Desperate Tactics

January 16, 2014 Leave a comment

smoking-acneI recently had a phone call with someone over something business related and in the course of the call the person I was speaking with attempted to utilize multiple manipulation tactics to achieve their goal. This person didn’t have leverage on me but felt that only I could get what they desired. I have had similar experiences in the past but what made this one particularly interesting was that the following night of the call I had a dream that put desperate tactics into clarity.

In this dream I had taken up temporarily smoking (I don’t smoke) and I was in a movie theater. On me I had an almost finished cigarette that for some reason I was holding on to. Sitting in the row in front of me was a woman who upon looking at me and seeing the cigarette made it her sole mission to get me thrown out of theater. She left to look for management and when she did I discarded the cigarette and moved to the other side of the theater thinking that maybe I simply smelled like smoke and this woman would be satisfied with my move, she was not.

After being pulled from the theater I then began the task of trying to convince management that I didn’t actually smoke in the theater. However, it was the mission of the theater management not to believe me. I tried everything from begging to aggression, none of which worked. The entire time the thought that kept passing through my head was, “why did I ever start smoking in the first place?”

The utilization of desperate tactics is a method of trying to get something you currently don’t have, this much is obvious. However, desperation does not necessarily cause people to use desperate tactics. The use of desperate tactics is often the result of desperation and a personal mistake. When we put ourselves into desperation because of choices we make as opposed to the choices the universe makes for us we will be more likely to do things that are evil or underhanded. Why do we do this? Maybe we believe since we made the choices to get into the mess we are in that we can make choices via bad tactics to get out, unfortunately, this is rarely the case.

If you find yourself starting to utilize desperate tactics to get something you want, the next question should not be ‘what tactic you should I employ next’? but instead ‘what can I change in my life to avoid situations like this in the future’?

Seeking Truth

In seeking truth I have interviewed different religious converts from various religions and I always found a familiar sequence of events. They would all proclaim that their lives were saved by the religion they were now a part of and then they would give a story about their previous “dark days”. Further, they would proclaim that their faith was validated by their internal change.

I quickly realized that humans long for change and it wasn’t the religion that changed these people, it was themselves. The religion they converted to or in many cases became stronger advocates of were usually a result of either environmental context, or situation context. These people knew their lives were terrible and they wanted to change, religion was just their excuse.

I wish I could say that convert from religion X was better than religious Y but the cold hard reality is that strong believers in every religion talk with the same gleam in their eye as any other convert. It is impossible to be both spiritually objective and religiously objective.

It might sound as if I am patronizing religious converts or that it is unfair of me to speak of “faith” in such a way. However, the unchecked faith and gleam in the eye has lead to literally the death of millions in religious wars based on the fallacious idea that if you 100% believe in something than your truth must be the right truth.

You’re Special (not)

downloadIt is always amazing whenever I walk into a casino to see all the people pouring their money into slot machines. When I was younger I used to volunteer at a bingo hall for my boxing club and I remember all the superstitions people had regarding how they could win. The most interesting event that occurred while I was working there was that the largest pot on record was won by the millionaire retiree.

Gambling like many things revolves around a simple idea, “I am special” or “I am deserving”. From the moment we are born we are told we are special, even if we are completely average. The absolute bombardment of adoration inflates our ego instead of giving us the much needed trait of humility. At some point despite our ego we will be smacked down to a point where we will either realize we are not special and fall in line, enter denial and merge with some minority, or try to prove ourselves.

Falling in line is not particularly bad and many people can go on to live very happy lives following a standard path. Entering denial, marking up our bodies with tattoos, or conforming to some minority or sub culture might giving an illusion of being special, but it definitely not being special. The last thing we can do which will make up the remainder of this post is proving ourselves.

When we come face to face with the fact that we are not special this can have very positive effects. We are all so self concerned that this realization can make us strive for the characteristic we feel bottled up in ourselves. It must be realized however that proving ourselves will come with failures. In fact, entrepreneurs can expect an 80% failure rate, this means entrepreneurs can expect at the very minimum their first 4 businesses to fail. This is pretty daunting, and even taxing. It is this amount of failure that allows people to actually be special. If everyone was special, no one would be, so only those who can stick to it will ultimately come out as being special.

So while we may not all be special, we all have the capability of being special. This is important to remember when failing anything. Failure might be a setup for another failure, but every failure is also a potential setup for success. So really what makes someone special is the realization that they are not special and the drive to change that.

Categories: Basics, First Phase, Life Tags: , ,

New Law Required (Zimmerman)

zimmerman162way_sq-f34413f1fd73672a5469abd70a6492757062c379-s6-c30I believe the Zimmerman case has brought to light that there is a critical law missing for dealing with a situation that has limited witnesses. While many people have highlighted the racial profiling issue of this case, very few have actually focused on what can be done to fix this issue for the future.

If two people walk in to a forest, one with a gun and one without and neither have the intention of someone being dead at the end what do you do if the person with the weapon emerges alive and the other is left dead. The person with the gun will of course claim that a fight started and they used their gun in self defense and while even if that may be true, the person carrying the gun should still hold some responsibility for the other person’s death.

If a person decides to carry a gun, they are taking the responsibility that someone will not find themselves dead unnecessarily. This case has fortunately revealed to many people how the legal system works and how it is flawed. I am not sure if Zimmerman was actually guilty of manslaughter or 2nd degree because I don’t know who started the fight. However, a person without a record (innocent) is now dead because of a person’s decision to carry a gun. Anyone of reasonable mind should find this unsettling. Zimmerman getting off without even so much as a smack on the wrist is wrong.

There needs to be a new category created that deals with inconclusive guilt murder. If in a situation with no witnesses a person in the possession of a gun emerges alive and the other dead, the person with the weapon needs to be held responsible for that death even if it is to a lesser degree than manslaughter.

The Radical Catalyst

john-bunyan-open-air-preachingA recent article discussed how a radical Saudi writer named Abdullah Mohammad Al Dawood spoke about how men should molest women to keep that home. Anyone with any shred of decency can understand how molesting anyone (not only women) can’t possibly be a good thing in anyone’s eyes, human or God alike. When we read about these kinds of things we might assume the world is a terrible place or getting worse but in many cases this is actually the opposite of what is happening.

Whenever progressive ideas start to spread the first thing that happens is that the ideas start to get push back. When people believe their ideas and perceptions of the world are being threatened they will lash out in any way possible to maintain their perception of the universe. The pushing of progressive ideas will bring corruption or out dated individuals to the surface.

These outdated individuals will slowly become more radical in an attempt to hold on to their views. While this increase of radicalization is bad, it also accelerates the demise of their views. As people with outdated views become more radical, they isolate themselves. While their extremism might give them momentary fame, it will ultimately end with rejection. Extremism only holds when the extreme view is actually what the majority of people want. Further, if the person in question moves from merely speaking ideas to criminal activity, this could result in an almost complete and perfect credibility loss for the radical.

It is important to remember that a lot of humans don’t really have the faculty to change their core views. A human is completely capable of going to their grave believing the world is flat, but this capability does not make them any more correct. In these situations we must work around these radicals until either they die, fall in to obscurity, or change their views. If we focus on changing the world around radicals, instead of trying to change them directly, they will either change or die unaccomplished.

Tribal Politics


Imagine for a moment that you are a part of an ancient hunter gathering tribe. For the last while food has been abundant but recently there has been a decline. A fellow tribe member emerges and proclaims that the tribe must start moving if it is to survive. The current leader rejects the idea and says moving is too risky and that what is going on right now is just a phase. This was the start of the first political parties revolving around the question should we stay or should we go?

In the above scenario you could start to imagine what arguments would take place and what people might start to believe. It not unrealistic to imagine that one side might actually consider the other side evil. If they are aware of all the same knowledge as you, then clearly the other side is just trying to kill everybody.

We like to think we are so advanced but when it comes to politics, we are still cave men. We allow choices to be made out of ignorance and we do not properly experiment. Since each side is against failure when either side makes a mistake, instead of admitting it, they come up with excuses. Our media on politics revolves around different types of biases to justify a particular point of view instead of what actually is correct. Much of it revolves around hyperbole, socialism is communism, and capitalism is the robber barons. We don’t care what actually works, we care about what makes us feel right. Further, if we have any enemy that actually does something correct politically, it is very easy for everything they do to be demonized.

It is no surprise that in the USA, or in most countries for that matter, you have a sharp line down the middle. In the USA the two sides are Conservative and Liberal. When you really boil these two sides down you come back to say the same basic question, should we stay or should we go? In the past this was one of the most important questions there was because the answer to it could mean life or death. Aggressive conflict over this question, even if resulting in death, would of been preferential to tribe survival.

Should we stay or should we go is still a valid question and it requires both sides. In order for us to have a superior evolution in human politics we need a couple things to be changed. First, we need to disregard absolutes, there are none. Secondly, we need to build better models and systems of analysis that can deal with the complexities of human behavior and better report on the consequences of applied regulation. Lastly, we need to realize that what is right might be variable based on the situation.

Money Can’t Change The World

April 28, 2013 7 comments

imgresTwo people are stranded on an island. One person has a trillion dollars in cash and the other has nothing. It doesn’t matter if the trillionaire pays the other person one dollar or a trillion, the other person will not be able to build an airplane to get either of them off the island.

The above example also applies to the entire world population. An infinite amount of money does not mean an infinite amount of output. If we want to change the world we must understand that money can’t change the world, only human allocation can. If we want to cure aging, for example, we need to have more researchers. So far money has been our best system for human allocation. There is, unfortunately, not a very strong connection between changing the world and making money. A person in Africa building wells that will save thousands of lives might make significantly less than a Starbucks franchise owner.

To fix this problem involves mixing both capitalistic and socialistic ideals. Money that is collected in the form of taxes need to be distributed based on performance of philanthropic capability. This of course is currently faux pas because anyone who is doing charity work shouldn’t be making good money and this is completely backwards thinking. If money is our best method for human allocation then people doing things to help the entire world should make the most. Philanthropy should be a competition; we should be competing over who can feed the most people.

Bother conservative and liberal ideology are incorrect in regards to economy. While private enterprise can create quality, it cannot create wide spread quality. In contrast, while governments can create universal services, it cannot create universal services at peak quality. The best political system is one that utilizes socialism for infrastructure and capitalism for quality services on top. Infrastructure includes everything that allows humans to physically survive; these  include water, air, shelter, military/police, food, healthcare, roads, fire fighting, and garbage collection.



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: