.

---
Steve

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer paul@ wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> An initial comment is that I think you may have used misused the word
>>>> "misanthropy" in the subject line, since, from the context of your
>>>> message, it certainly appears to me that you do not have any "hatred
>>>> of man" and are not even suggesting that others do. Here is the
>>>> dictionary definition of that word:
>>>>
>>>> "misanthropy": a hatred of mankind : distrust of human nature
>>>>
>>>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>>>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>>>>
>>>> If you meant it that way, then please explain why you put it in your
>>>> subject line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Regarding the use of the word "misanthropy" - I meant to use the word
>>> with a largely different context. I source my definition from
>>> wikipedia, which may have changed since I first discovered the word.
>>> The definition I had in mind was "a person who has a dislike of
>>> certain overarching characteristics of humankind." However, I want
>>> to be clear that I do not harbor "hatred of mankind", although I may
>>> have feelings of general "distrust of human nature". So, this latter
>>> definition you cited above may be closer to my intended useage.
>>>
>> I will start by saying that I should have stated that the definition
>> that I gave for "misanthropy" was *a* dictionary definition, rather
>> than *the* dictionary definition. There are many English language
>> dictionaries, of both current and past publication, all of which have
>> different definitions of any particular word - some subtly different and
>> some substantially different (particularly so if the dictionaries are
>> published far apart in time). While the purpose of a dictionary is
>> generally purported to be to express and describe the current common
>> usage of a word, this purpose is fraught with potential problems right
>> from the start, since this means that dictionaries can easily foster
>> the distorted (from origins) and ambiguous (multiple, quite different)
>> word meanings that they are also trying to prevent. I have often thought
>> that a far better purpose for a dictionary should be to clearly describe
>> the unambiguous etymologically original meanings of the words, and even
>> to frown upon and discourage other usages (except for totally newly
>> coined words, of course). Being a dynamic, non-scholarly, not-for-profit
>> dictionary, I consider the Wikipedia dictionary to be the very worst
>> around in this regard. While Wikipedia is a large, easily accessible
>> source of information, one should always keep in mind that there is no
>> guarantee that a scholarly approach has been taken to any of the
>> information presented there (as opposed to for-profit dictionaries and
>> encyclopedias who pay scholars for the work that is placed there and
>> which work is backed by the name of the scholarly author being clearly
>> attached to hir work).
>>
>
> I understand and agree with your frustration with ambiguous usage of
> words.  I have not considered this seemingly rampant problem in
> written and spoken language.

Just one small point of grammar here, to help you perfect your writing.
Since you are now, in fact, "consider[ing] this seemingly rampant
problem ..." (stated in your following sentence) it would be clearer and
more correct to use the past perfect tense of the verb and write: "I had
not considered ...".

> After reading your posts on this
> subject in the past week I have realized how large of a problem this
> has become.  I mentioned before that I teach college accounting
> classes.  As might be assumed, many young people are in my classes,
> having recently finished high school.  I have noticed some of their
> slang words actually have dictionary meanings quite different than
> their usage.  However, they seem totally oblivious to the fact that
> they are misusing these words.
>

Although I used the word "misuse" in my initial comment above about your
use of the word "misanthropy", upon reading your comment above it occurs
to me that perhaps using the word "misuse" is not a description of such
usage that is generally likely to have the influence that we seek with
many people. This is because that word ("misuse") invokes some kind of
right and wrong authority, rather than giving a sound reason why it
would be better for the user not to use the word with such a meaning (as
you figured out for yourself regarding your previous usages of
"misanthropy", particularly as applied to yourself).
Therefore, I think that a better way to describe this, at least when
talking to those who are using the words in a non-standard fashion, is
to communicate to them the standard meaning, make sure that they do not
mean that, ask them if they really want to be understood by others or
not, and describe to them that continuing with such usage will lead to a
chaos of language use worse even than the multiple languages of the
Earth, because with them, at least people generally know that another
language is being spoken and they should not even try to understand the
word used by appealing to their knowledge of the English language.

> I agree that this deviation from an `agreed-upon' meaning of a word
> (purposefully defined by a dictionary) distorts communication and
> creates problems during communication.

Yes, with the proviso that you will sometimes get retorts of "who is the
authority for what is 'agreed-upon'", particularly since even
dictionaries sometimes disagree (particularly if they are sufficiently
different in date of creation).

> I have resolved to improve my
> own accurate use of words.  When I communicate, I feel it very
> important to be as accurate as possible for a number of reasons,
> including the fact that words are used to convey meaning, or even
> feeling, which might not be easily communicated.  I also agree with
> your philosophy of `social-preferencing' and its reliance on the
> evaluation of a person's characteristics.  An accurate evaluation is
> highly-dependent on another person's accurate portrayal of hirself
> during communication.
>

And the forthrightness and total candor of that "portrayal of hirself"
is dependent on the accounts of others corroborating it, which is
another essential part of social preferencing and the reason why all
social actions need to be taken openly with full identity of the actor
known.

>> Before continuing I will note the meaning of "scholar" and scholarly"
>> that I am using:
>>
>> : one who has engaged in advanced study and acquired the minutiae of
>> knowledge in some special field along with accuracy and skill in
>> investigation and powers of critical analysis in interpretation of such
>> knowledge.
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>>
>> For this reason, while Wikipedia is a good place to make a quick start
>> and get some quick ideas about a word meaning or a subject (and I
>> sometimes use it for that purpose), it should only be a beginning of
>> one's investigation and not something that one should take as any kind
>> of definitive exposition. Since I have already written elsewhere of my
>> thoughts about Wikipedia (search for it in this group), this is all
>> that I will say right here.
>>
>> Regarding your thoughts about the meaning of "misanthropy", here is a
>> dictionary meaning and the etymology of the word "misanthrope" to help
>> understand what meaning is more appropriate to give it.
>>
>> Etymology: Greek /misanthromacrpos /hating mankind, from /mis- /^2 mis-
>> + /anthromacrpos /man, human being -- more at ANTHROP-
>>
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=anthrop-\
>
>> *:* one who hates or despises mankind <a /misanthrope/, whose only
>> strong emotions are those of disgust, rage, occasional sex hunger --
>> Richard Plant>
>> /Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged/.
>> Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com
>>
>
> The example you make of my use of the word "misanthrope" to describe
> myself is an excellent argument for the proper use of words as
> defined by etymology.  I appreciate you taking the time to describe
> this to me.  Now that I read the dictionary definition of the
> word "misanthrope" I am pleased that I have not used it to describe
> myself very often.  Doing so would have distorted others' perception
> of what I believe in.  I do not identify with the definition you
> referenced above.  Reading this definition I feel an urge to be more
> careful with how I describe myself, as I would not want someone well-
> acquainted with the dictionary definition of the word to find that I
> describe myself as such.  This would be quite inaccurate and may
> bring about inaccurate, negative social-preferencing against me.
>

I am, of course, very pleased to read that you are understanding and
agreeable with me and moreover that you are benefiting from my writing
of my thoughts.

[Likely you have now already considered the problem of labels in general, and
will be leery (as I and Paul are) of brief descriptions given to others
(sometimes self-assigned) such as "curmudgeon" or "misanthrope" or even
"liberal", "libertarian" or "conservative" or any other one word or phrase label
that supposedly covers everything about a person, or simply regarding politics
in the last group.

When for any number of reasons I am interested in knowing about a person, I
never stop at the brief descriptions that might be first available, since I have
learned that they most often really mean very little. Instead, I do some
research, which is relatively easy using the Internet. Of course for those
living people who keep large amounts of information about themselves concealed,
I learn very little - except that they either do not use the Internet or
maintain anonymity on it. In either case, I then have a low opinion of them. In
the first case it is because of their failure/refusal to recognize the high
potential for value obtainable on the Internet and in the second for not wanting
to let others know about them - to not want to be fully social humans. **Kitty]


>> Note that Wikipedia does not give any of the etymology of words in its
>> dictionary, which is one sense in which it is not scholarly. The
>> result of this is that a reader has no sense of the origin of a word
>> or what its former meanings were. And the result of that is to
>> foster a continuous "morphing" and corruption of the language, so that
>> ultimately any word can have any meaning at all.
>>

An interesting example of the above is the transition of the word "rip"
through "rip-off" and "rip off" to its current usage of "rip". The
latter meaning simply to copy an audio-video item from its distributed
(a CD or DVD) or downloaded form to hard disk, so that one can then more
easily catalog and manage its use. (This latter meaning is still not in
Merriam-Webster, but can be found in Wikipedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping and many media related sites). The
worst part of this transition is that, in the process, all notion of the
rightness or wrongness (by any standard) of the actions involved is
ignored and eventually entirely lost.

>> As I said before, I do not think that you are a misanthrope as described
>> by this meaning and its origins. Unfortunately, "misanthropy" is but one
>> of a vast number of words that have become distorted away from their
>> clear and unambiguous origins, by the tendency toward hyperbole of
>> sales-type persons and their mimickers and followers. With its secondary
>> meaning of "distrust of human nature" Merriam-Webster is already guilty
>> of that (they should be trying to thwart this tendency to warp and
>> distort meanings rather than fostering it), but Wikipedia is, front and
>> center, a major part of the problem and the exponentially increasing
>> speed with which clear and unambiguous communication in the English
>> language is being made impossible, is something about which I am
>> increasingly concerned.
>>

Snipped agreed upon comment about the word "cite".

>> However, I totally reject the above statement as any reasonable meaning
>> for "misanthropy". Such a description is a total and extremely dangerous
>> distortion of any reasonable meaning of that word. It is particularly
>> dangerous, because whether intentionally or unintentionally it seeks to
>> place anyone who dissents from the norms of society into the same
>> category as a misanthrope as described above.

Note that in the sentence above, the phrase "seeks to place" was
incorrect since it implied intentionality which I had specifically
stated was irrelevant to my statement. I had written that phrase
*before* inserting the conditional, "whether intentionally or
unintentionally", and then did not realize that it needed modification.
In the sentence as currently composed above, "it seeks to place" should
be replaced by "it places".

It is one of my firm convictions that most people are not intentionally
evil - they really do try their best to do what they think is best for
themselves and everyone else. Therefore, as a general rule I try
carefully not to impute intentionality of doing harm to anyone's action
unless it is clearly warranted.

>> This is simply one more
>> clear attempt to suppress any free thought and critical analysis. I
>> expect that you did not see this, but this an example of why you need to
>> carefully study and analyze ideas before accepting them. Otherwise you
>> will be suckered in like a fish taking the bait on the hook.
>>
>
> The problem of words being used to describe ideas they are not
> intended to describe is a frustrating one.

I found your statement above somewhat unclear when I first read it, but
was not immediately able to understand why. Upon rereading it now, I see
the problem. "Intention", just like beauty (or any other personal
evaluation), is in the eye/mind of the beholder/evaluator/actor. Thus if
your usage of the word "intended" is as evaluated by the user of the
word, then the statement is clearly false, since that person certainly did
use hir words to describe what s/he intended them to describe. Of
course, what you meant by "intended" was the usage/meaning given to the
word by one or more sources of "communication-beneficial" (my phrase to
replace "agreed-upon") word usage. This example shows that if one is to
communicate accurately and effectively (and I don't see how one can be
effective unless one *is* accurately understood), then one must always
be clear, with all words relating to evaluation/action, just who is,
and is not the evaluator/actor specified in one's writing.

[Note: The above sentence about clarity was first written as:
"..., then one must always be clear with all words relating to
evaluation/action, just whom is and is not the evaluator/actor specified in
one's writing."

However, since it was not clear to Kitty :) it was modified to read as it now
appears above. --Paul]


> It seems to me that few
> humans use a well-researched dictionary as their reference when
> deciding whether to use a word in a given context.  Every instance a
> person references the well-researched definition of a word and finds
> they would have used it inappropriately, that person learns from
> their potential mistake and the language retains a small bit of its
> integrity.

Your use of "inappropriately" above is definitely better than to say
the word was "misused", but still does not give any reason for that
evaluation (as I dealt with above). But yes, if the person hirself
actually does the research and evaluates the "inappropriateness" of
hir usage, then s/he has clearly decided (determined some reasons)
that it is beneficial to use the more "appropriate" meaning.

>  In my experience with others, this referencing process
> takes place quite infrequently.  Instead, people rely on their
> perception of the meaning of a given word (as I had
> with "misanthrope") and the language loses a bit of its integrity.
> It seems that if we want to improve the current situation of this
> problem, it may be helpful to continue to encourage others to
> reference unfamiliar words before use as you have done with me, and
> as I will do in the future.  It is also helpful that we (you, and now
> I) correct our own use of words using an agreed-upon reference.

Again I am highly pleased that you understand and agree with this. And
there are not merely the two of us, but Kitty, of course, Olafur and
Jack (both reading this thread but too busy with university course
work to comment right now), and likely a few others on this group also.

On specific topics, I have much less trouble finding people in the world
who are in agreement with my ideas (many even who had them before me),
so I know there are lots of people on the Internet attempting to keep
the language free from ambiguity and distortion (even though still far
too small a number to be very effective).  My major problem in finding
kindred spirits arises when I try to find or convince people to agree
with me on all my radical ideas and particularly on the philosophical
fundamentals from which I am convinced they are all derivable (and to
my satisfaction have been derived).

>>> It is from this definition that I might point out that we are all
>>> participating in some form of misanthropy, as far as the wikipedia
>>> definition is accurate.
>>>
>> The Wikipedia notion is totally wrong and the vast majority of people
>> are not practicing misanthropy, least of all not I and Kitty.
>>

With which summary, you now agree.

>>> In my previous post I believe I was pointing
>>> out perceived "shortcomings of humanity", such as lack of action,
>>> lack of self-responsibility, etc.
>>>
>> No. Please try to remember that humans are all individuals, different
>> from one another to greater or lesser degree. There is no collective
>> that has any human attributes at all, much less "shortcomings". Rather
>> you were "pointing out perceived shortcomings" of some adult humans. And
>> these shortcomings are, once again, more or less in type and degree
>> within different humans.
>>

I note that you did not respond to the above. I want to point out that I
do not consider it a mere "nit-picking" issue (or else I would not have
written it), but instead consider this whole issue of using collectives
of objects (particularly individual humans), as if they were one of the
individuals, to be dangerously distortional to clarity of thought. I
have written about this many other places most of which you can find
by searching this group with "collectiv" (misspelling intended) and
following the appropriate links (but as with any simple search some
items are not on this topic). Many of such links are to my writings on
this subject at the SelfSIP.org website. I would appreciate it if you
would take the time to read the on-topic writings, consider this idea
and post your comments on this thread or another.

> ---
> Steve
>

--Paul

Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>
>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a
>>>>> post about the book "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides numerous
>>>>>> examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-known
>>>>>> sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
>>>>>> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
>>>>>> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
>>>>>> strangers.]
>>>>>>
>>>>> Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
>>>>> information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
>>>>> business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
>>>>>
>>>>> So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
>>>>> human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
>>>>> that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
>>>>> I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
>>>>> countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
>>>>> attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of a
>>>> dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
>>>> responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of such
>>>> poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
>>>> each to begin to practice better such habits.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of or read about,
>>> Paul.
>>>
>> I am quite amazed that you had not, since this idea of choices causing
>> feedback of their harms and benefits to, in turn, moderate future
>> choices (or choices of onlookers) that will more likely enhance their
>> net benefit is the basic mode of action of all life-forms and, in fact,
>> the mechanism of all positive change, including evolution. While the
>> application of this principle to eliminate cradle to grave socialism
>> is widespread in the libertarian literature (see http://mises.org for
>> examples - but we don't agree with everything there), this shows that
>> such writings are not getting through to the general public where the
>> paradigm of government support programs, paid by assets forcibly
>> extracted from citizens, is fully accepted as being the current reality,
>> and solutions to its problems are only examined if they remain within
>> the context of that paradigm. Another rampant example of this kind of
>> thinking is the physician who knows that alteration of lifestyle habits
>> and some supplements will greatly benefit those with a tendency to
>> cardiovascular problems, but, since the current reigning paradigm is
>> that patients cannot and will not change their lifestyle habits and
>> therefore, that telling them about such information is a waste of time,
>> the physician prescribes statins (usually even without supplementary
>> CoQ10, even though he knows - or should know - that statins reduce
>> endogenous production of CoQ10).
>>
>> So I guess in retrospect I am not so amazed, as I am more disappointed
>> (mainly at the media than at you), that you have not read of such an
>> application of this basic principle of human action.
>>
>> However, I am even more disappointed that you and others are not able
>> to see the application of general principles to areas remote from their
>> derivation, but this is simply one more example of the failure of the
>> government education system to teach critical and analytical thinking.


Although you made it clear from your remark below that you were not
going to comment on any of the ideas that I expressed above, I want to
make it clear that I would like to have your comments on them. I have
always taken the view that when a person A makes a complete response to
a person B (who has initiated the topic of discussion), then it is the
responsibility of person B to respond to everything that is in that
response. Such responses need not be detailed, but can simply be of the
forms:

1) I agree (better if including some reasons or paraphrase - which also
shows understanding of the ideas with which one is in agreement).
2) I disagree (but better with reasons for disagreement or else it is
kind of useless).
3) I don't wish to comment for the following reasons: (I haven't thought
enough about it; I haven't the time required to fully address it right
now; etc.)
4) I can't comment because I don't fully understand what you have
written for the following reasons:

Under the circumstances described above, when person B does not comment
in such a manner, then I view it as somewhat discourteous, at the least.
Part of the reason for this is that without a response, person A is left
not even knowing whether person A has read and understood hir remarks.

Therefore, as in the last message, I respectfully request that you
respond to the ideas expressed in the above text.

>> Governements, of course, place no value in such thinking because it
>> does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects.
>>
>
> I am going to comment on your note above:
>
> "Governements, [sic] of course, place no value in such thinking
> because it does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects"
>
> By this statement it seems you are convinced that the majority of
> government is motivated to encourage complacency and obedience.  This
> seems like a pessimistic view of government motivation.  However, I feel
> that you have far more experiences than I to draw a conclusion from, and
> that your conclusion is likely to be more accurate.  Do you have any
> current examples of this?  Otherwise, I assume your feelings are based
> on philosophical works describing the relationship between government
> and subjects -- works that I am not very familiar with.


Having as their major motivation "to encourage complacency and
obedience" in citizens would, in my view, actually be an optimistic view
of the motivation of politicians, government employees and others who
voluntarily aid, abet or trade with government. Rather all my experience
and reading has convinced me, with increasing strength as time
progresses, that the vast majority of politicians, in particular, are
the most devious charlatans that one can imagine.

As for examples of government encouraging complacency and obedience if
that is what you are asking for, you need look no further than to
examine the methods of the government educational, regulatory and legal
systems. As for examples of the "devious charlatans" mentioned above, I
suggest that you examine the still current full set of events leading
to, culminating with and following after the calamitous events of 9/11
and the even more calamitous events relating to the war in Iraq. For a
more recent current event, examine the sequences of events leading to,
culminating in and following from the subprime mortgage situation the
effects of which are still being felt in the US and will likely get far
worse before they get better, at least partly because of their ongoing
mishandling.

[There have been several well-written articles at Mises.org about or including
the subprime mortgage fiasco from the past year.
http://www.mises.org/story/2544  Recession 2007
http://www.mises.org/story/2600 The Subprime Mortgage "Crisis" Will Fix Itself
http://www.mises.org/story/2716 The Shaking Tower of Debt
http://www.mises.org/story/2772 The Federal Home Loan Banks to the Rescue!
http://www.mises.org/story/2787 Does the Current Financial Crisis Vindicate the
Economics of Hyman Minksy?
http://www.mises.org/story/2810 Manipulating the Interest Rate: A Recipe for
Disaster

Don't pass up the first one above, written last April, which is clearly
prophetic of the current financial market lows. All of them show how government
has promoted the situation and then made it worse. **Kitty]

But, yes, even without these examples, the economic theory of human
reality as detailed by the proponents of what is called the "Austrian
School" (praxeology - the  study of human action/conduct)  makes clear
that this must necessarily be one of the effects of all governments.

The above having been said, as with anything there can be exceptions.
Even though the current political system makes it highly unlikely that
anyone who is totally forthright is ever likely to get nominated and
elected to a major political office, nevertheless from time to time
(moreso in the past) some well-meaning and honest person will get
elected (but never if his well-meaningness does not coincide with some
generally harmful reigning paradigm). This is even true for Congressman
Ron Paul who is libertarian in many ways, but nevertheless supports
closed US borders. ("Physically secure our borders and coastlines."
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/ )

> I question this because I would guess that at least a small number of
> people in government are motivated to find the "best way", which
> would involve critical and analytical thinking.  Therefore, these people
> would encourage critical and analytical thinking and not seek to create
> an obedient population.  This would leave the situation not as
> disheartening as you describe.


If such exceptions, the possibility of which I noted above, were truly
interested in the "best way" (by some socially global definition of
best), then you would be correct. However, this occurrence has been even
rarer in the past (and I am convinced is actually impossible today)
because the vast majority of even well-intentioned people (as with all
people) have never learned to think critically and to look for solutions
outside of the reigning paradigm of understanding in the area of their
concern. (It's even worse in that the vast majority of people don't
realize that any other understandings of the relevant data even exist!)
So you can see that from my pov there is no realistic way that I can be
anything else than disheartened by the current social world in which I
live. The only way that I have been able to keep my cheerfulness, hope
and, yes, sanity is by first, realizing that there must be a full
solution to this mess, second, putting a lifetime of effort and
thought into finding one, and third, presenting my discoveries
and seeking to find others who understand my solution, agree with it and
have the time and ability to promote it.

>> [An excellent book that I have recommended before is "Science of
>> Thinking" by Henry Hazlitt - listed with others at:
> http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#improvingt\
> hinking
>
>> This short article from comments in early MoreLife Yahoo post is
>> given as a link from the Practice Index Outlook section for improving
>> one's thinking while increasing vocabulary. Although this book has been
>> out of print for many years, there are used copies available via
>> Internet.  I first saw it among Paul's collection and then acquired a
>> copy via the Internet for a relative. (Unfortunately, that person has
>> not demonstrated in recent communication with me that he makes use of
>> Hazlitt's excellent ideas, and since the disconnection between us began
>> even before I gave him the copy, he has likely never even opened it.)
**Kitty]
>>
>>> I guess the reason I had not made this seemingly obvious
>>> connection is that I am very doubtful that the vast majority of
>>> people can change their own lifestyle habits.
>>
>> This is a highly negative approach on 3 counts, at least:
>>
>> 1) Every human *can* (is physically capable) of changing any of hir
>
> [Note above correction of previous error on my part. Third person plural
pronoun "their" changed to singular neutral "hir". --Paul]
>
>> habits. (Note the use of the word "own" in your sentence above is
>> redundant, since it is certain that one human cannot directly change
>> the habits of another - without the use of force, that is.)
>
> When considering using the word "own" in my statement above I
> had considered its possible redundancy.  However, I had decided to use
> it because I felt that people usually would not change their habits
> without the influence of someone else.  Perhaps this would have been
> clearer if I had said "...majority of people can change their habits
> on their own".

Yes! And it was also my error that I did not think about that meaning of
such phrasings as "their own lifestyle habits". The reason I did not
think of that was because I long ago realized the such usage was
incorrect and carefully made sure that I did not use "own" that way. The
meaning that you intended your usage of "own" to convey did not make its
use redundant at all as shown by your usage of it in your corrected
sentence. This is one more example of how word usages can have multiple
and very different meanings unless they are more clearly stated.

In addition, I would have been much more inclined to agree, at least in
part, with this newly stated meaning of your sentence, since it is true
that without *some* input (if only from the passage of time) change will
not take place.

>   Before replying to this comment, to avoid
> repetition, please see my comment after the completion of your list of
> (3) below, as I continue my discussion related to this section.
>
>> 2) Without even trying to effect such change, it is premature and
>> certainly scientifically incorrect to conclude that the vast majority
>> of people will not ever change their lifestyle habits.
>
>> 3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
>> habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
>> ever change their lifestyle habits, this does not imply that any given
>> human will not. Therefore, one should always try to help each human do
>> so, particularly since those who will change for the better are in an
>> important sense more "worthy" than those who will not (ie they will be
>> more capable of and likely to return value which enhances your life).
>
> After reading your 3 statements above I realized that perhaps my
> disheartened comment was an unnecessary lapse of frustration or despair.
> After reading your criticisms I realized that I have changed my
> lifestyle habits without the input of others.  It seems contradictory
> for me to feel that others can not change their lifestyle habits without
> the input of others, while I have done exactly that.

I find it very heartening to find another person who has such ability to
absorb criticism (even when clearly well-intentioned to be
constructive), understand it and turn it into a source of personal
change and strength.

> Most of my life I
> had been overweight (5'9" and 210lbs as of May 2007 --
> currently 165 lbs).  Without the criticism or encouragement of others
> (as I recall) I researched a number of dietary topics, including
> trans-fats, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.  As I began accumulating
> knowledge I realized that I largely had the ability to decide my level
> of health.  I also realized that my level of health was directly
> proportionate to the food and drink I consumed.

Although I would not have recommended such a high rate of weight loss
(my recommendation is about 2 lbs per month maximum), at your age (still
very adaptable physiology) it has likely been of no direct harm to your
system. Since you must have been on a very low calorie intake to achieve
such rate of weight loss (almost 2 lbs/week), it would be interesting to
have you describe on a separate post how you achieved this, particularly
how you dealt with the hunger and energy loss, which most people incur.

>  When I reflect on this
> experience I feel that it is my desire for knowledge that led me to
> healthier habits, and not the input of others.

Plus your learned habits and abilities to think for, and make decisions
by yourself. (Learning is a self-generated result from both genetic and
environmental inputs.) However, if your parents, grandparents did/do not
exhibit those traits, then the genetic contribution is not likely the
major one.

> This leads me to another idea that Paul recently posted on:
> self-responsibility and randomness (message 1726).  Paul makes a
> thoughtful argument to me in message 1726:
>
> "*If* you really believe that thought [that I am as intelligent,
> thoughtful, and self-responsible as I am because of *luck*] then its
> logical flip-side is that anyone else who is not thinking rationally or
> being self-responsible is that way entirely as a result of being
> *unlucky* and *not* getting the right genes and environmental input to
> be intelligent, thoughtful and self-responsible."
>
> In order for me to re-evaluate my position on this topic, I must first
> consider the question:  "Do I desire knowledge by choice or by genes
> and environmental input?"  I must then ask:  "Is it entirely by
> one or the other?"  Even after I find answers to these questions, I
> must ask:  "Even if I have the desire to seek knowledge solely
> because of genes and environmental input, do my decisions and actions
> entirely come from the same, or do I have a choice in the matter?"
> These are difficult questions I am still seeking answers to.

Since you have done an excellent job of formulating the questions for
yourself, I won't try to answer them any more than I have already done
so in other parts of this thread. If you have any specific questions,
thoughts or contrary ideas as you continue to mentally seek answers that
adequately satisfy you, then definitely bring them forth here. The only
point that I will make is that you are not likely to find a *fully*
satisfactory solution. You may need to be satisfied for now with one
that is merely adequate and enables you to continue with it as a basis,
always cognizant that new evidence will either strengthen, weaken or
even change that solution. However, remember that this "tentative
acceptance" is the general approach of a true free-thinker to almost
*any* proposition about reality.

>> [A short item has been included in the Outlook section of MoreLife for
>> over 3 years on reprogramming emotions, which is also applicable to
>> behaviors -
>> http://morelife.org/lifequal/life_outlook/practicalideas.html#reprogramm\
>>
> ingemotions
>
>> And a search of the group's archives on "habits" and/or "emotions" and
>> "reprogram" will show several messages with this subject discussed.
>> Others can be found using "change" instead of "reprogram". **Kitty]
>
> I am also interested in the idea of "reprogramming" oneself, as
> might be apparent.  I am in the middle of a book called "Looking for
> Spinoza" that discusses the biological and physiological processes
> of programming and reprogramming.  I find it quite interesting.
> Editorial reviews listed on amazon.com, as well as a link to purchase
> the book, can be found here:  http://tinyurl.com/2zdjyu
> <http://tinyurl.com/2zdjyu> .

This definitely appears to be a very interesting book and I will get a
copy for myself and Kitty (she reads books far more and faster than I,
so will likely read it first). I remember reading reviews of his first
book _Descartes' Error_ and thinking that it sounded very good, but I was
not into buying more books at that time. I may now purchase that book also.

>>> I have watched a
>>> number of my family members struggle with bad health from smoking,
>>> atrocious eating habits, and lack of exercise.  I have had a great
>>> many discussions with them using different methods, including the
>>> socratic method, questioning, asking them about their desired
>>> outcomes from habit changes for the better, and even criticism.  My
>>> well-intentioned discussions have generally met with resistance, and
>>> even anger (met with anger most notably when applying criticism, by
>>> the way).  So, as you might imagine, or have likely experienced
>>> yourself, this resistance is discouraging.
>>>
>> Yes, it is discouraging, but I think it is also very typical. Though it
>> was hard to give up on, I have come to the conclusion that a genetic
>> connection is not an attribute that implies any of the essential
>> character attributes that I seek to find in others, and without which
>> I cannot call a person a friend.
>
> I agree strongly with your statement above regarding genetic
> connections, attributes, and the designation of a friend.  In my
> experience this idea seems quite unpopular, as genetic relationships are
> usually considered to be the closest and most important.  Yet, we are
> encouraged by those who are genetically connected to us to seek a
> life-partner who holds view similar to our own.  Does this not imply we
> should avoid spending a large portion of our time with people we
> fundamentally disagree with?  This then leads to the conclusion:  you
> should avoid spending time with people you ultimately disagree with,
> regardless of genetic connection.

You make an excellent point (re life-partner choice encouragement) that
I had not thought of before. My mother always used an old English saying
"blood is thicker than water" to mean that genetic relationships were
and should be always stronger in loyalty than other relationships.  Her
background made loyalty, at all costs and without reserve, a most
important virtue. I think loyalty is also an important virtue, but only in
the context of the overall worthiness of the one requiring the loyalty,
as judged by the one of whom the loyalty is being asked and from whom it
is being given.

And I fully agree with the logic of your last conclusion. My only
rhetorical question is: Why can't others, particularly one's relatives,
see that?

Actually, I think the answer to the seeming contradiction (at least the
justification of others) is the old taboo against marriage (and
particularly children) between genetic relatives. So whether or not the
person that you find has views similar to your own is actually not the
driving force but rather a modern justification of this old but still
fully enforced taboo. In earlier times and still in many other cultures,
no consideration is given to any need that those being mated for life
should have anything in common at all. Each was/is treated as being
fully able to adapt to become compatible with the other, generally by
the woman changing to the thinking and habits of the man as required by
him, since she was/is the subservient one in the marriage in these
situations.

[Early last year there was renewed publicity about a German couple who have
lived together for six years and have 4 children and have been in knowing
defiance of a German law since they began a sexual relationship. It is a crime
in Germany for sexual intercourse to take place between close relatives and the
couple are full siblings who were adopted separately and never knew each other
until 7 years ago, at the same time becoming aware of their biological
relationship. The government has removed 3 of the 4 children from the couple but
not all facts are clear from reports, such as whether public assistance (tax
money) is received by the couple. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm
While this couple is challenging the law and has (per the article) some support
of others, it appears that the children are the ones most victimized by the
German government. Another thought is that this couple may be viewed as being
irresponsible for not realistically considering what the government would do
regarding children if any were born, knowing that this law existed, particularly
since they could easily have avoided any problems by moving to another country.
One of the reports last year noted that incest is not a criminal offense in
Netherlands, Luxembourg, Belgium, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Argentina or Brazil.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2022008,00.html
I've not found any more recent reports as to the outcome of the government
ruling on this case.

A similar but different case arising out of unknown birth identification
occurred recently in the UK. There has been publicity in the UK about a couple
who met and then married only to find out soon afterwards that they were twins,
adopted separately. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm
Parted-at-birth twins "married" and also
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ntwins111.xml
What is not clear in this situation as reported is whether the couple applied
for annulment or whether this was done over their protests. Also, no information
is provided about their identity - quite different from the couple in Germany.
**Kitty]


>> Still, as a result of being a sperm
>> donor in the early 1980s, I have maybe 20 children with whom I have no
>> connection whatsoever, nor it seems any means to connect, but with
>> respect to whom I still have some hope (only very weakly and
>> non-essentially to my lifetime happiness) of finding a kindred spirit.
>>
>> My answer is therefore, to constantly, frankly, directly and publicly
>> state my most cherished and important personal thoughts and ideas, so
>> that others reading them will know whether or not they match,
>> complement and/or harmonize with their own ideas, and will therefore
>> be attracted to read more about me and make a connection (as you did
>> and as a very few others, who I now call friend, have done). In
>> effect, making your essential personal character and convictions
>> publicly very clear becomes a method to attract those people with whom
>> you are compatible and on whom you can have some positive effect (and
>> they on you) and to filter out the others who will be less likely to
>> benefit your life.
>>
>> --Paul
>
> Well spoken here, Paul.  I find your statement above a strong argument
> for being open about my views.  I have stated previously that I have
> been reluctant to share my views with others, for reasons I will try to
> elaborate on in another post.  However, if I am to attract people into
> my life who share thoughts similar to my own, it makes great sense to
> communicate those thoughts publicly, so others may view and evaluate
> them.  The more people who are exposed to my views, the better my
> chances of finding someone who agrees with them.  They can then decide
> if I would be a positive part of their life -- and they a positive
> part of mine.

Again it is very heartening to read of your immediate understanding and
implementation into your own life actions of what I consider to be my
important ideas. It is truly unfortunate that so few others appear to
find this idea and practice acceptable (for any number of quite
extraneous "reasons"), even though no one can refute the logic involved.

>> [I too have found that biological connection is no guarantee of
>> philosophical agreement on fundamental issues. And if I am truly at
>> odds with someone (biologically related or not) on the most basic of
>> principles - and they have no desire to discuss the subject(s) to see
>> if agreement can actually be reached, or if exchanges by them are not
>> based on logic - then there is no way I will spend any of my precious
>> time engaged in an activity including them that brings me no immediate
>> benefit. For those where such philosophical opposition does not exist -
>> or has not shown itself to exist - I am willing to invest my time for
>> the strong - or possible, respectively - likelihood of future benefit
>> to me (not as much time for those I am not sure of). And for those
>> individuals who equate benefit only with money, I try to make it clear
>> that benefit is anything that adds to my lifetime happiness. (But since
>> such "clarity" of received information, like harm, is only evaluatable
>> by the receiver, success is not guaranteed.)
>>
>> So, the persons with whom I am in closest agreement are not
>> biologically related to me at all - they are chosen friends. Among
>> those people with whom I have had interactions in my lifetime, those to
>> whom I am biologically related are among the ones with whom I am most
>> philosophically opposed. **Kitty]
>
> Thank you for sharing this insight with me Kitty.  I am frustrated that
> those to whom I am biologically related also tend to be among the ones
> with whom I am most philosophically opposed.  As Paul stated earlier and
> I agree with, these biological relationships are hard to give up on.  I
> take solace in finding that you and Paul, whose philosophies I am
> compelled to agree with, also have philosophical differences with those
> you are biologically related to.  I see that I am not alone.


They are particularly hard to give up on, precisely because an important
part of any friendship is the bond of common experiences during time
spent together. Since this has automatically occurred with many of one's
relatives, some of the basis for friendship is already there. In
addition, since one's character has *some* (non-zero) genetic component
of input to its current result and one's relatives (particularly parents
and siblings) definitely have some genes in common, from only chance
alone, one is more likely to have traits of personal character in common
with a relative than with an arbitrary person that one meets. Thus, both
of these reasons together imply that it is reasonable that one's
relatives (at least some) will become one's friends. In my view there
are two things that work against this happening.

The first is embodied by that old phrase "familiarity breeds contempt".
In the context here, this means that one's relatives have seen and
remembered mostly the negatives about you, particularly from times in
the past when you were immature and certainly not as you currently are.
Also because *they know you*, it cannot be true that you have anything new
to say or anything radical that you say can possibly be true, whereas
if they hear the same from another source (particularly if it is in
writing) they may give it some credence. Of course, this downplaying
the importance of ideas from anyone known personally is merely a
comment on the essential lack of self-esteem of the person involved,
but that is a topic for another discussion.

The second is the fact that whereas in earlier times the possibility of
finding friends outside the family was very limited and so one simply
put up with the best that family relationships could offer, today there
are many ways to seek out and find people who are more compatible with
one's most cherished ideas and convictions.

[Yes, Steve, I agree that certain longstanding relationships, including the
closest biological ones, are difficult to "give up on". I have been and, to some
extent, still am in that situation with one of them. There will be more on that
separately in the future - and it has a great bearing on the subject of
responsibility that we have been discussing. **Kitty]

> ---
> Steve
>

Once again thanks muchly for your response, which I have greatly
enjoyed reading and responding to.

--Paul

I do not know the apropriate dosage levels yet.  It may be that the 6%
phloridzin extracts generally available are too low.  I can get 95%
extract if need be.

[Moderator's Note:

The original post in this thread was accepted because the accuracy of glucose
meters had already been under discussion in previous messages and on the
MoreLife.org website (thus meeting the subject matter requirements of posts to
this group). The introduction of the topic of phloridzin extracts while related
to the general topic of glucose reduction (for the purposes of glycation
reduction) which is a major topic of MoreLife.org and many discussions on this
group, was not introduced in accordance with the specification on the home page
of this group:

"Posts to this group are only acceptable when they are specifically addressed to
text already in place on the websites (or to an ongoing discussion of such text
begun on this group or elsewhere) or when they are suggestions for alterations
or changes to those websites, which are supported by logical and effective
reasons why such changes would be beneficial for the purposes of the websites."

The response to the first post was accepted as a continuation of the discussion,
again partly because it contained information about the accuracy of glucose
meters. However, while I have accepted this third post in the thread as a
response to the question asked in the second, the quality of information
presentation has now clearly descended to the level of "chat" (light,
unimportant talk), about a topic not correctly introduced in the first place.
Most importantly (and most unacceptable), none of the statements made are
substantiated by the evidence of either scientific study, anecdotal observation
or logical reasoning. Finally, the ending sentence above is effectively a
suggestion that whatever is needed can be supplied (sold) by the poster, which
is certainly not the among the purposes of this group. Anyone contemplating a
purchase from this poster should be aware of the information at:
http://tinyurl.com/2wjus4

Please note once again that all new topics must be introduced in accordance with
the specifications of the group purpose which have been carefully written on the
group's home page, and finally, that chat is never acceptable on this group.
--Paul Group Moderator/Owner]

[Had this message actually met the criteria Paul has reiterated above, I would
have still notified the sender that it was unacceptable as is because it did not
contain his real name - Richard Kaufman - required of all messages to MoreLife
Yahoo. **Kitty]

  ----- Original Message ----
From: Brant Cortright <bcortright@...>
To: morelife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:06:01 PM
Subject: [morelife] Re: Phloridzin to lower blood sugar


This is interesting.  What dosage levels should be tried?  It sounds
promising to reverse insulin resistence.

My son has diabetes, and the meters he's used for testing his blood
glucose over the past years are all very accurate down to about 30 or
so, which is well below the level you will ever be at if you are not
diabetic.  So there is no need to get outside testing.

Brant

On Jan 14, 2008 1:00 PM, Max Watt <maxwatt2002@...> wrote:

>   Phloridzin, a chalcone found in apple peels and strawberries,
  lowers
> fasting glucose by inhibiting renal reabsorbtion of glucose. Apart
  from
> possible over-excretion of phosphorus, there seem to be no negative
> effects reported.
>
>http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phloridzin+diabetes&sourceid=navclient&hl=e\
n
>
> The most economical source for small quantities I have found is an
> extract from apple peels, standardized to 6% phloridzin, from
> www.beyond-a-century.com . I am considering self-experimentation to
  see if
> I can
> lower my fasting glucose to reduce the rate of gluose-caused cellular
> damage. My fasting glucose has been marginal, though a glucose
  challenge
> showed good insulin response. I doubt that meters intended for
> diabetics will be accurate enough at the low end of their range and
  will
> need
> to have a lab perform testing.
>
> I would be interested if anyone has experience with this substance,
  or
> with apple-polyphenols that contain it.
>
> Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)

The message# referenced in the subject line was inadvertently posted to
the group and has been deleted from the archives. In attempting to
send a reply to the poster giving ways in which this message would
become acceptable I failed to put his name in the Send To and the
existing Yahoo address got it instead, causing it to be automatically
released from the queue. I had never accepted a message for posting by
means of replying to Yahoo's notification that it was waiting in the
queue and forgot to take great care to change the to Send To address
before sending a message to the poster.

Please do not respond to the message just sent out. I expect it to be
reposted by the sender with the changes needed.

I appologize for causing these extra messages in your email.

**Kitty

[Moderator Note:

This message and the previous ones of the thread contained in it have been
reformated to be correctly *inline* as is the required format (per the group's
posting policy), because it clearly shows exactly to what the poster was
responding (and to what he did not respond if that is the case). In future all
posters: PLEASE RESPOND INLINE rather than merely entering at the start and
leaving the entire previous message below. Those who do not understand the
meaning and method of responding inline, should study this message to learn. If
you have any questions or discussion concerning the value and the method of
inline response then certainly post them here.

Note also that the subject line has been changed to reflect the current contents
of the message reply (something that is also merely good posting practice, but
perhaps should be made a requirement of the group's posting policy).

Finally note that the initiator of this thread (Richard/Max) also did not make
his message a Reply To (and thus thread it with) any current discussion of
glucose regulation and glucose meter accuracy to both of which his post referred
(a thread which had actually been started by an earlier post of his).
Additionally, he made inline response to his post somewhat difficult by not
clearly separating the two distinct topics within his message (phloridzin and
glucose meter accuracy). In future, all posters please *Reply To* posts which
prompt your message (with respect to a post in the queue, we cannot tell whether
or not it is a Reply To and thus will be threaded with another) and either place
different/related subtopics in different messages or clearly separate them
within the same message. --Paul]

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Brant Cortright" <bcortright@...>
wrote:
>
> On Jan 14, 2008 1:00 PM, Max Watt <maxwatt2002@...> wrote:
>
> >   Phloridzin, a chalcone found in apple peels and strawberries,
lowers
> > fasting glucose by inhibiting renal reabsorbtion of glucose.
Apart from
> > possible over-excretion of phosphorus, there seem to be no
negative
> > effects reported.
> >
> >
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=phloridzin+diabetes&sourceid=navclient&hl=en
> >
> > The most economical source for small quantities I have found is an
> > extract from apple peels, standardized to 6% phloridzin, from
> > www.beyond-a-century.com . I am considering self-experimentation
to see if
> > I can
> > lower my fasting glucose to reduce the rate of gluose-caused
cellular
> > damage. My fasting glucose has been marginal, though a glucose
challenge
> > showed good insulin response.
>
> This is interesting.  What dosage levels should be tried?  It sounds
> promising to reverse insulin resistence.
>
>
> > I doubt that meters intended for
> > diabetics will be accurate enough at the low end of their range
> > and will need to have a lab perform testing.
>
>
> My son has diabetes, and the meters he's used for testing his blood
> glucose over the past years are all very accurate down to about 30
or
> so, which is well below the level you will ever be at if you are
not
> diabetic.  So there is no need to get outside testing.
>
> Brant


I bristle when I see statements like "very accurate" which of course
is useless w/o quantifying data. I have seen discussions on sci.life-
extension regarding glucose meter accuracy and there seemed
to be a blind faith in these instruments. I recall posting to the
contrary and I was berated by an individual who also had no evidence
for the supposed high level of accuracy.

I did a google search on "accuracy blood test meters" and the very
first hit,

http://tinyurl.com/34srlw

provides the following relevant information -

"The ADA has recommended accuracy goals twice over the past twenty
years, once in 1986 (target accuracy of +/- 15%) and once in 1993
(target accuracy of +/- 5%) No company that manufacturers glucose
meters has developed a cost-effective system to meet these goals. A
number of alternative standards have been suggested by national
standards organizations in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. An
international standard ISO DIS 15197 is currently under development
that recommends accuracy of +/- 20 mg/dl for glucose values under 100
mg/dl and +/- 20% for higher glucose values."


In general I would say that if a measurement product does not state
the accuracy it is probably not very good since product marketing in
the US tends to bend the truth quite often with little or no
repercussion.

At least there appears to be some real effort towards a standard.

Alex Horvath

>
> >
> > I would be interested if anyone has experience with this
> > substance, or with apple-polyphenols that contain it.
> >
> > Max Watt (Richard Kaufman)

[Moderator note:

For some reason this reply from Steve came with certain special characters
replaced by some unknown code characters. Since this was not the case with
Steve's previous replies, this suggests that he used a different method of
composition this time - one which is not fully compatible with the simple ASCII
text that Yahoo and all email can use. In spite of applying all reasonable
character code translations that our system provides to Kitty's email receipt
from Yahoo of the original message I was unable to get these translated into
meaningful characters.

While the intention of most of the characters (double quote marks and
apostrophes) is clear and I have changed them accordingly, the intented meaning
for two of them is not clear and for those I have left the original and noted
that what it is intended to be is unknown (at least not by me and Kitty from the
text).

Steve,
Now that I think about it some more, a similar thing happened before with
another individual who was taking the message and placing it into a MSWord
document to work on his reply before copy/pasting it back. If that is what you
are doing (or something similar) then please do not do so in future or this
problem will continue (or if you choose to continue then carefully read your
text *after* placing it in the Yahoo or email reply box to find and fix any
untranslated special characters). Since it is hard to compose a long reply and
save it carefully while doing so, by using only the silly little reply window
supplied by Yahoo groups, I can understand why you want to work on it elsewhere
(I do the same thing myself, but by a different method which avoids character
set problems). In my experience, the best way to reply to a long Yahoo message
is by either doing a reply to the email copy of that message, or copy/pasting
the message from the Yahoo group into a draft email to which you then do a reply
before entering your comments. In each of these cases however, it is far more
advantageous, in terms of space on the screen for text, if you are using an
email reader on your computer rather than a webmail system such as provided by
Yahoo for your email address there.

In addition to the special character problems, there were "hard returns" at the
end of all lines which disabled the normal wrapping in view mode of lines that
are slightly longer than the Yahoo box width. Such lack of wrapping makes the
messages very difficult to read and I spent a great deal of editing time
cleaning it all up. I think these hard returns were also a result of whatever
non-standard composition method you used. --Paul]


--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>>
>>>> --- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, Paul Wakfer <paul@> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Steve Floyd Jr wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kitty just yesterday (1/4/2008) made a post about the book
>>>>>> "Taking Responsibility..." by Nathaniel Branden.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Her post was also of interest to me as her description stated:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Branden doesn't just write theoretically but provides numerous
>>>>>>> examples of occurrences and methods (including his well-known
>>>>>>> sentence stem technique) for promoting self-responsibility in
>>>>>>> one's self and others, including one's children (of various ages),
>>>>>>> spouses, co-workers, employees, friends, acquaintances and even
>>>>>>> strangers.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Promoting self-responsibility in oneself and others:  this
>>>>>> information sounds most useful.  My academic background is in
>>>>>> business; I have earned a master's in business administration (MBA).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So my philosophical analyses tend to see the financial impact of
>>>>>> human behavior and one of the issues I have heavily contemplated is
>>>>>> that of health care and poor eating habits (mentioned in Kitty's post
>>>>>> I referred to above).  It does seem that a huge portion of developed
>>>>>> countries' health problems, and therefore health care costs, can be
>>>>>> attributed to poor diet (and tobacco).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> And if each individual (adult actually, but then I do not think of a
>>>>> dependent child as an individual element of society) were directly
>>>>> responsible for hir own health care costs, then the feedback of such
>>>>> poor nutrition and lifestyle habits would slowly but surely induce
>>>>> each to begin to practice better such habits.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> This is an interesting idea that I had not thought of or read about,
>>>> Paul.
>>>>
>>> I am quite amazed that you had not, since this idea of choices causing
>>> feedback of their harms and benefits to, in turn, moderate future
>>> choices (or choices of onlookers) that will more likely enhance their
>>> net benefit is the basic mode of action of all life-forms and, in fact,
>>> the mechanism of all positive change, including evolution.

I am guessing that the reason for my not considering this idea is
because I have held (until now, as I try to change it) the assumption
that most people won't be responsible for their own actions.  An
equally-important, related assumption in my mind (one that I had not
completely formed and articulated to myself prior to this discussion)
is the assumption that most people must endure some type of suffering
related to their poor habits before they are motivated to change said
habits.  Much like a child is curious about the stove-burner until
s/he touches it �V the discipline administered by the pain discourages
the child from repeating the behavior.

[Moderator Note: the intended character in the middle of the previous sentence
is unknown. --Paul]

However, as I analyze this assumption, I realize that it is not a
requirement that people incur harm before changing habits.  Instead,
as much in my case, one could witness the effect of poor habits on
others.  It is possible (from my experience) that people change their
habits to avoid the plight of those witnessed who have failed to
change their habits.  From my reading about and witnessing
sarcopenia, and resulting immobility, related to old age, I have made
it a habit to lift weights an average of 2-3 times per week for the
rest of my life.  I believe that achieving a long life has more
advantage if I am (mostly) capable of normal mobility.

In summary, it seems useful to encourage people to make a connection
between bad habits and their consequences (life-long smoking being
related to carrying oxygen tanks around with you due to lung damage,
overweight-ness and later complications, etc).  This would allow
people to determine if their bad habits are worth the risk of the
consequences, and seeing these consequences is a strong argument
against said habits.

>>> While the application of this principle to eliminate cradle to grave
>>> socialism is widespread in the libertarian literature (see http://mises.org
>>> for examples - but we don't agree with everything there), this shows
>>> that such writings are not getting through to the general public where
>>> the paradigm of government support programs, paid by assets forcibly
>>> extracted from citizens, is fully accepted as being the current reality,
>>> and solutions to its problems are only examined if they remain within
>>> the context of that paradigm.

And, unfortunately, it seems to me that there is a majority of people
who are beginning to believe in cradle-to grave socialism.  This
majority will likely encourage our move towards this type of forcibly-
extracted government support systems.  People who self-responsible
and practice good habits are less likely to desire such support
systems, since their good habits prevent major health problems and
the resulting costs.  So, the chain of causation goes:  as an
increasing proportion of people adopt poor health habits, the more
health problems they accumulate, the more health-related costs they
incur, the less affordable it becomes, and the more they clamor for
government supported programs.  If my causation chain above is
accurate, we must de-couple a part of the chain.  It seems that we at
morelife are trying to break this chain of causation by preventing
the accumulation of health problems by the encouragement of self-
responsible behaviors (good habits).

>>> Another rampant example of this kind of
>>> thinking is the physician who knows that alteration of lifestyle habits
>>> and some supplements will greatly benefit those with a tendency to
>>> cardiovascular problems, but, since the current reigning paradigm is
>>> that patients cannot and will not change their lifestyle habits and
>>> therefore, that telling them about such information is a waste of time,
>>> the physician prescribes statins (usually even without supplementary
>>> CoQ10, even though he knows - or should know - that statins reduce
>>> endogenous production of CoQ10).

This makes me curious of the possible usefulness of encouraging
doctors to present the possible harm resulting from bad habits,
perhaps in the form of interview videos with disease sufferers who
had similar poor habits and experienced their related negative
effects.  Since the majority of people see a doctor when they have a
health problem, encouraging doctors to do this would result in (near)
universal experience with the risks of bad health-problems.  This
(near) universal experience would, at least, increase the occurrence
of evaluation of bad habits, and would likely result in lowered
occurrence of bad habits.

I know of one young woman who has made a life-goal to never smoke
tobacco.  When she was young, a grandfather she respected and
cherished was near death in the hospital.  From the hospital bed
while she visited, he strongly advised her never to smoke (he had for
most of his life), and repeatedly told her that smoking was why he
was on his death bed.  He survives to this day, much to her
approval.  But, when she spends time around him, she witnesses his
very-limited mobility and it likely serves as a reminder of the
negative effects of the smoking habit.

>>> So I guess in retrospect I am not so amazed, as I am more disappointed
>>> (mainly at the media than at you), that you have not read of such an
>>> application of this basic principle of human action.
>>>
>>> However, I am even more disappointed that you and others are not able
>>> to see the application of general principles to areas remote from their
>>> derivation, but this is simply one more example of the failure of the
>>> government education system to teach critical and analytical thinking.

I am also frustrated with this seemingly low occurrence of critical
and analytical thinking in others.  Honestly, it makes for a lonely
life for those of us who practice such thinking!  I find it quite
difficult to find others who think in such a manner.  However, I'd
rather be alone with my analytical thoughts than be bombarded with
sports statistics, celebrity gossip, and inebriation stories from
others.  So, our search continues!  :)

> Although you made it clear from your remark below that you were not
> going to comment on any of the ideas that I expressed above, I want to
> make it clear that I would like to have your comments on them. I have
> always taken the view that when a person A makes a complete response to
> a person B (who has initiated the topic of discussion), then it is the
> responsibility of person B to respond to everything that is in that
> response. Such responses need not be detailed, but can simply be of the
> forms:
>
> 1) I agree (better if including some reasons or paraphrase - which also
> shows understanding of the ideas with which one is in agreement).
> 2) I disagree (but better with reasons for disagreement or else it is
> kind of useless).
> 3) I don't wish to comment for the following reasons: (I haven't thought
> enough about it; I haven't the time required to fully address it right
> now; etc.)
> 4) I can't comment because I don't fully understand what you have
> written for the following reasons:
>
> Under the circumstances described above, when person B does not comment
> in such a manner, then I view it as somewhat discourteous, at the least.
> Part of the reason for this is that without a response, person A is left
> not even knowing whether person A has read and understood hir remarks.
>
> Therefore, as in the last message, I respectfully request that you
> respond to the ideas expressed in the above text.

Understood.  I believe I have commented as you requested, above.

>>> Governements, of course, place no value in such thinking because it
>>> does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects.
>>>
>>
>> I am going to comment on your note above:
>>
>> "Governements, [sic] of course, place no value in such thinking
>> because it does not create complacent and obedient citizen/subjects"
>>
>> By this statement it seems you are convinced that the majority of
>> government is motivated to encourage complacency and obedience.  This
>> seems like a pessimistic view of government motivation.  However, I feel
>> that you have far more experiences than I to draw a conclusion from, and
>> that your conclusion is likely to be more accurate.  Do you have any
>> current examples of this?  Otherwise, I assume your feelings are based
>> on philosophical works describing the relationship between government
>> and subjects -- works that I am not very familiar with.
>
>
> Having as their major motivation "to encourage complacency and
> obedience" in citizens would, in my view, actually be an optimistic view
> of the motivation of politicians, government employees and others who
> voluntarily aid, abet or trade with government. Rather all my experience
> and reading has convinced me, with increasing strength as time
> progresses, that the vast majority of politicians, in particular, are
> the most devious charlatans that one can imagine.

How depressing!  But, if one is not content with a situation, one
must work to change it.  It seems we both agree on my last statement.

> As for examples of government encouraging complacency and obedience if
> that is what you are asking for, you need look no further than to
> examine the methods of the government educational, regulatory and legal
> systems. As for examples of the "devious charlatans" mentioned above, I
> suggest that you examine the still current full set of events leading
> to, culminating with and following after the calamitous events of 9/11
> and the even more calamitous events relating to the war in Iraq. For a
> more recent current event, examine the sequences of events leading to,
> culminating in and following from the subprime mortgage situation the
> effects of which are still being felt in the US and will likely get far
> worse before they get better, at least partly because of their ongoing
> mishandling.

From my limited knowledge of the above events, encouragement of
complacency and obedience does seem possible.  I require more
research into these topics to form an opinion for, or against, your
assertion about politicians above.

> [There have been several well-written articles at Mises.org about
> or including the subprime mortgage fiasco from the past year.
> http://www.mises.org/story/2544  Recession 2007
> http://www.mises.org/story/2600 The Subprime Mortgage "Crisis" Will Fix Itself
> http://www.mises.org/story/2716 The Shaking Tower of Debt
> http://www.mises.org/story/2772 The Federal Home Loan Banks to the Rescue!
> http://www.mises.org/story/2787 Does the Current Financial Crisis
> Vindicate the Economics of Hyman Minksy?
> http://www.mises.org/story/2810 Manipulating the Interest Rate: A
> Recipe for Disaster
>
> Don't pass up the first one above, written last April, which is
> clearly prophetic of the current financial market lows. All of them
> show how government has promoted the situation and then made it
> worse. **Kitty]

Kitty, thank you for the links at mises.org above.  These links you
provided seem likely to provide some of the research I require to
form an opinion, as I noted to Paul above.  It will take me some time
to read and assimilate these articles.

> But, yes, even without these examples, the economic theory of human
> reality as detailed by the proponents of what is called the "Austrian
> School" (praxeology - the  study of human action/conduct)  makes clear
> that this must necessarily be one of the effects of all governments.

It is these kinds of theory, rooted in literature such as
the "Austrian School" you describe, with which I am not familiar
with, and I had assumed you draw some of your opinion from.  From our
past conversations, it seems that I have an enormous amount of
reading to catch up on ;)

> The above having been said, as with anything there can be exceptions.
> Even though the current political system makes it highly unlikely that
> anyone who is totally forthright is ever likely to get nominated and
> elected to a major political office, nevertheless from time to time
> (moreso in the past) some well-meaning and honest person will get
> elected (but never if his well-meaningness does not coincide with some
> generally harmful reigning paradigm). This is even true for Congressman
> Ron Paul who is libertarian in many ways, but nevertheless supports
> closed US borders. ("Physically secure our borders and coastlines."
> http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/border-security-and-immigration-reform/ )

I watched a 2-hour democratic debate a few weeks ago.  I believe it
was the one just prior to the New Hampshire primary.  I was
disappointed with Ron Paul.  It seems that his heart is in the right
place, but he is misunderstood by others, and his communications are
not tailored to the audience.  I recall that he repeatedly pointed to
the war in Iraq as the cause of many of our countries current
problems.  I don't remember specifics, but I recollect that he even
pointed to problems that didn't seem to be much related to our
presence in Iraq.  When he did this, it seems that the audience, and
the other candidates, mostly dismissed his assertions, and that at
some points his assertions seemed more like ranting.

>> I question this because I would guess that at least a small number of
>> people in government are motivated to find the "best way", which
>> would involve critical and analytical thinking.  Therefore, these people
>> would encourage critical and analytical thinking and not seek to create
>> an obedient population.  This would leave the situation not as
>> disheartening as you describe.
>
>
> If such exceptions, the possibility of which I noted above, were truly
> interested in the "best way" (by some socially global definition of
> best), then you would be correct. However, this occurrence has been even
> rarer in the past (and I am convinced is actually impossible today)
> because the vast majority of even well-intentioned people (as with all
> people) have never learned to think critically and to look for solutions
> outside of the reigning paradigm of understanding in the area of their
> concern. (It's even worse in that the vast majority of people don't
> realize that any other understandings of the relevant data even exist!)

I agree with your statement in parenthesis above, and its preceding
statement regarding the lack of critical thinking.  Regarding your
assertion of the impossibility of such a person to be elected to
office, I (optimistically) disagree.  In fact, I have considered
doing so myself, at some point in the distant future.  I feel that
the possibility of me becoming elected to an influential office is
dependent on my understanding of the reigning paradigms.
Additionally (and perhaps gloomily), my limited analysis leads me to
believe that in order for me to have a good chance of being elected
to such an office, I must do so with some sort of misrepresentation
of my own views.  That is, I would assert that I adhere to the
reigning philosophies that are popular and will get me elected, then
once in office, I can proceed to apply critical analysis to find
better solutions to problems.  At the very moment that I write these
words, I come to the conclusion that perhaps this is why politicians
are labeled so dishonest by the (seeming) majority of people.  It is
partly because politicians are required to mislead the public to some
extent, because, in general, the public has a very limited
understanding of the issues and possible solutions.  A politician
must speak the language that the people understand in order to get
elected.  There is at least one other problem:  the limited
communication that takes place between the public and politicians in
regard to possible solutions.  So, rather than risk being labeled
an "outcast" or "radical" by asserting critical, out-of-the-box
thinking, you simply speak the party-line and get elected. THEN, you
have until your re-election to get critical, get creative, and get
results to prove what you are doing is positive.

> So you can see that from my pov there is no realistic way that I can be
> anything else than disheartened by the current social world in which I
> live. The only way that I have been able to keep my cheerfulness, hope
> and, yes, sanity is by first, realizing that there must be a full
> solution to this mess, second, putting a lifetime of effort and
> thought into finding one, and third, presenting my discoveries
> and seeking to find others who understand my solution, agree with it and
> have the time and ability to promote it.

I identify with your distillation of (one of) your goals above, and
share similar goals.  This is likely a reason why we tend to agree as
much as we have in our discussions thus far.  In fact, one of my
goals is quite similar:  to find and build relationships with others
who share the same values of self-responsibility, critical thinking,
self-improvement, and human advancement (among others).  However,
similar to your frustrations, I have found it difficult to find such
people.  In the context of my goals (which I will likely describe in
a future post in greater detail), your goals stated above are very
similarly related.  The social framework that you have constructed
can conveniently be used by a great many people as a reference on how
to govern ones interactions with others.  I feel that I am fortunate
to have found your works, because honestly, it relieves me from the
task of creating such a thoughtfully-constructed framework (but does
not relieve me from the task analyzing it to find possible
improvements).  Once I find myself in agreement with your framework,
I can internalize it and promote it to others.  I am motivated to do
this because of the fact that I am drawn to such ideas.  If it is
true that your (and Kitty's) philosophies are similar to my own, and
I am (so far) in strong agreement with your philosophies, then it is
also possible that other people whom I am interested in interacting
with will also be interested in your framework.  So, to my benefit, I
can use your framework as a sort of "filtering" mechanism to find
other people who I am highly interested in interacting with, assuming
that those interested in your framework are highly likely to agree
with my philosophies and goals.  One of my personal goals is to build
a network of people who share my philosophies.  My goal of "human
advancement" mentioned above would be furthered if people with
philosophies similar to my own work together.  At least, that is my
opinion.  Again I will likely explain my goals, and the interaction I
just described, in a future post.

>>> [An excellent book that I have recommended before is "Science of
>>> Thinking" by Henry Hazlitt - listed with others at:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/2suxl2

The limited bit I have read about this author does make me quite
interested.  It is a good thing that I keep a list of books I want to
read.  I will put this book on it.  Thank you for the
recommendation.

>>> This short article from comments in early MoreLife Yahoo post is
>>> given as a link from the Practice Index Outlook section for improving
>>> one's thinking while increasing vocabulary. Although this book has been
>>> out of print for many years, there are used copies available via
>>> Internet.  I first saw it among Paul's collection and then acquired a
>>> copy via the Internet for a relative. (Unfortunately, that person has
>>> not demonstrated in recent communication with me that he makes use of
>>> Hazlitt's excellent ideas, and since the disconnection between us began
>>> even before I gave him the copy, he has likely never even opened it.)
**Kitty]

It is always a bit depressing when a person turns out to not have the
motivation to improve themselves as one once thought.  :(

I have not yet read what you are referencing, but I wonder if it
involves the use of a thesaurus, which I use very frequently, even
numerous times while writing this response.  One must practice to
improve.  Also in the past, so that I am better capable of reading
intellectual literature, I found an English word-list consisting of
words that are often used in intellectual works.  I used this list to
commit 331 words to memory previously unknown to me.  If anyone is
interested in doing this, flashcards, with both the dictionary
definition and an example sentence using the word, are an excellent
way to learn new words.  I simply spent 10-15 minutes at a time
repeating and thinking about the words while trying to recall them
from memory.  I did this 10-15 minute exercise as often as I had
time:  often while eating a meal or while on a walk.  I believe I
learned these 331 words reasonably well in about 4 weeks (I'm not
confident this time-estimate is perfectly accurate).

>>>> I guess the reason I had not made this seemingly obvious
>>>> connection is that I am very doubtful that the vast majority of
>>>> people can change their own lifestyle habits.
>>>
>>> This is a highly negative approach on 3 counts, at least:
>>>
>>> 1) Every human *can* (is physically capable) of changing any of hir
>>
>> [Note above correction of previous error on my part. Third person
>> plural pronoun "their" changed to singular neutral "hir". --Paul]
>>
>>> habits. (Note the use of the word "own" in your sentence above is
>>> redundant, since it is certain that one human cannot directly change
>>> the habits of another - without the use of force, that is.)
>>
>> When considering using the word "own" in my statement above I
>> had considered its possible redundancy.  However, I had decided to use
>> it because I felt that people usually would not change their habits
>> without the influence of someone else.  Perhaps this would have been
>> clearer if I had said "...majority of people can change their habits
>> on their own".
>
> Yes! And it was also my error that I did not think about that meaning of
> such phrasings as "their own lifestyle habits". The reason I did not
> think of that was because I long ago realized the such usage was
> incorrect and carefully made sure that I did not use "own" that way. The
> meaning that you intended your usage of "own" to convey did not make its
> use redundant at all as shown by your usage of it in your corrected
> sentence. This is one more example of how word usages can have multiple
> and very different meanings unless they are more clearly stated.
>
> In addition, I would have been much more inclined to agree, at least in
> part, with this newly stated meaning of your sentence, since it is true
> that without *some* input (if only from the passage of time) change will
> not take place.
>
>>   Before replying to this comment, to avoid
>> repetition, please see my comment after the completion of your list of
>> (3) below, as I continue my discussion related to this section.
>>
>>> 2) Without even trying to effect such change, it is premature and
>>> certainly scientifically incorrect to conclude that the vast majority
>>> of people will not ever change their lifestyle habits.
>>
>>> 3) Even if it is very difficult for humans to change their lifestyle
>>> habits and the end result is that the vast majority of them will not
>>> ever change their lifestyle habits, this does not imply that any given
>>> human will not. Therefore, one should always try to help each human do
>>> so, particularly since those who will change for the better are in an
>>> important sense more "worthy" than those who will not (ie they will be
>>> more capable of and likely to return value which enhances your life).
>>
>> After reading your 3 statements above I realized that perhaps my
>> disheartened comment was an unnecessary lapse of frustration or despair.
>> After reading your criticisms I realized that I have changed my
>> lifestyle habits without the input of others.  It seems contradictory
>> for me to feel that others can not change their lifestyle habits without
>> the input of others, while I have done exactly that.
>
> I find it very heartening to find another person who has such ability to
> absorb criticism (even when clearly well-intentioned to be
> constructive), understand it and turn it into a source of personal
> change and strength.

I am glad to find that you appreciate my ability to absorb
criticism.  I feel this ability it to be absolutely critical to my
goal of self-improvement (one of my goals mentioned above), so I take
great care to be receptive to criticism.  I feel that in order to
find the truth about any given situation or reality, one must always
keep in mind that the opinion you currently hold could be false.
However, I often poorly receive, or even intensely object, to
derogatory or malicious comments.  I think as you or Kitty mentioned
in another post regarding eating disorders (I don't recall which
author, post, or topic), that derogatory comments are often not
productive to changing behavior.  Because of my intimate
understanding of the negative impact of such negative criticism (I
was often made fun of when I was young), I make it a high-priority to
not make derogatory comments to others.  I am pleased to find that we
seem to be in agreement on this topic as well.

>> Most of my life I
>> had been overweight (5'9" and 210lbs as of May 2007 --
>> currently 165 lbs).  Without the criticism or encouragement of others
>> (as I recall) I researched a number of dietary topics, including
>> trans-fats, type 2 diabetes, and weight loss.  As I began accumulating
>> knowledge I realized that I largely had the ability to decide my level
>> of health.  I also realized that my level of health was directly
>> proportionate to the food and drink I consumed.
>
> Although I would not have recommended such a high rate of weight loss
> (my recommendation is about 2 lbs per month maximum), at your age (still
> very adaptable physiology) it has likely been of no direct harm to your
> system. Since you must have been on a very low calorie intake to achieve
> such rate of weight loss (almost 2 lbs/week), it would be interesting to
> have you describe on a separate post how you achieved this, particularly
> how you dealt with the hunger and energy loss, which most people incur.

I do plan to author a detailed post related to my weight-loss
projects, as I have mentioned to you in a private email.  However,
your comment above has been of great interest to me lately.  More
specifically, I am concerned about what you meant by "direct harm to
[my] system".  In admittedly not-so-well-researched articles on
weight loss I found on the internet, I have found that 2lbs/week is
the maximum healthy rate of weight loss.  I am unfamiliar with any
harm I might do to my system while losing weight at this rate, and of
course, would like to avoid permanent/irreversible harm, even if I
must be less ambitious with my weight loss goals.

You have noted in another post (I apologize; again I don't recall
which one) your concern that weight loss should be gradual, and that
it is a "lifestyle change".  If by "direct harm" above you mean the
possible re-gain of my weight lost, and possible harm from it, I feel
confident that this is unlikely to occur.  I understand that
achieving a new, normal weight requires eating and exercise habits
that must be maintained for life.  I feel that I have made these
changes successfully, and can maintain them for life.  I am currently
beginning a new program of weight loss, as I have also mentioned to
you in private email.  As before, my goal is 2lbs per week of weight
loss.

However, if you don't mind taking the time, I am very interested in,
and would greatly appreciate, hearing your concerns about the
negative health-effects of such "rapid" weight loss.  I have very
recently begun my new bout of weight loss, so I would like to change
my 2lb/week goal sooner rather than later if I am convinced that it
will have irreversible negative effects.

For some background information regarding my ability to maintain
habits required to live with my new weight, once I achieved a weight
of 165lbs I stopped tracking my calorie intake for 2 months to see if
I could maintain this weight while applying my new habits.  I found
that I had in fact lost weight while applying my newly-adopted
habits.  My weight loss was at a much slower rate, and in fact it was
closer to your advised 2lbs/month.  That is, after 2 months of not
tracking calories and exercise, I my weight had changed from 165lbs
to 161lbs.

>>  When I reflect on this
>> experience I feel that it is my desire for knowledge that led me to
>> healthier habits, and not the input of others.
>
> Plus your learned habits and abilities to think for, and make decisions
> by yourself. (Learning is a self-generated result from both genetic and
> environmental inputs.) However, if your parents, grandparents did/do not
> exhibit those traits, then the genetic contribution is not likely the
> major one.

I do have a grandparent that exhibits these traits.  This makes me
feel the need to re-assess my assumptions on this topic.

>> This leads me to another idea that Paul recently posted on:
>> self-responsibility and randomness (message 1726).  Paul makes a
>> thoughtful argument to me in message 1726:
>>
>> "*If* you really believe that thought [that I am as intelligent,
>> thoughtful, and self-responsible as I am because of *luck*] then its
>> logical flip-side is that anyone else who is not thinking rationally or
>> being self-responsible is that way entirely as a result of being
>> *unlucky* and *not* getting the right genes and environmental input to
>> be intelligent, thoughtful and self-responsible."
>>
>> In order for me to re-evaluate my position on this topic, I must first
>> consider the question:  "Do I desire knowledge by choice or by genes
>> and environmental input?"  I must then ask:  "Is it entirely by
>> one or the other?"  Even after I find answers to these questions, I
>> must ask:  "Even if I have the desire to seek knowledge solely
>> because of genes and environmental input, do my decisions and actions
>> entirely come from the same, or do I have a choice in the matter?"
>> These are difficult questions I am still seeking answers to.
>
> Since you have done an excellent job of formulating the questions for
> yourself, I won't try to answer them any more than I have already done
> so in other parts of this thread. If you have any specific questions,
> thoughts or contrary ideas as you continue to mentally seek answers that
> adequately satisfy you, then definitely bring them forth here. The only
> point that I will make is that you are not likely to find a *fully*
> satisfactory solution. You may need to be satisfied for now with one
> that is merely adequate and enables you to continue with it as a basis,
> always cognizant that new evidence will either strengthen, weaken or
> even change that solution. However, remember that this "tentative
> acceptance" is the general approach of a true free-thinker to almost
> *any* proposition about reality.

I am in agreement regarding your idea of "tentative acceptance".  I
commented on my related philosophy of being accepting of criticism
above.  In fact, I prefer your terser phrase:  "tentative
acceptance".  I feel that I go about my life with varying levels of
confidence in my "tentative acceptances" related to various
propositions about reality.

>>> [A short item has been included in the Outlook section of MoreLife for
>>> over 3 years on reprogramming emotions, which is also applicable to
>>> behaviors - http://tinyurl.com/2kg2rg
>>>
>>> And a search of the group's archives on "habits" and/or "emotions" and
>>> "reprogram" will show several messages with this subject discussed.
>>> Others can be found using "change" instead of "reprogram". **Kitty]
>>
>> I am also interested in the idea of "reprogramming" oneself, as
>> might be apparent.  I am in the middle of a book called "Looking for
>> Spinoza" that discusses the biological and physiological processes
>> of programming and reprogramming.  I find it quite interesting.
>> Editorial reviews listed on amazon.com, as well as a link to purchase
>> the book, can be found here:  http://tinyurl.com/2zdjyu
>
> This definitely appears to be a very interesting book and I will get a
> copy for myself and Kitty (she reads books far more and faster than I,
> so will likely read it first). I remember reading reviews of his first
> book _Descartes' Error_ and thinking that it sounded very good, but I was
> not into buying more books at that time. I may now purchase that book also.

I think you will both enjoy it.

>>>> I have watched a
>>>> number of my family members struggle with bad health from smoking,
>>>> atrocious eating habits, and lack of exercise.  I have had a great
>>>> many discussions with them using different methods, including the
>>>> socratic method, questioning, asking them about their desired
>>>> outcomes from habit changes for the better, and even criticism.  My
>>>> well-intentioned discussions have generally met with resistance, and
>>>> even anger (met with anger most notably when applying criticism, by
>>>> the way).  So, as you might imagine, or have likely experienced
>>>> yourself, this resistance is discouraging.
>>>>
>>> Yes, it is discouraging, but I think it is also very typical. Though it
>>> was hard to give up on, I have come to the conclusion that a genetic
>>> connection is not an attribute that implies any of the essential
>>> character attributes that I seek to find in others, and without which
>>> I cannot call a person a friend.
>>
>> I agree strongly with your statement above regarding genetic
>> connections, attributes, and the designation of a friend.  In my
>> experience this idea seems quite unpopular, as genetic relationships are
>> usually considered to be the closest and most important.  Yet, we are
>> encouraged by those who are genetically connected to us to seek a
>> life-partner who holds view similar to our own.  Does this not imply we
>> should avoid spending a large portion of our time with people we
>> fundamentally disagree with?  This then leads to the conclusion:  you
>> should avoid spending time with people you ultimately disagree with,
>> regardless of genetic connection.
>
> You make an excellent point (re life-partner choice encouragement) that
> I had not thought of before.

When you state that you have not thought of this point I've made
above, I feel an increase in confidence in my ability to make
creative and logically sound arguments.  I hope to participate in
critical, analytical arguments for the remainder of my life, so it is
very important to me that I develop the reasoning skill to be capable
of participating.  However, I have not had the opportunity to receive
feedback about my arguments from people who I feel are qualified to
do so.  After reading your replies to my comments, and parts of your
works on morelife and selfSIP, I find you to be a very thoughtful
author who attempts to take many perspectives into consideration when
defining your position.  I am delighted to find that I am capable of
constructing a point that you have not thought of.  I find your
appreciation of the point I made above to be evidence that I am
capable of making such arguments to well-read intellectuals such as
yourself.  Thank you for sharing your candid opinion on the quality
of my argument.

> My mother always used an old English saying
> "blood is thicker than water" to mean that genetic relationships were
> and should be always stronger in loyalty than other relationships.  Her
> background made loyalty, at all costs and without reserve, a most
> important virtue. I think loyalty is also an important virtue, but only in
> the context of the overall worthiness of the one requiring the loyalty,
> as judged by the one of whom the loyalty is being asked and from whom it
> is being given.

I have heard of this saying:  "blood is thicker than water".
However, I agree with your assertion that:

"... loyalty is also an important virtue, but only in the context of the
overall worthiness of the one requiring the loyalty, as judged by the
one of whom the loyalty is being asked and from whom it is being
given."

> And I fully agree with the logic of your last conclusion. My only
> rhetorical question is: Why can't others, particularly one's relatives,
> see that?

Yes, I ask the same rhetorical question.  And even further:  If one's
relatives value one's presence and loyalty so much, why aren't they
more motivated to earn said presence and loyalty by finding a way to
reconcile differences in philosophies?  That is, if my relatives
tried harder to understand what I believe, they might agree.  And if
they did, we could enjoy having the company of one another, even more
so, because they are relatives and we share more in common than
philosophies (i.e. experiences).

> Actually, I think the answer to the seeming contradiction (at least the
> justification of others) is the old taboo against marriage (and
> particularly children) between genetic relatives. So whether or not the
> person that you find has views similar to your own is actually not the
> driving force but rather a modern justification of this old but still
> fully enforced taboo. In earlier times and still in many other cultures,
> no consideration is given to any need that those being mated for life
> should have anything in common at all. Each was/is treated as being
> fully able to adapt to become compatible with the other, generally by
> the woman changing to the thinking and habits of the man as required by
> him, since she was/is the subservient one in the marriage in these
> situations.

This is an interesting idea I have not heard of.  It seems you are
saying that historically, people have never married out of preference
but out of requirement to avoid the taboo of marrying a relative
(incest), with little regard paid to similarity of philosophies.
This does make sense.  And now, since we have more economic,
informational, and geographic freedom, we can be more selective in
our choice of partners.

> [Early last year there was renewed publicity about a German couple
> who have lived together for six years and have 4 children and have
> been in knowing defiance of a German law since they began a sexual
> relationship. It is a crime in Germany for sexual intercourse to take
> place between close relatives and the couple are full siblings who
> were adopted separately and never knew each other until 7 years ago,
> at the same time becoming aware of their biological relationship. The
> government has removed 3 of the 4 children from the couple but not
> all facts are clear from reports, such as whether public assistance
> (tax money) is received by the couple.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6424937.stm
> While this couple is challenging the law and has (per the article)
> some support of others, it appears that the children are the ones
> most victimized by the German government. Another thought is that
> this couple may be viewed as being irresponsible for not
> realistically considering what the government would do regarding
> children if any were born, knowing that this law existed,
> particularly since they could easily have avoided any problems by
> moving to another country. One of the reports last year noted that
> incest is not a criminal offense in Netherlands, Luxembourg,
> Belgium, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Argentina or Brazil.
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/germany/article/0,,2022008,00.html
> I've not found any more recent reports as to the outcome of the
> government ruling on this case.
>
> A similar but different case arising out of unknown birth
> identification occurred recently in the UK. There has been publicity
> in the UK about a couple who met and then married only to find out
> soon afterwards that they were twins, adopted separately.
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7182817.stm Parted-at-birth
> twins "married" and also
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/11/ntwins111.xml
> What is not clear in this
> situation as reported is whether the couple applied for annulment or
> whether this was done over their protests. Also, no information is
> provided about their identity - quite different from the couple in
> Germany. **Kitty]

This is interesting, Kitty.  This reminds me of the impression I have
that governments sometimes act to enforce laws that haven't been
critically evaluated.  The application of some laws actually brings
about purely negative consequences (i.e. the removal of children from
families, regardless of family problems).  Rhetorical question:
shouldn't we have critical analysts in government?  If we do, perhaps
we should have more?

>>> Still, as a result of being a sperm
>>> donor in the early 1980s, I have maybe 20 children with whom I have no
>>> connection whatsoever, nor it seems any means to connect, but with
>>> respect to whom I still have some hope (only very weakly and
>>> non-essentially to my lifetime happiness) of finding a kindred spirit.

This thought makes me curious about the correlation between parent
and offspring cognitive abilities.  If I were in your situation I
think I would also be at least slightly interested in knowing about
them, and would be curious to see if we have anything in common.

>>> My answer is therefore, to constantly, frankly, directly and publicly
>>> state my most cherished and important personal thoughts and ideas, so
>>> that others reading them will know whether or not they match,
>>> complement and/or harmonize with their own ideas, and will therefore
>>> be attracted to read more about me and make a connection (as you did
>>> and as a very few others, who I now call friend, have done). In
>>> effect, making your essential personal character and convictions
>>> publicly very clear becomes a method to attract those people with whom
>>> you are compatible and on whom you can have some positive effect (and
>>> they on you) and to filter out the others who will be less likely to
>>> benefit your life.
>>>
>>> --Paul
>>
>> Well spoken here, Paul.  I find your statement above a strong argument
>> for being open about my views.  I have stated previously that I have
>> been reluctant to share my views with others, for reasons I will try to
>> elaborate on in another post.  However, if I am to attract people into
>> my life who share thoughts similar to my own, it makes great sense to
>> communicate those thoughts publicly, so others may view and evaluate
>> them.  The more people who are exposed to my views, the better my
>> chances of finding someone who agrees with them.  They can then decide
>> if I would be a positive part of their life -- and they a positive
>> part of mine.
>
> Again it is very heartening to read of your immediate understanding and
> implementation into your own life actions of what I consider to be my
> important ideas. It is truly unfortunate that so few others appear to
> find this idea and practice acceptable (for any number of quite
> extraneous "reasons"), even though no one can refute the logic involved.

I agree with your description of this situation as "unfortunate".
Also, I think it is a shame that so few people value reason as highly
as I feel they should.  If, as you say above, they can not refute the
logic of your arguments, why wouldn't they implement the ideas
(rhetorical question)?  It seems like a (perhaps harmful)
contradiction to believe something to be rationally sound, and then
decide not to do it.  In my adoption of ideas I try to purge myself
of these types of contradictions.

>>> [I too have found that biological connection is no guarantee of
>>> philosophical agreement on fundamental issues. And if I am truly at
>>> odds with someone (biologically related or not) on the most basic of
>>> principles - and they have no desire to discuss the subject(s) to see
>>> if agreement can actually be reached, or if exchanges by them are not
>>> based on logic - then there is no way I will spend any of my precious
>>> time engaged in an activity including them that brings me no immediate
>>> benefit. For those where such philosophical opposition does not exist -
>>> or has not shown itself to exist - I am willing to invest my time for
>>> the strong - or possible, respectively - likelihood of future benefit
>>> to me (not as much time for those I am not sure of). And for those
>>> individuals who equate benefit only with money, I try to make it clear
>>> that benefit is anything that adds to my lifetime happiness. (But since
>>> such "clarity" of received information, like harm, is only evaluatable
>>> by the receiver, success is not guaranteed.)
>>>
>>> So, the persons with whom I am in closest agreement are not
>>> biologically related to me at all - they are chosen friends. Among
>>> those people with whom I have had interactions in my lifetime, those to
>>> whom I am biologically related are among the ones with whom I am most
>>> philosophically opposed. **Kitty]
>>
>> Thank you for sharing this insight with me Kitty.  I am frustrated that
>> those to whom I am biologically related also tend to be among the ones
>> with whom I am most philosophically opposed.  As Paul stated earlier and
>> I agree with, these biological relationships are hard to give up on.  I
>> take solace in finding that you and Paul, whose philosophies I am
>> compelled to agree with, also have philosophical differences with those
>> you are biologically related to.  I see that I am not alone.
>
>
> They are particularly hard to give up on, precisely because an important
> part of any friendship is the bond of common experiences during time
> spent together. Since this has automatically occurred with many of one's
> relatives, some of the basis for friendship is already there. In
> addition, since one's character has *some* (non-zero) genetic component
> of input to its current result and one's relatives (particularly parents
> and siblings) definitely have some genes in common, from only chance
> alone, one is more likely to have traits of personal character in common
> with a relative than with an arbitrary person that one meets. Thus, both
> of these reasons together imply that it is reasonable that one's
> relatives (at least some) will become one's friends. In my view there
> are two things that work against this happening.

I had not considered that it was shared experience that makes one
feel close to another, especially family.  After contemplating this
idea, I find it to be true, at least with my feeling of closeness
with one of my brothers.  We have a great many shared experiences
from our childhood and adolescence.  Perhaps related to this, we
often finish one another's sentences with not only the same thought,
but the exact wording.  Or, we will respond to an assertion of a
third person with the exact same words, at the exact same time.  I
wonder if this "identical-response" may partly come from shared
experiences.

> The first is embodied by that old phrase "familiarity breeds contempt".
> In the context here, this means that one's relatives have seen and
> remembered mostly the negatives about you, particularly from times in
> the past when you were immature and certainly not as you currently are.
> Also because *they know you*, it cannot be true that you have anything new
> to say or anything radical that you say can possibly be true, whereas
> if they hear the same from another source (particularly if it is in
> writing) they may give it some credence.

I had not considered that reading thoughts in writing would be much
different than hearing the same thought.  Perhaps this is why I spend
so much of my time reading!  I also find that anything "radical" I
say is quickly dismissed by family members.  They seem to quickly put
me into a category of "health-fanatic" or "nerd" and carry on their
merry life, without seriously considering what I'm trying to say.
This makes me consider continuing the practice of casually sharing
research article abstracts via email with those related to me, so
they might see my "health-fanatic" assertions in the writing of
others.

> Of course, this downplaying
> the importance of ideas from anyone known personally is merely a
> comment on the essential lack of self-esteem of the person involved,
> but that is a topic for another discussion.

Indeed, I have comments on this "lack of self-esteem" topic also.
However, I currently have more posts to reply to than I have time in
the immediate future.  We'll get there ��.

[Moderator Note: the intended character at the end of the previous sentence is
unknown. --Paul]

> The second is the fact that whereas in earlier times the possibility of
> finding friends outside the family was very limited and so one simply
> put up with the best that family relationships could offer, today there
> are many ways to seek out and find people who are more compatible with
> one's most cherished ideas and convictions.

Yes, I am most appreciative of the existence of the internet!

> [Yes, Steve, I agree that certain longstanding relationships,
> including the closest biological ones, are difficult to "give up on".
> I have been and, to some extent, still am in that situation with one
> of them. There will be more on that separately in the future - and it
> has a great bearing on the subject of responsibility that we have
> been discussing. **Kitty]

I look forward to hearing more about your experiences, Kitty.

> > ---
> > Steve
> >
>
> Once again thanks muchly for your response, which I have greatly
> enjoyed reading and responding to.

I am glad to hear that you have enjoyed our conversations, as I also
enjoy them greatly.

> --Paul
>

---
Steve

--- In morelife@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Floyd Jr" <fallaxus@...>
wrote:
>
> [Moderator note:
>
> For some reason this reply from Steve came with certain special
> characters replaced by some unknown code characters. Since this was
> not the case with Steve's previous replies, this suggests that he
> used a different method of composition this time - one which is not
> fully compatible with the simple ASCII text that Yahoo and all email
> can use. In spite of applying all reasonable character code
> translations that our system provides to Kitty's email receipt from
> Yahoo of the original message I was unable to get these translated
> into meaningful characters.
>
> While the intention of most of the characters (double quote marks
> and apostrophes) is clear and I have changed them accordingly, the
> intended meaning for two of them is not clear and for those I have
> left the original and noted that what it is intended to be is unknown
> (at least not by me and Kitty from the text).
>
> Steve,
> Now that I think about it some more, a similar thing happened
> before with another individual who was taking the message and placing
> it into a MSWord document to work on his reply before copy/pasting it
> back. If that is what you are doing (or something similar) then
> please do not do so in future or this problem will continue (or if
> you choose to continue then carefully read your text *after* placing
> it in the Yahoo or email reply box to find and fix any untranslated
> special characters). Since it is hard to compose a long reply and
> save it carefully while doing so, by using only the silly little
> reply window supplied by Yahoo groups, I can understand why you want
> to work on it elsewhere (I do the same thing myself, but by a
> different method which avoids character set problems). In my
> experience, the best way to reply to a long Yahoo message is by
> either doing a reply to the email copy of that message, or
> copy/pasting the message from the Yahoo group into a draft email to
> which you then do a reply before entering your comments. In each of
> these cases however, it is far more advantageous, in terms of space
> on the screen for text, if you are using an email reader on your
> computer rather than a webmail system such as provided by Yahoo for
> your email address there.


In fact, this was what I had done.  I had opened the "reply" message
window in morelife Yahoo, copied the text in the box, and pasted it
into a MSWord document.  There, I added my comments where
appropriate.  Once I was finished, I copied the entire text back into
the reply box in morelife Yahoo.  I have not tried your draft-email
idea.  I will try this for my next reply.  I apologize for the
character trouble.  I have been posting my last few previous messages
using the MSWord method I described above and have had no problems
until this last post.  Perhaps the length of the message had
something to do with it?  This may be unlikely, but I was marvelling
that our combined comments on the message of my most recent reply is
near 9,000 words.

> In addition to the special character problems, there were "hard
> returns" at the end of all lines which disabled the normal wrapping
> in view mode of lines that are slightly longer than the Yahoo box
> width. Such lack of wrapping makes the messages very difficult to
> read and I spent a great deal of editing time cleaning it all up. I
> think these hard returns were also a result of whatever non-standard
> composition method you used. --Paul]

Paul, I regret to hear that you had to spend a great deal of time in
formatting my reply, rather than simply being able to read its
contents.  Again, I apologize for this.  I will take greater care in
the future to improve the formatting of my messages.

[As I indicated above, if you find the MSWord method is most efficient for you,
you could still use it as long as you thoroughly check the text for untranslated
special characters *after* pasting into the reply box and doing a preview.
--Paul]

---
Steve