Those who are effective have little time to spend simply complaining. Since they generally have the money to do so - they resort to Lawsuits to redress grievances.
Lawsuits are the fangs and claws of today's species of apex 1%.
The "great masses of unwashed" non-geniuses are manipulated into whining, playing victim Ineffectively. They are "steered" toward fake community leaders with hidden agendas.
The answer to inequality by political means is a one-step-forward two-steps-backward deal with the devil.
Political parties seek to "own" underprivileged groups by promising things and making boogeymen scarecrows appear in the alternative camp.
ELITES on both sides have grudging contempt for the underclass while pretending to love them and have their best interests at heart.
This is where sociopath leadership shines. The charisma of "Great" religious and Political figures is legendary.
"He's no saint, but he's our hero."
I've lived 72 years from Truman to Trump and I've watched how this game is played.
When has it ever not been a choice between the "Lesser of two evils"?
When you choose - you get exactly this: evil.
Smiling, charming, empathetic sociopath evil beset on all sides by the other side.
We are chumps. Our only genuine choice is either Revolution (which fills the streets with blood) or dropping out and fending for ourselves.
We are those hominids at the start of Kubrick's 2001.
The bone of contention is grappled, gnawed and bludgeoning us to this very moment.
Posts by Terry
-
25The One Per Cent (1%) - Is it a Phenomenon of Nature itself? Is it Fair? Is it our enemy?
by Terry inopen discussion.
the rich and powerful vs the struggling poor.. the 1% we all hear about.... is it fair that a tiny minority has more and wins more often than the rest of us?____.
(let's make a survey).
-
-
Terry
-
25
The One Per Cent (1%) - Is it a Phenomenon of Nature itself? Is it Fair? Is it our enemy?
by Terry inopen discussion.
the rich and powerful vs the struggling poor.. the 1% we all hear about.... is it fair that a tiny minority has more and wins more often than the rest of us?____.
(let's make a survey).
-
-
Terry
Open Discussion
The Rich and Powerful VS the struggling poor.
The 1% we all hear about...
Is it FAIR that a tiny minority has more and wins more often than the rest of us?
____(Let's make a survey)
Humans are physically among the most vulnerable species and yet people
and human society is at the apex of the food chain.
Why?
Human ingenuity throughout history has produced discoveries and technologies
made by a tiny minority: (GENIUS minority) by which the rest (non-genius) have benefited.
___Brace yourself for a shocking fact statistic:
Only approximately 1% of the people in the world have an IQ of 135 or over.
Genius or near-genius IQ is considered to begin around 140 to 145. Less than 1/4 of 1 percent falls into this category. (Average I.Q. is 100).
Is College the answer?Note: Being formally educated is quite different from being a genius!
739 out of the total 2,473 billionaires in the world didn’t go to college.Genius is born and not made. Stop and take a deep breath.
What chance do the rest of us have?____
Genius is not FAIR in terms of the rest of the population.
It just "IS"what it IS.
Examples:
Michael Faraday
Faraday worked in a London bookshop, with no formal education.
And yet --
He was a genuine experimental genius and is considered one of the most influential scientists of all time for his experiments and discoveries regarding electricity and magnetism.
Faraday approached London's best scientist at the time, Humphrey Davies, and asked to work with him as an assistant. Davy kicked him out.
Faraday returned again and again until - well - you guessed it. He was given a chance.
The result?
Faraday invented the electric motor, the electric generator, the Bunsen burner, electrolysis and electroplating. He discovered electromagnetic induction; he discovered benzene;
he figured out the shape of magnetic fields, discovered metallic nano-particles
(thought to be the birth of nano-science) and something complicated about chlorine.
Basically, he was a natural born science machine.Year later, Humphrey Davy was asked what his greatest discovery had been.
He replied: "Michael Faraday!"
____
William Hershel was only educated as a cello player and organist.
He didn't own a telescope.
He had no training as an astronomer. And yet - ?
He taught himself to grind lenses and built a magnificent telescope and began studying the heavens. On his own, he discovered a tiny shift in the path of a teeny light in the sky. A new planet.
How odd!
He simply willed himself to succeed at astronomy.______
Srinivasa Ramanujan
An uneducated, poverty-stricken boy in India, Ramanujan was a real-life Good Will Hunting.
He taught himself math, and turned out to be one of the greatest math geniuses to come along in the last few centuries.
His parents gave him a math textbook on advanced trigonometry around age 11.
"Ya think yer so smart? Well, take this and don't come back until ..."
Ramanujan entered college at age 13 and flunked out. Yeah. FLUNKED.
You see, he was only interested in MATH. (Forget that other stuff.)
College would have hindered the boy! Conformity is the enemy of genius.He was busy inventing new theorems which he mailed off to various famous heads of Math departments around the world. They ignored him because - well -- this kid is a teenager.
Finally, Thomas Hardy at Cambridge invited him to come work at the University. Ramanujan refused. Today, his formulas have found uses in everything from string theory to crystallography.
Ramanujan died at age 32.
_____
GENIUS just isn’t fair. It just HAPPENS...and happens naturally.
A "freak of nature."
Sort of X-Men style weirdness - eh? Freaks of nature._____
The 1% may not be FAIR - but it is a fact of Nature itself
Go out in any schoolyard. Let the kids select who they want on their team as team mates.
Will it be fair?In Baseball, Football, Soccer, Basketball we insist that the BEST players be hired rather than the lesser talents. Is this FAIR??
Maybe not - but it is MOST EFFECTIVE to take advantage of it.
No one would argue that short players with fewer skills be put on the Celtics basketball team just to be "Fair".
Winning is the result that is sought. The ability to win is the paramount standard----not FAIRNESS.
Should we be angry at the nature of Nature that survival and competition is really all about (not equality but) achievement? Ability? Talent?Business is competition. Business is often a Zero Sum Game of "I win -You Lose."
UNFAIR competition is what galls all of us. But then, wouldn't you expect clever geniuses to seek every possible advantage? How about the Sociopath Genius? Eh?Fascination with predatory Capitalism may well be fascination with Nature itself disguised as a scourge.
Why should the Lion get to be the King of the Jungle?
Should the animals complain, riot, petition?
Actually ...Nature itself is a battleground of constant complaint, petition, struggle and survival by wit, talent, instinct, and natural insight.
Any collective (human or lesser beasts) clusters around WINNERS so the weak have a chance for survival.
What are "HEROES" anyway?
What are "CELEBRITIES" anyway?
Isn't this our animal instincts creeping into everyday life in a twisted expression of "ADMIRATION of THE WINNERS" as Apex 1%?_____
Everybody begins life at the starting line in a race to success.
Question: Should we HOLD BACK the swift, the talented, the genius?
Shouldn't we give a 'head start" to minorities, under-achievers, people of color, females, physically challenged, and different-gendered?
IT WOULD BE MORE FAIR - right?
Of course!BUT ...
DOES IT DO ANY GOOD as to "equality" of outcome?
I watched an interview with one of the Poker Geniuses of all time, Doyle Brunson.
He was asked how much "luck" there was in his game.
He smiled and replied, "None, luck is for suckers! It is a skill. The best players will---time after time--end up with the money. Look at the tournaments.
Everybody starts with the exact same amount of money. Within a day or two it is no coincidence the better players remain."
_____
Conclusion?
Making an enemy of the 1% is making an enemy of talent, an enemy of genius, and the producers of discovery, invention, and technological advancement.
Maybe ...just maybe ... tampering with Nature is a sign of good intention but a self-inflicted wound!
EFFECTIVE people always seem to win out over ineffective people.
Do I hear a loud “DUH!” ??WHAT'S YOUR OPINION?
Arguing “Fairness” may be a stupid argument.
Or - it may not. Should we refocus on changing something else instead?
Here's what I think.
I think Political Correctness is how the rest of us are gamed by those who would
disunite society for their own agenda.
If we are made to see the "other" side as our enemy - we are too emotional to get smart and be effective.
I believe our Political Systems have been gamed by sociopath geniuses and the corruption is down to the root. Lackeys get elected by an uniformed and manipulated electorate who keep believing the same old slogans, lies, promises, while being inflamed against some STRAW MAN enemy.
Politicians have NO solutions and even if they did - there is no functioning / non-corrupt conduit to deliver such solutions.
The Powerful are the 1% because Nature won't have it any other way.
We may as well get angry at circles for not having square edges.
WHAT DO YOU think? -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
Personally, I find the most important question to be answered by ancient Holy Books is this one:
What one thing taught in your Holy Book could not have been written unless it were inspired by God? What piece of information (actual fact) unavailable to humans in that time and place in history?
Without a clear example of supernatural knowledge present inn holy writ - one must conclude it was pure imagination. -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
Real things and real people are indifferent to our belief of their existence;
it is only imaginary things and people which are entirely dependent on human belief. -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
If God created "the best of all possible worlds" the fall of humanity is the best He can do.
A "god" who can't do better than this - a god who is driven toward a rescue scheme for flawed outcomes is perhaps not so different from humanity.
In fact, just exactly the sort of god we'd expect a human brain to concoct as an escape from oblivion in death. -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
"Do you ever think about the things you think about?"
From INHERIT THE WIND. -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
Like I said, these deconstructions are simply meant to put us in a "fresh" and novel spot
as a promontory where we're out of our comfort zone of "knowing" the off-the-rack
"knowledge" handed to us by our parents, religion, and experts.
Our World View can be an EXAMINED view rather than a 'received' view.
Words and Thinking are almost inextricably intertwined. We need to be extremely cautious about definitions, IMHO. -
11
The dangerous species: The True Believer
by Terry inthe age of enlightenment is worth a good look.
(the rise of reason, science, art, philosophy replacing superstition and 'belief.
")for millennia emperors and popes enforced compliance in our world.
-
-
Terry
Humility ain't what it used to be.
Except for Moses.
My grandmother spoke the word without the "h" sound. It was "umble."
Maybe it's a French thing. Eh? -
26
NOAH and his impossible struggle to refute Math Physics & Earth Science
by Terry inalice laughed: "there's no use trying," she said; "one can't believe impossible things.".
"i daresay you haven't had much practice," said the queen.
"when i was younger, i always did it for half an hour a day.
-
-
Terry
What did the animals coming off the ark eat for the months and months necessary to replenish the food supply?
That's a question I don't hear asked very often (if at all)? -
22
Simple Thought Experiment with a stunning premise!
by Terry inthought experimenttake the classic definitions of "god" and deconstruct it layer by layer by asking achingly simple questions.ready?
set?
go!_____god is (fill in the blank with the usual definitions).
-
-
Terry
I was hoping for a discussion of your ideas - all of you.
I'm not trying to say THIS IS CORRECT.
It is just a hypothetical exploration of "definition" rather than:
"The sound of one hand clapping"
By deconstructing our ideas we must break them down into the smallest parts, constituencies, essences. Aristotle : “the essence of a thing is what it is said to be in respect of itself”
All definitions of GOD rely on a post-Creation setting. The only way to deconstruct the essence of GOD is to take that one step back BEFORE creation. At that point,
Whatever GOD is - is in relation only to GOD.
The Thought Experiment seeks the Axiomatic GOD rather than the "historical" GOD of the written word post creation.
THINK of a number which does NOT exist. (Go ahead. I'll wait.)
Even if you possess infinite wisdom and freedom your knowledge and unfettered-ness
isn't sufficient to that task.
Why?
That's not how thinking and numbers works.
To understand ANYTHING we must first strip that object of every non-essential
possible and leaving only its essential nature.